T34 vs PzIII

[nagant_m44]

Which tank was superior, and why? (in the timeframe of 1940-1942)

[StukaJr]

Considering that PzIII was re-classified as a light tank very soon after engaging T-34's, the two tanks are of different categories. Not to mention that German tank classification was flawed - PzIII tank would be a light tank by Allied Standards.

To continue this discussion. What Model T-34? What Model PzIII?

[Ea$y-8]

T-34 without a doubt.

[ronin2172]

maybe he meant the Pz IV? I do believe that was a medium tank in roughly the same class as the T34

[CPL Trevoga]

Which tank was superior, and why? (in the timeframe of 1940-1942)

I guess you can read Panther vs T-34 thread and replace "Panther" with T-34 and "T-34" with "PzIII". Only mention is that Germans had a radios, unlike earlier T-34 versions. That's big advantage. According to some historical accounts, PZIII was a very comfortable tank for the crew, good optics. For that reason it was used as command tank by Soviet tank officers, when available. Later versions had a longer 50mm gun, that was able to defeat T34.

[Lord Of War]

The Panzer III Aust N (1942). Was about better than the early model T-34 . It should also be noted that the T34 had slpoed armor which caused most projectiles to ricochet off the armor. However the T-34 could be knocked out by a 75 or 50mm short barrelled gun at close ranges. But in 1941 the Germans tanks had mostly 37mm tank guns so when first introduced ithe T-34 had the edge over German tanks. But in 1942 when the Germans started up-gunning their tanks it was a very different story. also the T-34 had better road speed (55km/h) and Suspension compared to the Panzer 3.

Wikipedia is very useful for these kinda questions as it as a wealth of infomation on tanks and everything military related.

[Canuck Farrier]

anybody have specs or comparison photos?:) I know about T-34 but Im not sure what German tank were comparing to.

[towelie]

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=55

theres some info on the panzer III that probably saw most use in Russia.

Generally the Panzer III with the 50mm L/42 only had a chance to take out a T-34 if it got with in close range. I think what they usually did was to damage the turret rotating mechanism, taking out its gun or disabling its tread and. The only real chance it had of penetrating the tank was to use APCR shells at a close range since they had better penetration values than the regular AP shells.

[nagant_m44]

i am talking about the original t34, the 1940 model. In Soviet tests, the pzIII was found to be vastly superior. Someone suggested that t34 and kv1 production be halted because the tanks were so unreliable. All the t34 really had going for it was its gun. It was not halted because they had no other tank to replace it. The statement that the t34 is an amazing tank (it became decent later in the war) is not correct. It was also very hard for Soviet Industry to manufacture the tank. The idea that it was very easy to produce and cheap comes from the memoires of german commanders.

[nagant_m44]

maybe he meant the Pz IV? I do believe that was a medium tank in roughly the same class as the T34

no, i meant the pzIII. I got in this very same debate with a friend of mine. He asked me to start this thread to see what you guys think. He will post what he thinks in a day or 2.

[Anthony91]

T-34. Just overwhelming firepower, in a strong, fast and easy produced package.

[nagant_m44]

T-34. Just overwhelming firepower, in a strong, fast and easy produced package.

it was not easily produced by sovet industry... Why do you think the germans did not copy it if it was such a wonder tank? They saw that it had many flaws. The only fielded the ones they captured after they made improvements to them. The only thing they copied form the t34 on their own tanks was the sloped armor.

[ElHombre]

it was not easily produced by sovet industry... Why do you think the germans did not copy it if it was such a wonder tank? They saw that it had many flaws. The only fielded the ones they captured after they made improvements to them. The only thing they copied form the t34 on their own tanks was the sloped armor.

tell that to heinz guderian. he wanted germany to make copies of the T34 for his troops. the Pz3 was a decent tank for its time, but that time ended in 1940 (and the french had tanks which outclassed it then). the 3 couldn't carry a big enough gun to directly take on the t34.

[towelie]

it was not easily produced by sovet industry... Why do you think the germans did not copy it if it was such a wonder tank? They saw that it had many flaws. The only fielded the ones they captured after they made improvements to them. The only thing they copied form the t34 on their own tanks was the sloped armor.

the reason they didnt copy it directly was because they didnt want to appear to be below the supposed inferior enemy. Instead they decided to adapt the design to their needs and thus you have the panther tank. The Panzer III really didnt stand much of a chance in a one-one engagement with a T-34.

Also, the T-34 was a very simple design and the soviets managed to mass produce it w/o many problems. Can you please show me a reliable source that says the T-34 was hard for the soviets to manufacture?

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=160



Hull Front (Upper) :30mm + 30mm @ 67°Hull Front (Lower) :30mm + 30mm @ 81°Hull Sides (Upper) :30mm @ 90°Hull Sides (Lower) :30mm @ 90°Hull Rear :30mm + 30mm @ 82°Hull Top :17mm @ 0° - 13°Hull Bottom :16mm @ 0°Turret Front :30mm @ 77°Turret Mantlet :37mm @ RoundTurret Sides :30mm @ 65°Turret Rear :30mm @ 77°Turret Top :10mm @ 0° - 5°


Armour values for the Panzer III ausf H

Now compare that to the penetration values for the T-34's gun.

[nagant_m44]

tell that to heinz guderian. he wanted germany to make copies of the T34 for his troops. the Pz3 was a decent tank for its time, but that time ended in 1940 (and the french had tanks which outclassed it then). the 3 couldn't carry a big enough gun to directly take on the t34.

your getting this from Panzer Leider correct? That book is full of him saying "if only this had happened" or "if only those damn leaders had listenend to me" Memoirs are not reliable as they are inherently biased.

[nagant_m44]

the reason they didnt copy it directly was because they didnt want to appear to be below the supposed inferior enemy. Instead they decided to adapt the design to their needs and thus you have the panther tank. The Panzer III really didnt stand much of a chance in a one-one engagement with a T-34.

Also, the T-34 was a very simple design and the soviets managed to mass produce it w/o many problems. Can you please show me a reliable source that says the T-34 was hard for the soviets to manufacture?

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=160



Armour values for the Panzer III ausf H

Now compare that to the penetration values for the T-34's gun.

the problems that it mainly had were in its engine. It was very unreliable in the beginning. I will get the sources from my friend and i will post them here in a day or 2.

[GazB]

Why do you think the germans did not copy it if it was such a wonder tank?

Most tank commanders wanted them to directly copy it. The reality was that it used too many materials the Germans couldn't spare. Most of the engine was made of aluminium... at a time when there was pressure on aluminium for fighters to defend the fatherland. Look at the basic shape of the T-34 and the Panther and you will see with a few minor changes they did copy the T-34. The Panther project was started to counter the T-34 specifically. The Tiger project for a heavy tank started before 1940 but did not result in anything till too late. The major redesign needed to make it comparable to the T-34 would have delayed its introduction even further, so they introduced the Tiger as it was and rushed plans to basically copy the T-34 layout and design.

BTW every new tank has teething troubles... expecting the T-34 to have a perfect creation is silly considering the Soviet Union was an athiest state. Compared to the problems the supposedly superior germans had with their Tigers and Panthers the problems with the T-34s were small.
There were probably more Tigers and Panthers lost to mechanical problems than were lost to enemy action during WWII.

[ClydeFrog]

the problems that it mainly had were in its engine. It was very unreliable in the beginning. I will get the sources from my friend and i will post them here in a day or 2.
This is the first time I hear that about the T34. I'm interested in the sources. Waiting for your post.

The Panzerkampfwagen III was without a doubt a pretty good tank when the war started. People have stated the common misconception it was inferior to its early counterparts such as the French Somua S35 but that is not really the truth. On paper tanks such as the Somua may look better, but they often forget the "soft facts" like for example how the S35 had a one man turret, thus forcing the commander to operate the gun.

But against a T34 it was clearly inferior. Radios and comfort may be worse, but the T34 is simply another generation of tank.


On a side note: I also find it amusing how people bash the German tank classicfications. How could you possibly call the Pz.III light early in the war, when it was 10 tons heavier than contemporary light tanks?
Just for your information, the late Pz.III was almost as heavy as the late Pz.IV.

[Canuck Farrier]

Back then the Germans were all under the belief that anything they build is far superior than the sub human russians.The T-34 was a good tank wasnt it the panther that incorporated some similar features.?

[Heinzi]

Back then the Germans were all under the belief that anything they build is far superior than the sub human russians.

Thats bull****. Dont mix politics with engineering.

[PeterG]

For the experts here: Isn't it correct to say that the T-34 was the first 'modern' tank, no matter how it compared to other tanks of WWII? That the T-34 was the first to have a good balance between firepower, armor, and mobility - and that it was the first operational tank with sloped armor? Lotsa interesting info in this thread - thx guys.

[Luno]

For the experts here: Isn't it correct to say that the T-34 was the first 'modern' tank, no matter how it compared to other tanks of WWII? That the T-34 was the first to have a good balance between firepower, armor, and mobility - and that it was the first operational tank with sloped armor? Lotsa interesting info in this thread - thx guys.

The T34 where not the first tank with sloped armor that is an old myth :)
Here is a picture of a Strv M/31 (1931) notice the sloped armor and i dubt that the swedish tank where first

[=DG=]

Your Picture looks like a Vickers tank, correct me if i am wrong?

[Minardiau]

Australia was working on a sloped armour tank by 1940 as well.

T-34 was just a tractor with a gun and steel plate thrown on it. Very basic design. Like the British/US M4. It was through sheer weight of numbers that makes them out to be a better tank.

PzIII/PzIV/M4/T34 Are basically the same. All cheap to build, easily modified, ect ect. What ever advantages one tank had over another was nullified by it's weakness compared to other tanks in the class.

One tank may have better armour, the other tank has better speed and mobility. Yet another tank has better reliability and a better gun but can't go offroad all that well. ect ect.

Arguments which tank is better is pretty pointless. It comes down to a number of different factors as to why one nations tanks were better then others.

Germany clearly produced the most technologically and most powerfull tanks since it could not win in a war of attrition. It need tanks that could survice anything thrown at it whilst being outnumbered.

Russians needed a cheap yet, a tank that had range and decent enough firepower that could be easily produced in a dam hurry considering it's situation in 41.

Americans already had huge car factories. They needed a tank that could be mass produced. No need to develop a tank to survive if another 1000 tanks are being shipped into Europe every month.

[hell]

Germany did try to copy (although not along the lines of inch by inch, bolt by bolt like the Soviets had a custom to do) the T-34. They used the sloped armor of course, but Germany's problem was the the quality of the steel on their "copies" was not nearly as high as the steel used on the T-34. The Russians had large hearth furnaces that came from the US as part of Lend-Lease. These furnaces helped produce a pretty high grade of steel, at least for the time.


Another point to remember was that the T-34 had a diesel engine, whereas the PIII had a regular gasoline engine. The diesels were less prone to catching fire when hit, since diesel is alot more difficult to ignite than gasoline. One of the reasons the later Russian tanks were still diesel.

[Freibier]

The main reason that Germany didn't copy the T34 was the fear of friendly fire. Antitank gunners fired rather on silhouette than on markings.
There were quite a few captured T34 lost because of that.

[DeltaWhisky58]

This thread is not only fast turning into a pissing contest, but into the wind as well.

:bash:

[strumbird]

Which tank was superior, and why? (in the timeframe of 1940-1942)

Too many variables to consider. It would depends on the situation. Who has the first shot? Who has better training? What's that target's relation to the shooter? Who has the better gun?

The T-34 and Pzkw III did not really battle each other in 1940. In 1940-42 the Russians have T-34 model 1940 - 1942. The T-34/76 model 40 is armed with 76mm L-11. From model 1941 to 1942, it is armed with 76mm F-34. Early T-34s have unreliable transmissions. Most early T-34s were lost to mechanical trouble than to enemy action. The T-34 has two man turret. The armor is up to 52mm.

The Germans have Pzkw III ausf E/F at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Early ausf E/Fs armed with 37mm L/45 but were upgraded to 50mm L/42. The Pzkw has three man turret. The armor is up to 30mm.

In my opinion, the T-34 is a better tank but with poor training, tactics, and mechanical problems it can be defeated. The Pzkw III can still defeat the T-34 from rear/side shot and lucky shot to the turret ring.

[Kalasj]

ClydeFrog is right, you can't compare the Pz III with the T-34, the T-34 is just another generation of tank. And the Pz. III was never armed in the way the T-34 was. The Pz. IV versus T-34 is more fair, since the germans continuously upgraded the Pz. IV to compete with the T-34, and vice versa.

That didn't happened with the Pz. III, which versions that could destroy the T-34's were StuGs.

[StukaJr]

T-34 did not have mechanical problems - it had crew problems. Many crews trained on BT-5 and BT-7 tanks in the peacetime and very little training was done on the actual T-34. When the War started, some T-34's were sent in the battle with many tanks travelling as much as 300 miles on their own and went straight into the battle. As many as 30% of these broke down due to transmission problems but that was mainly because of the way the mechanics drove them, not the tank design. The T-34's transmission is very different from that of the BT tanks and drivers strained their transmissions unnesessarily.

Not a lot of people know that, but before its acceptance in 1940 T-34 test machine actually drove from the plant to Moscow and then back to the plant in the harsh winter without any major breakdowns that couldn't be fixed in the field - distance travelled was well over 1000 miles.

PzIII's advantages were obviously the optics, radio, observation cupola for the commander, better periscope for the driver and the stowage compartments. It was more comfortable for the crew and more reliable and well proven than Pz IV. It had narrow track and boggey suspension system - was ill suited for cross-country when compared to wide track and torrsion bar suspension of the T-34. It's narrow turret ring could not mount a bigger cannon and its limited size would not allow for more powerful engine.

T-34 Model 40 had disadvantages in large single piece commander/loader hatch, bald tracks that had poor traction on ice, cramped 2 man turret, lack of 360 degree observation for the commander, plus tank commander having to double as a gunner or a loader. Of course, in 1941 T-34 could engage and knock out any German panzers from the distance of 1500 meters - no PzIII in 1941 was capable of reverse with any reasonable certainty.

I would have to shuffle through my penetration tables, but I do believe it's not until '42 that PzIII became well suited for engaging T-34 models, probably in the "M" conf. Even then, PzIII's were expected to get in the 500 range of the former and then score presise hits on the mantlet (redesigned in T-34-76) or in the turret ring.

[towelie]

T-34 did not have mechanical problems - it had crew problems. Many crews trained on BT-5 and BT-7 tanks in the peacetime and very little training was done on the actual T-34. When the War started, some T-34's were sent in the battle with many tanks travelling as much as 300 miles on their own and went straight into the battle. As many as 30% of these broke down due to transmission problems but that was mainly because of the way the mechanics drove them, not the tank design. The T-34's transmission is very different from that of the BT tanks and drivers strained their transmissions unnesessarily.

Not a lot of people know that, but before its acceptance in 1940 T-34 test machine actually drove from the plant to Moscow and then back to the plant in the harsh winter without any major breakdowns that couldn't be fixed in the field - distance travelled was well over 1000 miles.

PzIII's advantages were obviously the optics, radio, observation cupola for the commander, better periscope for the driver and the stowage compartments.

T-34 Model 40 had disadvantages in large single piece commander/loader hatch, bald tracks that had poor traction on ice, cramped 2 man turret, lack of 360 degree observation for the commander, plus tank commander having to double as a gunner or a loader. Of course, in 1941 T-34 could engage and knock out any German panzers from the distance of 1500 meters - no PzIII in 1941 was capable of reverse with any reasonable certainty.

I would have to shuffle through my penetration tables, but I do believe it's not until '42 that PzIII became well suited for engaging T-34 models, probably in the "M" conf. Even then, PzIII's were expected to get in the 500 range of the former and then score presise hits on the mantlet (redesigned in T-34-76) or in the turret ring.

Actually it probably wouldn't have been until the J/1 that the Panzer III had a chance considering all panzer III's after the J/1 series had the same 50mm L/60 cannon and after the ausf. L series they all had the same amount of armour. Even with the new L/60 gun they had to close in to engage and the best bet was to use a APCR shell, but those weren't in abundance considering the fact that tungsten was needed else where.

[StukaJr]

Actually it probably wouldn't have been until the J/1 that the Panzer III had a chance considering all panzer III's after the J/1 series had the same 50mm L/60 cannon and after the ausf. L series they all had the same amount of armour. Even with the new L/60 gun they had to close in to engage and the best bet was to use a APCR shell, but those weren't in abundance considering the fact that tungsten was needed else where.

Yeah, you are right. I'm currently looking at the Pz III J that had additional 20mm of screen armor. Given quotes show Pz III J frontal armor fails at 500 meters vs 76mm of T-34 while it has to engage T-34-76 at 200 meters to kill it from the front. I do not believe the numbers take into the effect the deflection likelyhood of the T-34's sloped armor.

Soviet F5 76mm cannon could only propel its APCBC rounds only at 700 m/s against Pz III's APC with initial muzzle velocity of 825 m/s. Have the Soviet High Command given a nod to the higher velocity shells vs longer barrel life, the engagement range would be significantly higher. I also wish there was more known on the subject of the T-34-100 70 some prototypes that were engaged in the conflict.

[towelie]

Yeah, you are right. I'm currently looking at the Pz III J that had additional 20mm of screen armor. Given quotes show Pz III J frontal armor fails at 500 meters vs 76mm of T-34 while it has to engage T-34-76 at 200 meters to kill it from the front. I do not believe the numbers take into the effect the deflection likelyhood of the T-34's sloped armor.

Soviet F5 76mm cannon could only propel its APCBC rounds only at 700 m/s against Pz III's APC with initial muzzle velocity of 825 m/s. Have the Soviet High Command given a nod to the higher velocity shells vs longer barrel life, the engagement range would be significantly higher. I also wish there was more known on the subject of the T-34-100 70 some prototypes that were engaged in the conflict.

Basically the Panzer III was only useful against other light tanks and maybe some medium tanks from the western allied arsenal. For all intents and purposes the only base model medium tank that can be considered effective against the T-34 series tanks was the Panzer IV ausf F2 and up. With the longer barreled 75mm L/42 gun it had a much better success rate.

From what I remember hearing my grandfathers cousin who was a Panzer III commander early in the war, the most they could do was to out number either an individual T-34 or a group of T-34's and try to immobilize them. After they were immobile they would call in sappers or arty. Other than that in a 1-1 engagement the Panzer III stood no real chance unless it managed to get within less than 100m for the pre J/1 series or less than 200m than the post J/1 series.

[Pvt.Anderson]

That's like comparing the T60/70/80 with the Panther .

Altough it's obvious that all the german tanks had far superior tank sights than their russian counterparts , plus the fact that they had radios ( which the early versions of T34 did NOT have ) , which gave them a better unit coordination .

[dima]

Which tank was superior, and why? (in the timeframe of 1940-1942)

In 1940 USSR bought PzIIIF and carried out comparison tests with T-34.
It showed that T-34 was inferior to PzIIIF in all the aspects but caliber of gun.
Extracts from letter of Chief of ABTU Fedorenko to Chairman of Defence Comittee Voroshilov(translation by me):
"...It has the best combination of mobility and armour protection while it has relatively low combat weight - around 20t...
...It shows that PzIIIF having relatively same armour protection as T-34 more spacious combart compartment, excellent mobility is undoubtfully cheaper than T-34 and thus may be produced in larger series...
...the main disadvantage of that tank is it's armament of 37mm gun. But according intellingence report of september this year [1940-me], these tanx r already in process of modernization by addition more armour to 45-52mm and installing new 47mm or even 55mm gun...
...I believe that german army in face of that tank has the most successful combination of mobility, armament and armour protection, backed with good observation from working places of crew..."

So looks like USSR officials did understand that T-34 was inferior to PzIII. That's why production of T-34 was ceased for almost a month but then resumed as they understood that it was impossible to remove all the flaws in that tank.
It was decided to design new tank (hybrid of T-34 and PzIII:)) but WAR messed the plans.

Speed tests.
Table data:
road - 51km/h - 55km/h.
Tests data(fall 1940 - PzIIIF):
road - 48.2km/h - 69.7km/h.
offroad - 14.2km/h - 21.1km/h.
Test data(summer 1941 - PzIIIH).
road - 48.5km/h - 69.4km/h.
offroad - 14.5km/h - 20.8km/h.

So that's another myth that T-34 had better speed and mobility.


Of course, in 1941 T-34 could engage and knock out any German panzers from the distance of 1500 meters - no PzIII in 1941 was capable of reverse with any reasonable certainty.
T-34 couldn't engage any german tank at 1500m as Range of Direct shot(RDS) for F-34 gun was 600m. L-11 had even lesser RDS.
While PzIIIH had RDS of 800-1200m.


I also wish there was more known on the subject of the T-34-100 70 some prototypes that were engaged in the conflict.
what conflict?
at least during GPW only less than 5 prototypes were produced.


Isn't it correct to say that the T-34 was the first 'modern' tank, no matter how it compared to other tanks of WWII?
no.
In 1940 it was planned to put T-34 out of production in second half of 1941 and to use produced tanx only for training as it was not combat-effective. The WAR had prolonged it's life to 1945.


Germany did try to copy (although not along the lines of inch by inch, bolt by bolt like the Soviets had a custom to do) the T-34.
germans had never tried to copy T-34 as it was bad for them. The only thing they liked was shape of armour.
So it's probably rite to say that germans did try to copy shape of armour.


The diesels were less prone to catching fire when hit, since diesel is alot more difficult to ignite than gasoline. One of the reasons the later Russian tanks were still diesel.
not in case with T-34 and german tanx ;).
The reason why it was decided to use diesels in tanx is becoz of price. Diesel fuel is cheaper than gasoline and easier to get.
German synthetic gasoline was 70% cheaper than diesel fuel. Plus most of diesel fuel went to KM.


plus the fact that they had radios ( which the early versions of T34 did NOT have )
each 3rd T-34 received radio. Other got receivers only.
All the command versions of T-34 got radios.


Germany clearly produced the most technologically and most powerfull tanks since it could not win in a war of attrition. It need tanks that could survice anything thrown at it whilst being outnumbered.
Russians needed a cheap yet, a tank that had range and decent enough firepower that could be easily produced in a dam hurry considering it's situation in 41.
v good said.

T-34 was the best tank only for USSR in state of Total War.

[OldRecon]

The Pz-III had better optics, coms and crew layout, than most of the the t-34/76 models.
I guess the double role of the commander of most T-34/76 model as loader of the main armament as well as commander increased the chances of Pz-III's to stalk T-34/76's for flank shots.
According to the Osprey publication on the T-34/76 (Steven Zaloga) that model did initialy have problems with transmission failures (same simple clutch and brake system as on the Pz-III).
With an alert crew with good gunnery standards I guess the T-34/76 would be more than a match for a Pz-III. Against the T-34/85 I guess camouflage and close range stalking would be the only option for a Pz-III crew.
There were plans to introduce a new variant of the T-34 with a three man turret during 1941, but the German invasion brought that project to nothing.
As for T-34 and brewing up when hit, the T-34 strangely appears to have been more of a crew cremator than the German tanks. Despite its diesel vs. the German petrol engines. Though I suspect that have something to do with the German main armament being ignited with electical priming werheas the soviet main gun ammo was the same as used in 76 and 85 mm guns of the artillery and thus percussion primed (and less stable to the influence of a sudden increase in heat than electricaly primed ammo ??).

[dima]

There were plans to introduce a new variant of the T-34 with a three man turret during 1941, but the German invasion brought that project to nothing.
yes, A-43(T-34M) - 'Hybrid' of T-34 and PzIII.


Though I suspect that have something to do with the German main armament being ignited with electical priming werheas the soviet main gun ammo was the same as used in 76 and 85 mm guns of the artillery and thus percussion primed
the main problem why T-34 caught fire that often, was the fuel system that was in combat compartment so most of penetrations damaged it leading to fire.

[StukaJr]

germans had never tried to copy T-34 as it was bad for them. The only thing they liked was shape of armour.
So it's probably rite to say that germans did try to copy shape of armour.


Oh really?



VK3002(DB) with torsion bar suspension.


When in June of 1941, Germany invaded Russia, Panzertruppe encountered KV series and T-34/76 tanks, which were far superior in firepower and armor protection to any Panzer at the time. It was then decided, because of the constant reports from the Eastern Front to design a new more powerful medium tank, which could be quickly put into production. On November 25th of 1941, Adolf Hitler ordered Wa Pruef start work on the new tank. In December of 1941, Wa Pruef ordered Daimler-Benz and MAN (Maschinenfabrik Augsburg Nuernberg) to design new 30-ton tank armed with 75mm KwK L/70 gun as a response to the Soviet T-34/76 tank. Rheinmetall-Borsig was in charge of the development of the turret for this new tank. In March of 1942, Daimler-Benz was the first to produce their version of VK3002's design based on previously rejected VK3001 (direct copy of T-34/76) design from January of 1942. Two versions of VK 3001 with different suspensions were designed by Daimler-Benz - one with spring suspension and other with torsion bar suspension. Daimler-Benz VK3002 design was largely based on T-34/76 and was more like a modified German version of it. MAN finished their design of VK3002 in early Spring of 1942.

Source: Ahtung Panzer!

[dima]

Oh really?
yes.
What else except shape did they try to copy?

[StukaJr]

In 1940 USSR bought PzIIIF and carried out comparison tests with T-34.
It showed that T-34 was inferior to PzIIIF in all the aspects but caliber of gun.
Extracts from letter of Chief of ABTU Fedorenko to Chairman of Defence Comittee Voroshilov(translation by me):
"...It has the best combination of mobility and armour protection while it has relatively low combat weight - around 20t...
...It shows that PzIIIF having relatively same armour protection as T-34 more spacious combart compartment, excellent mobility is undoubtfully cheaper than T-34 and thus may be produced in larger series...
...the main disadvantage of that tank is it's armament of 37mm gun. But according intellingence report of september this year [1940-me], these tanx r already in process of modernization by addition more armour to 45-52mm and installing new 47mm or even 55mm gun...
...I believe that german army in face of that tank has the most successful combination of mobility, armament and armour protection, backed with good observation from working places of crew..."

So looks like USSR officials did understand that T-34 was inferior to PzIII. That's why production of T-34 was ceased for almost a month but then resumed as they understood that it was impossible to remove all the flaws in that tank.
It was decided to design new tank (hybrid of T-34 and PzIII:)) but WAR messed the plans.


Initial engagements between T-34 and PzIII showed otherwise.

Can't see where the review committee got the same thickness of armor... Considering that PzIIIF had 30 mm at its thickest with optimal penetration range. Can't see how PzIII is cheaper to produce - bogey suspension is nowhere optimal, cheap nor survived in the modern tank designs. Reliability claim is bogus - accepted T-34 force marched through the conditions unknown to the Germans at the time nor re-created for the "comparison".

While I can see T-34-41, T-43 and latter T-34-85 borrow heavily from the pro's of German panzers - I do not see significant shift in armor slope design, transmission, interior compartments, armor metallurgy, turret design or any other fundamentals to suggest that PzIII was indeed believed to be a better tank design. Tank design is a series of compromises - a strength in one aspect weakens another. Trying to make T-34 as light and luxurious as Pz III would have certainly ruined a working design.




Speed tests.
Table data:
road - 51km/h - 55km/h.
Tests data(fall 1940 - PzIIIF):
road - 48.2km/h - 69.7km/h.
offroad - 14.2km/h - 21.1km/h.
Test data(summer 1941 - PzIIIH).
road - 48.5km/h - 69.4km/h.
offroad - 14.5km/h - 20.8km/h.

So that's another myth that T-34 had better speed and mobility.


Medium tank T-34 had ground pressure of 9 odd psi while PzIIIF had ground pressure of 14 psi - the latter is some 10 tons lighter. PzIII's had travel distance half that of the T-34, T-34 could also travel longer and further on the same amount of maintanance.

When a Medium 30 ton tank can travel at marginally better road/off-road speed as a 20 ton Light tank - I think the former is indeed faster. I rarely see off-road speed of PzIII's quoted above 14km/hour - in the optimal off-road conditions.



T-34 couldn't engage any german tank at 1500m as Range of Direct shot(RDS) for F-34 gun was 600m. L-11 had even lesser RDS.
While PzIIIH had RDS of 800-1200m.


Range of Direct Shot does not mean the limit of engagements - Guiederian refered to T-34's engaging his Panzers at 1000-1500 meter range in Panzer Leader. Even L11 has sufficient penetration capability to defeat PzIII at 1000 meters - gunnery skill is another issue though.

[StukaJr]

yes.
What else except shape did they try to copy?

Rear positioned Engine Deck
Read Positioned transmission
KV-1~esque welded turret.
Frontal Armor Slope
Driver Hatch position
Large Road Wheels - not to mention the layout of the idler and the driving wheel copying the layout of the T-34, not customary to Panther design nor any other german tank designs.
Torsion Bar suspension

This is JUST what can be gathered from a drawing - I'm sure there are more to it being a "direct copy"

It's not really copying the shape, but copying the layout of the entire vehicle not very customary to the basic German tank design.

[dima]

Initial engagements between T-34 and PzIII showed otherwise.
what did they show?
Where there were T34 germans were stopped?


Can't see where the review committee got the same thickness of armor... Considering that PzIIIF had 30 mm at its thickest with optimal penetration range.
32mm FHA granted pretty same protection as 45mm RHA.


Can't see how PzIII is cheaper to produce - bogey suspension is nowhere optimal, cheap nor survived in the modern tank designs.
extraction from letter of Marshal Timoshenko to Chairman of Defence Comittee Voroshilov:
"...To increase combat charachteristics of tanx it's neccessary to make following additions:
...8) T-34 tank suspension should be replaced with individual torsion suspension..."
so looks like RA officials of that time thought diferently.
It's easy to judge looking from our time, but those guys knew what was the situation in industry and thought that Cristie suspension was outdated.


Reliability claim is bogus - accepted T-34 force marched through the conditions unknown to the Germans at the time nor re-created for the "comparison".
U mean marsh commited by Koshkin?
There were 2 tanx and 2 'Voroshilovetz' tracktors with spare parts(even engine and gearbox). Tanx were repaired at least 4 times. 1 of them sustained major malfunction so it was prolly brought to factory by train.
And take in account they were ethalon versions specially made for that purpose.


Medium tank T-34 had ground pressure of 9 odd psi while PzIIIF had ground pressure of 14 psi - the latter is some 10 tons lighter.
same time PzIII had better tracks so could climb higher slopes and had better maneuvrability coz of more advanced gearbox.


When a Medium 30 ton tank can travel at marginally better road/off-road speed as a 20 ton Light tank - I think the former is indeed faster.
ahh no, sry forgot to point where what tank.
So should be like :number(T34) - number(PzIII).
Table data:
road - 51km/h - 55km/h.
Tests data(fall 1940 - PzIIIF):
road - 48.2km/h - 69.7km/h.
offroad - 14.2km/h - 21.1km/h.
Test data(summer 1941 - PzIIIH).
road - 48.5km/h - 69.4km/h.
offroad - 14.5km/h - 20.8km/h.



Range of Direct Shot does not mean the limit of engagements
ahha, how do u think gunner could find out what range was till target if it was beyond RDS?



Guiederian refered to T-34's engaging his Panzers at 1000-1500 meter range in Panzer Leader.

Guderian is one of the creators of T-34 myth. It excuses him.
Even T-34-85 didn't have such RDS.
But of coz if enemy tank is static and u have enuf time and shells to pre-shoot u can hit it after all.


Even L11 has sufficient penetration capability to defeat PzIII at 1000 meters - gunnery skill is another issue though.
Problem were:
1)to hit PzIII at 1000m.
2)to have AP shell for 76mm gun.


This is JUST what can be gathered from a drawing - I'm sure there are more to it being a "direct copy"
doubt it as germans didn't like T-34 interior at all.


It's not really copying the shape, but copying the layout of the entire vehicle not very customary to the basic German tank design.
true.
Tho VK3001 had already large road wheels, torsion bar suspension, rear positioned engine deck. So VK3002 could just take something from it.


Still army didn't want that tank, they chose VK3002(MAN) as it was better.

[StukaJr]

what did they show?

Counter-attack at Dubno in 1941 comes to mind.



Where there were T34 germans were stopped?

Tanks alone do not stop advance alone - the counter attacks suffered due to the poor communication and absense of combined forces. But Dubno counterattack comes to mind as the most being done with the least.



32mm FHA granted pretty same protection as 45mm RHA.


That's IF the shell impacts at optimal angle to the armor. PzIII's armor allowed little chance for a deflection/ricochet.



extraction from letter of Marshal Timoshenko to Chairman of Defence Comittee Voroshilov:
"...To increase combat charachteristics of tanx it's neccessary to make following additions:
...8) T-34 tank suspension should be replaced with individual torsion suspension..."
so looks like RA officials of that time thought diferently.
It's easy to judge looking from our time, but those guys knew what was the situation in industry and thought that Cristie suspension was outdated.


You are not suggesting that T-34 used the original Cristie Suspension, do you? BT-2 is somewhat close, but the amount of re-working the suspension went through is just absurd to still call it as such. Torsion bar suspension will be copied and improved upon by vast majority of WWII and post-WWII tanks - not the individual bogeys.

Soviets copied many of the German mistakes - just because there was an order to copy individual boggey suspension, that doesn't mean that the design is suddenly supperior. No war nor post war suspension for Soviet MBT included such suspension. Having hind sight now - it was a correct desission.



U mean marsh commited by Koshkin?
There were 2 tanx and 2 'Voroshilovetz' tracktors with spare parts(even engine and gearbox). Tanx were repaired at least 4 times. 1 of them sustained major malfunction so it was prolly brought to factory by train.
And take in account they were ethalon versions specially made for that purpose.

I'll have to read up more on that. My sources paint the test as a success and so do the documentaries.




same time PzIII had better tracks so could climb higher slopes and had better maneuvrability coz of more advanced gearbox.


The "bald" treads of the T-34-40 was something that was improved in the consequent versions and the latter produced models. The vehicles were also equipped with "grazers" for better traction in the snow.

Not sure about PzIII's better climbing abilities but these have faired very poorly in the marshes, mud and other terrain customary to the terrain T-34 and PzIII faced off. Designers went as far as equip special tracks on the PzIII's that made the treads twice as wide - equally worsening the situation.



ahh no, sry forgot to point where what tank.
So should be like :number(T34) - number(PzIII).
Table data:
road - 51km/h - 55km/h.
Tests data(fall 1940 - PzIIIF):
road - 48.2km/h - 69.7km/h.
offroad - 14.2km/h - 21.1km/h.
Test data(summer 1941 - PzIIIH).
road - 48.5km/h - 69.4km/h.
offroad - 14.5km/h - 20.8km/h.


Hmmm... That is a top speed at which the vehicle can travel - off-road constituting dry grassy soil, not marshy soil where T-34 would likely maintain better cross country performance.



ahha, how do u think gunner could find out what range was till target if it was beyond RDS?


Kentucky Elevation - how you state below.



Guderian is one of the creators of T-34 myth. It excuses him.
Even T-34-85 didn't have such RDS.
But of coz if enemy tank is static and u have enuf time and shells to pre-shoot u can hit it after all.

That is what I gather from memoirs of "frontoviki"



Problem were:
1)to hit PzIII at 1000m.
2)to have AP shell for 76mm gun.


Even at engagement ranges of 600 meters - T-34 was quite safe from the retaliation by a PzIII in 1941



doubt it as germans didn't like T-34 interior at all.

I mean construction. If you copy the tank externally - it's very likely that the interior/negative space has been copied as well...



Tho VK3001 had already large road wheels, torsion bar suspension, rear positioned engine deck. So VK3002 could just take something from it.


Still army didn't want that tank, they chose VK3002(MAN) as it was better.

Says Kursk 1943 :D Nah - Joking

I really can't compare the two, since so little is known about the T-34 copy other than it was rejected. For the "better" model to go through year and a half of development (based on already solid captured model), rushed into production, failed to meet production numbers and have another two versions produced to hammer out some fundamnetal problems... "Better" is not the word I'd be looking for. Germans released every single Heavy tank with enough "teething" problems to be sorted out in the field that would have never passed the test in any Soviet Construction Buro.

[Angel]

it was not easily produced by sovet industry... Why do you think the germans did not copy it if it was such a wonder tank? They saw that it had many flaws. The only fielded the ones they captured after they made improvements to them. The only thing they copied form the t34 on their own tanks was the sloped armor.
the reason they didn't copy it was because Hitler wanted heavier tanks. The t34 had the tactical advantage of mobility coupled w/ the firepower of a medium tank. The heavy tanks had great firepower and armour, but were also slower. As for the "not easily produced by soviet industry" they manufactured well over 2,000 of these in a year. In the same time Hitler's industry barely manufactured several hundred. THe t34 had the same principle as the Ak-47. It is cheap, easy to manufacture, and fairly reliable(tanks aren't the same as assault rifles in mantinence).

[Lokos]

That's like comparing the T60/70/80 with the Panther

I find it very interesting that so many of you are squeaking 'But they're not comparable because of *insert difference*'. In the Panther vs T-34 thread, none of you seemed to have much trouble with comparing the T-34 to the much heavier Panther.

Lokos

[towelie]

the only german tank that can be more or less directly compared to the T-34 with the 76mm gun is the Panzer IV ausf F2 and above models.

[GazB]

Thats bull****. Dont mix politics with engineering.

It is quite true though... the Germans had a very low opinion of the Soviets in every aspect. They learned later to respect them more, particularly in street fighting.

Not unique to the Germans... many westerners couldn't believe the Japanese could fight as well as they did. Even today most westerners also think that because in some areas Soviet technology was inferior to that of the west that all of their stuff must also be inferior... I notice that the French have decided to buy Russian laser guided artillery shells...


T-34 was just a tractor with a gun and steel plate thrown on it. Very basic design.

Are you suggesting any other tank of the period was a significantly better design? The T-34 was better compared to the Panzer IV... they were much more comparable vehicles. Of course the Germans were fixated with wonder weapons and went to the Panther and Tiger which they produced very few of instead of Panzer IVs which they could have kept production high with...


The diesels were less prone to catching fire when hit, since diesel is alot more difficult to ignite than gasoline. One of the reasons the later Russian tanks were still diesel.

Diesels also improved the road range of the vehicles, which was probably most important considering the distances on the eastern front and the state of the fuel supply network.


The main reason that Germany didn't copy the T34 was the fear of friendly fire. Antitank gunners fired rather on silhouette than on markings.
There were quite a few captured T34 lost because of that.

Yet they not only kept using captured T-34s they even modified them by adding commander cuppolas etc to them.


The T-34 and Pzkw III did not really battle each other in 1940.

No. They didn't fight each other till Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 41.


The armor is up to 52mm.


Sloped armour not only increases the amount of armour to be penetrated but also greatly increases the chance of richochet (ie no penetration at all).


In 1940 USSR bought PzIIIF and carried out comparison tests with T-34.
It showed that T-34 was inferior to PzIIIF in all the aspects but caliber of gun.

First of all as the allies worked out fairly early on HE firepower of a gun was as important if not more so than AP as after a breakthrough of the enemies lines the most common target for a tank was dug in infantry and field fortifications, not to mention supply units and command units.
This sounds rather more like an appraisal of the A-22 T-34 predecessor.

The sloping of the armour increases its practical thickness by over 1/3rd, so a sheet of steel armour plate at a 0 degree angle can be penetrated easily by a round that fails to penetrate the same plate at a 60 degree angle. Make the plate even thicker and you will have problems.

The Germans didn't suffer tank shock for nothing.


So that's another myth that T-34 had better speed and mobility.


So stories of T-34s driving through marshes that bogged down german vehicles were all made up? Wonder why they bothered putting such wide tracks on the T-34s if it made no difference.


The Pz-III had better optics, coms and crew layout, than most of the the t-34/76 models.


Except even with the better optics most tank commanders preferred to stick their heads out of their hatches for a better view... the big one piece double hatch on the T-34 being a disadvantage here too.


(and less stable to the influence of a sudden increase in heat than electricaly primed ammo ??).

The reality was that the Soviet tanks carried much more HE rounds than the Germans did. The Germans had artillery on call, whereas the Soviet artillery was less flexible and they basically provided their own via their tanks.


the main problem why T-34 caught fire that often, was the fuel system that was in combat compartment so most of penetrations damaged it leading to fire.

Contemporary western tanks were no better... Grants were nicknamed coffin for seven brothers in the SU.


32mm FHA granted pretty same protection as 45mm RHA.


A PTRS-41 can penetrate 32mm at 500m, but not 45mm of sloped armour at any range (including with the barrel pressed against the hull).


It's easy to judge looking from our time, but those guys knew what was the situation in industry and thought that Cristie suspension was outdated.


In 1941 later Churchil tanks were just adopting it... how outdated was it?


ahha, how do u think gunner could find out what range was till target if it was beyond RDS?


Experience.


Why do you think the germans did not copy it if it was such a wonder tank?

It wasn't a wonder tank, that is not what the Soviets wanted. They wanted a tank that was good enough to do the job and could be made in sufficient numbers to actually do the job. It was the Germans that wanted wonder weapons, and that probably was a significant reason they lost the war.


In the Panther vs T-34 thread, none of you seemed to have much trouble with comparing the T-34 to the much heavier Panther.

You can compare any tank with any other tank, but if you want to compare as equals it is certainly unfair to compare the T-34 and the Panzer III. The T-34/85 is probably comparable to the Panther... which says a lot for the T-34/85, but weight for weight the Panther should be compared to the IS-2, with no Soviet tank in the Tiger class.

[DeltaWhisky58]

.................................

Well Nagant, you started this topic which is fast turning into a flamewar, and then you post pointless bandwidth wasting crap like this. Would I be right in guessing that you want a free MP.Net-sponsored vacation - I'm very happy to provide you with one!

:bash:

[oldsoak]

T34 was a well thought out design - and had we been wise, we'd have licensed built it instead of making Cromwells and Churchills and stuck a 17pdr on it. Against a MKIII or MKIV and crewed by a decent crew - my moneys on the T34.

[dima]

Counter-attack at Dubno in 1941 comes to mind.
in that particulary battle T-34/KVs showed them selves as not combat-effective due to many factors.


Tanks alone do not stop advance alone - the counter attacks suffered due to the poor communication and absense of combined forces. But Dubno counterattack comes to mind as the most being done with the least.
true.
But RA had more tanx than germans in that area.


That's IF the shell impacts at optimal angle to the armor. PzIII's armor allowed little chance for a deflection/ricochet.
almost, FHA gave good chnce for ricochet due to unequal hardness.
But check T-34 turret. Cast versions could be penetrated even with 2cm FlaK30/38, not to say about 5cm KwK38(even from front).



You are not suggesting that T-34 used the original Cristie Suspension, do you? BT-2 is somewhat close, but the amount of re-working the suspension went through is just absurd to still call it as such.

Bt-2/5/7/7M/T34 all used Cristie Suspension, slightly modified tho. And while it was pretty good for lite tanx, it was bad for hvy ones.
Btw according test in fall 1940, BT-7 showed max speed of 68.1km/h on gravel road and PzIIIF showed 69.7km/h on same road.



No war nor post war suspension for Soviet MBT included such suspension.

KV, T-40, T-50, T-60, T-70, IS.


Soviets copied many of the German mistakes
like what?


Having hind sight now - it was a correct desission.

Modern - T72, T80.


My sources paint the test as a success and so do the documentaries.
yes it was success. Stalin liked it alot. Don't forget they were ethalon versions.
Pretty same versions were sent to UK/USA.


not marshy soil where T-34 would likely maintain better cross country performance........Not sure about PzIII's better climbing abilities but these have faired very poorly in the marshes, mud and other terrain customary to the terrain T-34 and PzIII faced off.
not really.
During summer 1941 tests T-34 couldn't climb 30angle raise after rain while PzIII did it with ease.
Plus better tracks allowed PzIII to pass hills more faster.


The "bald" treads of the T-34-40 was something that was improved in the consequent versions and the latter produced models. The vehicles were also equipped with "grazers" for better traction in the snow.
true. T-34 obr.42 was much more reliable tho much simplified.
But T-34 obr.41 was worse than T-34 due to manufacture dificulties.


That is a top speed at which the vehicle can travel - off-road constituting dry grassy soil, not marshy soil where T-34 would likely maintain better cross country performance.

top speed was tested on gravel road.Both tanx were tested in muddy terrain.
T-34 had slower offroad speed due to gearbox and tracks. With new 5-speed gearbox T-34 increased off-road perfomance...but that was in 1942/43.
Btw i have somewhere result of tests carried out in Kubinka and South Ural using soviet, lend-lease and german tanx. Will try to find it out. U'll be surprised:).


Kentucky Elevation - how you state below.

let's make it 'bit' tricky ;).
Target is not static, it's maneuvring toward u, and shooting at u so u have to maneuvre as well.


That is what I gather from memoirs of "frontoviki"
well u prolly know how memory serves human-beeing.

Extract from conclusions after summer 1941 test(kubinka):
"...Quality of german tank sights allows aimed fire at ranges of 1200-1500m that double the range of T-34 (not further than 600-800m). Impossible to fire from T-34 looking toward sun..."


I mean construction. If you copy the tank externally - it's very likely that the interior/negative space has been copied as well...
it was designed for 5men crew and for diferent engine. Plus diferent fuel system and etc.


Germans released every single Heavy tank with enough "teething" problems to be sorted out in the field that would have never passed the test in any Soviet Construction Buro.
have to disagree with u.
KV, T-34, IS-85/122 - all had bad 'teething' problems. While in IS it was armour mostly, T-34, KV were just not combat-effective in the beginning.
Pretty same for PzVD during Zitadelle.



Diesels also improved the road range of the vehicles, which was probably most important considering the distances on the eastern front and the state of the fuel supply network.


extraction from Csonclusions after summer 1941 test(Kubinka) T34 - PzIII:
"...VIII. Cruising range
Table data - 250 - 170.
Practical data - 185 -165..."

V2 engine had v bad 'teething' problems. It wasn't uncommon in 1941 for it to broke down after 50-100km.



Yet they not only kept using captured T-34s they even modified them by adding commander cuppolas etc to them.
germans modified them, coz T-34 interior was bad for them. F.e. Commander Cupola was added to compensate blindness of T-34.

Actually both sides soldiers kept missidentify tanx. Not only Panther with T-34 that actually were relatively similar even Tiger with T-34. Not to say about Marders and Ferdinands ;).


First of all as the allies worked out fairly early on HE firepower of a gun was as important if not more so than AP as after a breakthrough of the enemies lines the most common target for a tank was dug in infantry and field fortifications, not to mention supply units and command units.
true.


This sounds rather more like an appraisal of the A-22 T-34 predecessor.

guess u mean A-34. Well anyway u r not correct here as T-34 was in production that time.

btw extraction from Conclusions after summer 1941 test(Kubinka):
"...In present condition our medium tank T-34 has advantage on german tank mainly in caliber of main gun, but that advantage can be easily overcame by germans who already have tank gun of 75mm caliber. Moreover, they can strengthen armament of tank by installing 50mm anti-tank gun obr.38."

So pretty same conclusion after 1 year.


The sloping of the armour increases its practical thickness by over 1/3rd, so a sheet of steel armour plate at a 0 degree angle can be penetrated easily by a round that fails to penetrate the same plate at a 60 degree angle.
actually slope at 60deg gave ~2.5 multiplier vs WW2 AP shells. Especially when T/D<=1.


So stories of T-34s driving through marshes that bogged down german vehicles were all made up? Wonder why they bothered putting such wide tracks on the T-34s if it made no difference.
according to summer 1941 test, PzIIIH had 400mm tracks while T-34 had 500mm tracks.
So not that wider tracks. Don't forget PzIII tracks were better.


The reality was that the Soviet tanks carried much more HE rounds than the Germans did. The Germans had artillery on call, whereas the Soviet artillery was less flexible and they basically provided their own via their tanks.

not really.
Problem was in 76mm AP shells availability for Divisional/tank guns. RA has shortage of 76mm AP shells till 1943 but there were plently of HE, smoke, cannister.
That's why it was common in 1941 to use 76mm cannister shells vs german tanx. Hopefully 76mm cannister could pen. side of most german tanx.


Contemporary western tanks were no better... Grants were nicknamed coffin for seven brothers in the SU.

Yes, early US tanx caugth fire even more easily. But german tanx didn't.
Statistics showed that after T-34 was KO 1-2men survived while after PzIII was KO 4-5men survived.


A PTRS-41 can penetrate 32mm at 500m
14.5mm bullet wouldn't pen. 32mm FHA at such range.
At 400m 45mm AP had v low chnce to pen.


In 1941 later Churchil tanks were just adopting it... how outdated was it?
why was it outdated?
Only tracks covering hull maybe...
They liked Churchill and Matilda II alot. And it was official opinion that they weren't inferior to KV. In some aspects even better.


Experience.
read above.

[Heinzi]

It is quite true though... the Germans had a very low opinion of the Soviets in every aspect. They learned later to respect them more, particularly in street fighting.



That is a pretty generalizing statement. Germany and Russia actually were sharing tank training before the war. German engineers were very interested in Sovjet tank design, but the Sovjets kept the heavier tank types as a secret from them.
No true engineer downgrades the achievement of other engineer just because they life in another country. And during a war you do anything to "learn from your enemy".

[DeltaWhisky58]

I did post something there, but someone told me to remove it so I did. The only person flaming at all is here is you. There is no flame war here, the only troll in this thread is you. We are having an intelligent discussion. I have no idea, and quite frankly I couldn't care less as to why you are so pissed off.

If you had used a more intelligent way of indicating that you had deleted a post it would have been more evdident. Making comments like that to a moderator is not the best way of ensuring your long-term future on the board.

[Kalasj]

The T-34/85 is probably comparable to the Panther... which says a lot for the T-34/85
No, it isn't. The Panther has a better gun, especially versus the T-34/85 and better optics. In a one on one situation, the Panther would win.

[Lokos]

No, it isn't. The Panther has a better gun, especially versus the T-34/85 and better optics. In a one on one situation, the Panther would win

1) You failed to understand the passage you quoted.

2) Your generalization is pathetic.

Lokos

[Taekwondo]

The clearest things that come into mind that were wastly superior in the Pz III were better ergonomics, a three man turret and an intercom. But these things are almost nulled by the T-34's sloped armor, diesel engine and better usability in terrain. Be that snow, marsh or sand. The T-34's biggest problem was the cramped turret with a two-man crew.

The Pz III's 37mm gun was being phased out already in 1940, but things rarely go as planned, so many were fielded with the old gun as late as 1943.

[Kalasj]

1) You failed to understand the passage you quoted.

2) Your generalization is pathetic.

Lokos
1) He claimed that the T-34/85 is comparable too the Panther. I say it isn't comparable.
So what did i've missed

2) Bashing other people without a reason is even worse.

[StukaJr]

in that particulary battle T-34/KVs showed them selves as not combat-effective due to many factors.


I'd like to disagree. Considering the advances these units made completely unsupported by air, planning nor communication between individual groups - the two groups made a classic pincer manuever, instilled panic and stoped an advance with means of securing the rear. This was all done without either pincer arm even being in communication with one another!

It was a FUBAR opperation that went as well as it did by factors of men on the ground and machines opperated. I'm however, all ears about the combat-innefective factors from you - the kind that prove that T-34 was an "outdated" design when it entered service.

Reminder - bad design is not the design that has problems. Bad design is the design that can't be updated! A PzIII commander cupola could be fitted onto T-34, so could the periscopes, radio and screen armor plates - No L11 nor F5 gun could be fitted on PzIII and its armor upgrade did come with additional technical difficulties which eventually killed it.



true.
But RA had more tanx than germans in that area.


Tanks alone don't win wars. Considering that both T-34 and KV-1's performed considerably well against standard Axis AT capabilities, the fact that Axis had to rely on direct fire howitzers to neutralize individual vehicles and that Soviet Tanks performed a significant push with little known mechanical difficulties.

I see a lot more organizational problems in Dubno counter-attack than downfalls of the "outdated" designs of T-34 and KV-1



almost, FHA gave good chnce for ricochet due to unequal hardness.
But check T-34 turret. Cast versions could be penetrated even with 2cm FlaK30/38, not to say about 5cm KwK38(even from front).


I have heard of 5cm hitting the mantlet on the T-34's gun and sending the gun out of battery. I have heard of orders to shoot at T-34's welding seams. Both do not appear to be viable combat tactics unless shooting at imobilized T-34's. I won't mention that PzIII also suffers from the same "weaknesses" as the aforementioned targets - majority of tanks share the common tank design flaw.

I'd like to see proof of both - richochet caused by a flat surface and 2cm Flak achieving penetrations against the turret of the T-34. The former is easier since sideway angle of PzIII could provide an angle for richochet.




Bt-2/5/7/7M/T34 all used Cristie Suspension, slightly modified tho. And while it was pretty good for lite tanx, it was bad for hvy ones.
Btw according test in fall 1940, BT-7 showed max speed of 68.1km/h on gravel road and PzIIIF showed 69.7km/h on same road.


I said BT-2. BT-5 and BT-7 has re-designed and improved Cristie Suspension. A-10 prototype had ever more. T-34 is re-designed to the stage where it has more things in common with suspension of the modern T-XX tanks than that of the original Cristie tank.

Original Cristie suspension was garbage - it couldn't take the lightest strain, would sheer its support arms off and ended up going through major re-design to even support the weight of the BT-5/7 tank.



KV, T-40, T-50, T-60, T-70, IS.


Learn to read - I said post-war tanks as in after the war

Enough of your BS - KV tanks used Torsion bar suspension, so did all of the IS tanks.



like what?


Soviets began copying Hetzer in late war - just because someone wanted their version. My statement was not even towards the WWII but rather a plethora of Western idiocies that Soviet Union copied in the post war era - from Space Shuttle to Fiat. As for WWII - I haven't really researched the subject but I'm rather confident of what I will find.



Modern - T72, T80.


What about them? Do they have external bogey suspension? Are they not using Torsion bar suspension like vast majority of Western Tanks? Should we still call them "Cristie Suspension"?



yes it was success. Stalin liked it alot. Don't forget they were ethalon versions.
Pretty same versions were sent to UK/USA.


A-34 Project was on the verge of cancelation - the Polytical Climate was not favorable and I can't blame Koshkin for risking his own life to save the life of the Project and other designers. Considering that the man whom started the project was purged for his "German Lineage"(?) or some other BS. Considering the times, there were plenty of people in power whom wanted to see the project fail simply because it was started by the "Enemy of the People"



not really.
During summer 1941 tests T-34 couldn't climb 30angle raise after rain while PzIII did it with ease.
Plus better tracks allowed PzIII to pass hills more faster.


Well, obviously - it was 10 tons LIGHTER! I also seem to have quotes that T-34 is capable of inclines up to 38 degrees. I believe that's why T-34-40 models had grazers that crew had a choice to install to substitute for a bald track. Did the T-34 have grazers installed during the test? Even then - it was obviously a controlled environment of the polygon - such rarely translate into the real world. PzIII won in what could easily be set up to do so... How many T-34 designers ended up getting purged prior? I know at least one. Obviously, political climate has nothing to do with PzIII vs T-34 test.

PzIII's displacement is 14 psi. T-34 displacement is 9 psi with additional 10 ton weight NOT producing more ground displacement. From Engineering point of view - T-34 is a clear winner and at least designed to be less susceptible to bogging down.

I remember reading that longevity of the T-34 track was twice as long. The pins on German treads would wear out and snap with longevity of about 500 miles traveled.

M4A2 tanks delivered to SU as Lend-Lease had tendency to slide around on icy roads and that problem was solved almost immediately by wrapping barbed wire around each 3rd track. Factory soon provided each 3rd track to be substituted with one that had steel grazers. You will not tell me that based on that initial failure - PzIII had better track than that of the M4A2




true. T-34 obr.42 was much more reliable tho much simplified.
But T-34 obr.41 was worse than T-34 due to manufacture dificulties.


PzIII reached its absolute upgrade limit in mid 1942 and stopped its manufacture entirely in mid 1943. Nobody can claim that PzIII could be upgraded any further or its upgrades were sufficient.



top speed was tested on gravel road.Both tanx were tested in muddy terrain.
T-34 had slower offroad speed due to gearbox and tracks. With new 5-speed gearbox T-34 increased off-road perfomance...but that was in 1942/43.
Btw i have somewhere result of tests carried out in Kubinka and South Ural using soviet, lend-lease and german tanx. Will try to find it out. U'll be surprised:).



let's make it 'bit' tricky ;).
Target is not static, it's maneuvring toward u, and shooting at u so u have to maneuvre as well.


No Soviet nor German WWII tanks had gyro-stabilized gun. No Soviet nor Axis tank fired on the move with any hope for sucess. Tanks would manuever, stop , fire manuever, stop, fire... The skills of the tank commander would apply and so that of the driver - the reason why the driver would often receive a higher comendation than that of the gunner. Obviously, the two turret crew of the pre '42 T-34 would be at greater disadvantage - however, disadvantages of T-34 were a lot easier solved than dead end design of the PzIII



well u prolly know how memory serves human-beeing.


Are you now quiestioning personal acounts of war veterans?



Extract from conclusions after summer 1941 test(kubinka):
"...Quality of german tank sights allows aimed fire at ranges of 1200-1500m that double the range of T-34 (not further than 600-800m). Impossible to fire from T-34 looking toward sun..."


Oh, never mind. You just selectively quiestioning accounts of how memory serves a human-beeing.

It's not uncommon for range data to be completely proven false by Live Engagements. That's why live engagement data is taken back to the Construction Buro's and ran through the polygons to run through the final test once more. Excuse me, while I hold actual engagement data over "what should have happened based on the test trials in the controlled enviornment".

Considering the Political Climate of SU and Germany pre-WWII, I'm not surprised at all. Obstacles are man made for vehicles to defeat, years of cooperation and certain Russian trait of loving anything foreign.



it was designed for 5men crew and for diferent engine. Plus diferent fuel system and etc.


Neither you nor I know what exactly that prototype looked inside... If you are - you are holding out :D

I can vouch for driver position, radio-opperator position, commander and gunner - simply by examening the hatches and periscope positions.



have to disagree with u.


We did nothing but constantly disagree - no surprise there :)



KV, T-34, IS-85/122 - all had bad 'teething' problems. While in IS it was armour mostly, T-34, KV were just not combat-effective in the beginning.
Pretty same for PzVD during Zitadelle.


Hmmm... Pz V D's had a break down rate of 60%-70% of after the operation Citadel Soviets were in possession of more Operational Panther tanks than the Germans. They were also prone to break down IF they made it to the front lines (raising the percentage), prone to burning easily (often when not even hit by enemy shells) - or is this another one of the Myths created by Heinz Guderian?

I'm not aware of similar "teething problems" with any mass production Soviet Tank that bad. If anything, KV-1 and KV-2 were phased out due to difficulty in solving the vehicles being "less" reliable and consecutive upgrades didn't lead to significant improvements. However, if Soviet High Command was using German Standards - then every KV prototype ever envisioned would have gotten a red light! :D



according to summer 1941 test, PzIIIH had 400mm tracks while T-34 had 500mm tracks.
So not that wider tracks. Don't forget PzIII tracks were better.
[/quote[

Displacement of T-34 was 9 psi and 14 psi for PzIIIJ - compared to the displacement of an infantryman in full combat load would probably represent about 5 psi. Pure arithmetics would suggest that PzIII has a 30% higher chance of bogging down in marshes, wetlands and rasputitsa.


[QUOTE=dima]
14.5mm bullet wouldn't pen. 32mm FHA at such range.
At 400m 45mm AP had v low chnce to pen.


Considering the methods of engagements - PTRS gunners had considerable success to immobilize a PzIII by scoring hits on a variety of weak spots.



why was it outdated?
Only tracks covering hull maybe...
They liked Churchill and Matilda II alot. And it was official opinion that they weren't inferior to KV. In some aspects even better.


I believe Churchill's remark upon seeing the tank named after him sounds something like "this tank has more flaws than me". It was indeed awful tank - poor armor for weight, turret ring did not allow for proper gun upgrade, slow, heavy, heavy displacement, driver's vision was blocked by raised external treads and fenders, dust and other crud would fly onto the tank's front... The list is long! Soviet Crews did not like the Lend Lease Churchill tanks.

Matilda II was a tank designed for the desert and the optimal tank conditions like France.



But here are more German "Myth and Legend Starters":

"It was the most excellent example of the offensive weapon of Second World War." - General Mellentin.

"Their T-34 was the best in the world." - Field marshal Kleist.

In Conclussion - T-34 was designed and produced under the constrictions of the Soviet Union production capabilities of that time and that of the Total War! PzIII was designed to be produced in the optimal supply and pre-war production capabilities (most of it was privately run up to late 1943). Shortage of resources from the middle of the War and as it gotten worse towards the end - the German designs suffered greately when expensive raw materials became sparce. If PzIII was still produced in '44-45, then perhaps it would have become obvious the shortcomings of its design if compared to T-34's produced in the factories of the Besieged Stalingrad.

[StukaJr]

I guess I could have summarized all of that by:

T-34: entering into the WWII at the early curve of its potentual and successfuly upgraded throughout the war.
PzIII: entering into WWII at the pinnacle of its usefulness and having exhausted its potentual well throughout 1942.

[Lokos]

1) He claimed that the T-34/85 is comparable too the Panther. I say it isn't comparable.
So what did i've missed


He meant that it can be compared to the Panther, not that it should. The reason why it can be compared to the Panther (and I've always disagreed with this logic) is because a T34-85 could successfully engage Panthers, and vice versa.

Your counter to that would be 'No, it can't, a Panther has superior optics and AP capability, and armour, and is therefore way too good for the T34'. Which is bull, of course. Singular characteristics aside, the T34 did not have serious difficulties with penetrating Panthers at engagement ranges. Furthermore, it was a more mobile, more reliable, cheaper, more resource efficient machine that could be maintained in the field with very few problems, and required relatively little training for reasonable crew operation. Now, for the armchair enthusiasts amongst us (I'm looking at you), the latter considerations might make the T34 a less 'noble' beast in your eyes, for the Panther was still superior to your average T34 in combat. Fortunately, the Soviets had greater interest in actually winning the war than thinking about how they would look sixty years later to pasty teenagers dreaming of the exploits of the Waffen SS in their gleaming black uniforms in a conflict they couldn't possibly comprehend.

I have always held the line that says 'You cannot compare a T34 to a Panther/Tiger'. But it's not because the latter are inherently superior AFVs. Far from it.


2) Bashing other people without a reason is even worse

I didn't 'bash' you, I 'bashed' your generalization.

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

What's with all the animosity here again. I don't see what makes you or most anyone here less of an armchair enthusiast than the man you've quoted.

Were you a Soviet Komandir Tanka? Are you a tanker now? Are you even or have you been in the military?




Hmmm... Pz V D's had a break down rate of 60%-70% of after the operation Citadel Soviets were in possession of more Operational Panther tanks than the Germans.I assume you mean directly after the battle. And even that I find rather odd. What's the source?

[Lokos]

I don't see what makes you or most anyone here less of an armchair enthusiast than the man you've quoted.

Were you a Soviet Komandir Tanka? Are you a tanker now? Are you even or have you been in the military?


Soviet tank commander? No.

Tanker, now? No.

In the military? Serbian volunteer diverzant in the Kosovo War ('98-'99).

More importantly, Soviet military history was the focus of my history major, and is the basis for my upcoming post-graduate work. I feel fairly secure in taking issue with statements such as those of the previous poster. That kind of generalization doesn't deserve patience, nor a lengthy response that proves it fallacious. I don't have that kind of time. So I'll stick to contempt, thanks.

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

Well so all in all you're an armchair enthusiast who has read more books than the average. If you act like you do don't blame the others for ignoring you because of your constant display of arrogance and animosity.

[Luno]

I have also heard that the T34 did have some engine problem because a poor air filter it where known to push dirt into the engine. but I don’t think that the T34 where the only tank with that problem

[oldsoak]

The US got to look at a T34 sent over by the then USSR and made several comments on how to improve it. I dont know if the British did the same. I dont know if they got to see the 85mm gun or not, but the standard 76mm wasnt a bad weapon at all.

[StukaJr]

I assume you mean directly after the battle. And even that I find rather odd. What's the source?

Well, obviously - after the battle. The Soviets were in the control of the Battlefield so all of the irrecoverable losses became the booty. Soviet Advance also captured a train station with a train ready to depart - loaded with recovered Ferdinand tanks. I will try to provide the sources when I'm less "busy" :)

Soviets were not in the high view of the Panther/Tiger tank. I believe an actual quote from the directive sounded something like "Use captured PzIII and PzIV in the regular tank pool. Use Panther and Tiger tanks until they break and abandon" However, I do have a photograph of a knocked out PzV with "Tiger" written over it in Cyrillic - Russians commonly called any heavy German tank a "Tiger"

[dima]

I'm however, all ears about the combat-innefective factors from you - the kind that prove that T-34 was an "outdated" design when it entered service.
Show me,plz, where i stated that T-34 was outdated design.


A PzIII commander cupola could be fitted onto T-34, so could the periscopes, radio
They tried since 1940.


and screen armor plates
They did. Was called T-34e. Didn't help.


No L11 nor F5 gun could be fitted on PzIII
dunno what u mean by F5 gun.

Kwk37 could be fitted on PzIII and it had better rate of fire, accuracy and better pen. than L-11/F-34.


Tanks alone don't win wars. Considering that both T-34 and KV-1's performed considerably well against standard Axis AT capabilities,
PzIII and PzIV performed v well against standart Sov. AT capabilities.


I see a lot more organizational problems in Dubno counter-attack than downfalls of the "outdated" designs of T-34 and KV-1

hero of Dubno was T-26, not T-34 or KV.


I have heard of 5cm hitting the mantlet on the T-34's gun and sending the gun out of battery. I have heard of orders to shoot at T-34's welding seams.
well,
extractions from german report - sum of experience after Op.Blau:
"...3. Penetration capabilities of long barreled tank gun 5cm KwK L/60:
Panzergranate 38 vs T-34:
Turret side and turret ring - up to 400m
Turret front - up to 400m
Hull front - ineffective, sometimes can pen. drivers hatchet..."

extraction from report "Study of penetration capabilities of german shells....."(1942):
"...1) Hull frontal high plate can not be pen. by shells of german AT artillery of 37mm and 50mm caliber due to big slope.
2) Subwings can be pen. by shelld of german AT gun of 50mm caliber and can't be pen. by 37mm gun.
3) Side details can be pen. by 37mm and 50mm german guns.
4) Rear details can be pen. by shells of 50mm german gun.
5) Cast turret can be pen. by sub-caliber and AP shells of 37 and 50mm german guns from all angles..."


Both do not appear to be viable combat tactics unless shooting at imobilized T-34's.
show any evidence that any army regulations state that it's neccessary to destroy tank.
Always thought they state that it's neccessary to make tank combat ineffective. Immobilisation makes tank combat-ineffective in most of cases - crew abandons tank.


I'd like to see proof of both - richochet caused by a flat surface
read reports.
or prove that FHA armour didn't cause ricochet.


2cm Flak achieving penetrations against the turret of the T-34
extractions from report on KO tanx brought to repair facilities during Battle of Moscow(09.10.41 - 15.03.42):
"...number of hits(exit or danger) on our tanx by AP shells:
Type of shell Hits Of them T-34 and KV
Small Caliber(20mm) 19 5..."


A-10 prototype had ever more.
what's that?


T-34 is re-designed to the stage where it has more things in common with suspension of the modern T-XX tanks than that of the original Cristie tank.

Suspension: individual, spring, Christie type.(T-34 manual).


Original Cristie suspension was garbage - it couldn't take the lightest strain, would sheer its support arms off and ended up going through major re-design to even support the weight of the BT-5/7 tank.

really?
what was major re-design?


Learn to read - I said post-war tanks as in after the war
Enough of your BS - KV tanks used Torsion bar suspension, so did all of the IS tanks.

me posted:

...8) T-34 tank suspension should be replaced with individual torsion suspension..."

u told:

Soviets copied many of the German mistakes - just because there was an order to copy individual boggey suspension, that doesn't mean that the design is suddenly supperior.
PzIII had individual torsion suspension. That's why they wanted to make it on T-34. KV had it from the beginning.

So guess it's u who need to learn to read.


Soviets began copying Hetzer in late war - just because someone wanted their version.
empty statement.
prove it.


As for WWII - I haven't really researched the subject but I'm rather confident of what I will find.

so u don't know...was another empty statemenk. ok with me.


What about them? Do they have external bogey suspension? Are they not using Torsion bar suspension like vast majority of Western Tanks? Should we still call them "Cristie Suspension"?
Christie Suspension used individual springs.
Prolly we misunderstood each other.


A-34 Project was on the verge of cancelation - the Polytical Climate was not favorable and I can't blame Koshkin for risking his own life to save the life of the Project and other designers. Considering that the man whom started the project was purged for his "German Lineage"(?) or some other BS
wow!
who was purged?
Koshkin made it on his own? Top secret tank moved 1000km w/o beeing spotted...How did they move in yer opinion - regular roads or offroads?

Btw A-34 was the name of tank that was accepted to service. A-32 was project name.


Considering the times, there were plenty of people in power whom wanted to see the project fail simply because it was started by the "Enemy of the People"

wow!
prove it.


Obviously, political climate has nothing to do with PzIII vs T-34 test.
man, what political climate was in summer 1941? USSR was already in state of total war with Germany.


PzIII's displacement is 14 psi. T-34 displacement is 9 psi with additional 10 ton weight NOT producing more ground displacement. From Engineering point of view - T-34 is a clear winner and at least designed to be less susceptible to bogging down.

btw i've never payed attention to such data before. Now i've checked.
in report they state 0.76 kg/sm^2 for T-34 and 0.88 kg/sm^2 for PzIIIH.
If i converted that rite, it will be some 10.8psi(T-34) vs 12.5psi(PzIIIH).
That data was taken according same criteria by soviet specialists when the GPW had already started.

Still don't understand how do u read.... i quoted reports that showed that T-34 had worse mobility in mud.


I remember reading that longevity of the T-34 track was twice as long.
maybe since 1943 when allies supplied enuf metals.


You will not tell me that based on that initial failure - PzIII had better track than that of the M4A2

dunno.


PzIII reached its absolute upgrade limit in mid 1942 and stopped its manufacture entirely in mid 1943.
interesting, when do u think T-34 reached it's absolute upgrade?


No Soviet nor German WWII tanks had gyro-stabilized gun.
u r wrong here btw at least some T-26 received gyro-stabilizers.


Tanks would manuever, stop , fire manuever, stop, fire...
did i tell they would fire on move?

but i asked u how will they find out the range if it was beyond RDS and both u and target r moving.


Obviously, the two turret crew of the pre '42 T-34 would be at greater disadvantage - however, disadvantages of T-34 were a lot easier solved than dead end design of the PzIII

why pre-42?
how did they slove those disadvantages of T-34? Designed new tank and took it's turret?


Are you now quiestioning personal acounts of war veterans?
of coz i do. All vets can only give u subjective, narrow view the actions they took part.


Oh, never mind. You just selectively quiestioning accounts of how memory serves a human-beeing.

well i don't quote memoirs of human-beeing at all. I quote documents and reports. If u have doubts in proffesional skills of soviet specialists, read german reports on captured T-34 or Aberdeen report.


Excuse me, while I hold actual engagement data over "what should have happened based on the test trials in the controlled enviornment".

actual engagement data...u r damn lucky!
And it states that F-34 could engage moving targets at >1000m?
Could u share it with me?



Considering the Political Climate of SU and Germany pre-WWII, I'm not surprised at all. Obstacles are man made for vehicles to defeat, years of cooperation and certain Russian trait of loving anything foreign

once again, it was summer 1941....



Neither you nor I know what exactly that prototype looked inside... If you are - you are holding out

well i've read what tasks they gave for designers.



I'm not aware of similar "teething problems" with any mass production Soviet Tank that bad.

After military trails(july 1940) Commission's conclusion was: Tank T-34 was absolutely not suitable for modern warfare. All works on T-34 tank should be stopped.
D.Pavlov:"...as soon as possible to eleminate flaws and only then put tank in production..." as he thought that in opposite way :"...we will pay v big price for producing combat-ineffective tanx..."(M.Svirin "Bronevoi schit Stalina")
Pretty same was told about KV.
But as far as design of new tank would take 1-1.5 years T34/KV were produced but all sent to warehouses or training units. As since summer 1941 those tanx should be out of production.
So why do u think tanx that have 'unlimited' upgrade resources were to be pressed out of service after 1 year of production?


They were also prone to break down IF they made it to the front lines (raising the percentage), prone to burning easily (often when not even hit by enemy shells) - or is this another one of the Myths created by Heinz Guderian?

have number of captured tanx/wrecks? How many of them were burned?
numbers plz, so we can c.


Displacement of T-34 was 9 psi and 14 psi for PzIIIJ - compared to the displacement of an infantryman in full combat load would probably represent about 5 psi. Pure arithmetics would suggest that PzIII has a 30% higher chance of bogging down in marshes, wetlands and rasputitsa.
check above about ground pressure.
there r tonns of photos of bogged down and abandoned T-34.


Considering the methods of engagements - PTRS gunners had considerable success to immobilize a PzIII by scoring hits on a variety of weak spots.

u told u have real ranges of engagements...
at 400m PTRD/S would not hit weak points.


The list is long! Soviet Crews did not like the Lend Lease Churchill tanks.
who told u that? Official sovier Cold War propaganda?
read reports.


Matilda II was a tank designed for the desert and the optimal tank conditions like France.
Matilda II was considered as successful 'hvy armored medium tank' by documents that was pretty equal to KV.
It had better offroad mobility/speed than KV. Same armour as KV. And 2pdr was better than 45mm 20K tho didn't have HE shells. But then USSR received Matilda II CS.


If PzIII was still produced in '44-45, then perhaps it would have become obvious the shortcomings of its design if compared to T-34's produced in the factories of the Besieged Stalingrad.
Stalingrad didn't produce tanx since August-September 1942.


In Conclussion - T-34 was designed and produced under the constrictions of the Soviet Union production capabilities of that time and that of the Total War!
Agreed.
Tho T-34 wasn't designed for Total War. But was produced in terms of Total War.
T-34 was the best tank for USSR only as it didn't have other that would fit industry.

[ElHombre]

I have also heard that the T34 did have some engine problem because a poor air filter it where known to push dirt into the engine. but I don’t think that the T34 where the only tank with that problem

early models did have a problem with the transmission. i've seen photos of t34s with an entire spare transmission strapped to its rear deck! :lol:

[StukaJr]

Show me,plz, where i stated that T-34 was outdated design.


"In 1940 it was planned to put T-34 out of production in second half of 1941 and to use produced tanx only for training as it was not combat-effective. The WAR had prolonged it's life to 1945."



dunno what u mean by F5 gun.

Kwk37 could be fitted on PzIII and it had better rate of fire, accuracy and better pen. than L-11/F-34.


Tank's design is not only to take out other tanks. L-11/F-34 cannons had superior HP performace for infantry support. KwK37 only had supperior AP performance because Soviets chose to go with lower velocity AP shell for the sake of longer lasting barrel - 5000 shots VS 1000 or so shots when KwK37 had to be replaced.

Putting a higher velocity smaller gun is not the same as putting a larger gun into the PzIII turret. Panzerbusche 41 type weapon had great penetration characteristics and would be a solution if Germany could produce enough sophisticated weapons like that. Soviets could maintain the production regardless of absense of super rare materials.

Considering that tank's roles vary - comparing tanks as only tank killers is rather childish. I originally assumed that T-34 vs PzIII meant as a role these vehicles played in the war and battles, not just two tanks driving around the empty space plugging holes in one another.



PzIII and PzIV performed v well against standart Sov. AT capabilities.


Too general of a statement. T-34 performed well against Axis AT capabilities - agreed. I've read combat reports where T-34 survived multiple hits my famed Flak 88 37, however I haven't heard of many reports of PzIII's surviving similar treatment by Soviet 85mm obr 1938 guns. But moving on.



hero of Dubno was T-26, not T-34 or KV.


One Tank? How does that account for two individual pincers? I don't get it. How can a singular outstanding performace of a light tank negate performace of other tanks? I'm still waiting on hearing how Dubno proved the latter tanks not combat efficient.



well,
extractions from german report - sum of experience after Op.Blau:
"...3. Penetration capabilities of long barreled tank gun 5cm KwK L/60:
Panzergranate 38 vs T-34:
Turret side and turret ring - up to 400m
Turret front - up to 400m
Hull front - ineffective, sometimes can pen. drivers hatchet..."


So far so good.



extraction from report "Study of penetration capabilities of german shells....."(1942):
"...1) Hull frontal high plate can not be pen. by shells of german AT artillery of 37mm and 50mm caliber due to big slope.
2) Subwings can be pen. by shelld of german AT gun of 50mm caliber and can't be pen. by 37mm gun.
3) Side details can be pen. by 37mm and 50mm german guns.
4) Rear details can be pen. by shells of 50mm german gun.
5) Cast turret can be pen. by sub-caliber and AP shells of 37 and 50mm german guns from all angles..."


At what range?



show any evidence that any army regulations state that it's neccessary to destroy tank.
Always thought they state that it's neccessary to make tank combat ineffective. Immobilisation makes tank combat-ineffective in most of cases - crew abandons tank.


Yawn. Wars are won when territory is taken over and occupied by attacking force. Tank's role is to achieve a miriad of support roles and then engage other tanks.



read reports.
or prove that FHA armour didn't cause ricochet.




extractions from report on KO tanx brought to repair facilities during Battle of Moscow(09.10.41 - 15.03.42):
"...number of hits(exit or danger) on our tanx by AP shells:
Type of shell Hits Of them T-34 and KV
Small Caliber(20mm) 19 5..."


Interesting - will keep an eye out on it. Thanks



what's that?


Screwed up T-34 prototype name - moving on



Suspension: individual, spring, Christie type.(T-34 manual).


All right. T-34 suspension is inside the chassis. PzIII suspension is outside the chassis. T-34 uses coil spring and rod. PzIII uses "leaf" type suspension - like that of an old truck.



really?
what was major re-design?


http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=50&lang=ru

Here is just the re-design that went into creation of the Russian tank "Christie". Considering that the original Christie design performed very poorly at everything except high speed road tests at Aberdeen - there was plenty of work to be done for any tank heavier than 10 tons to be supported by it.




PzIII had individual torsion suspension. That's why they wanted to make it on T-34. KV had it from the beginning.


PzIII/IV. External. Leaf type truck suspension. T-34. Internal. Rod and spring. T-34-85 adding twin torsion bars running inside the chassis.



So guess it's u who need to learn to read.


I never stop learning



empty statement.
prove it.


Yawn:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=48&lang=ru



so u don't know...was another empty statemenk. ok with me.


What? One is not enough? I'm not here to provide points of interest - I have better things to do. I'm sure there is more - it's not worth my time proving what's been well known Russian odity.



Christie Suspension used individual springs.
Prolly we misunderstood each other.


Probably. I was just pushing the point of antiquated PzIII suspension versus internally placed T-34 suspension, later replaced by T-34-85 suspension which is basically found on most modern tanks.

PzIII/IV suspension is basically an old WWI tank "leaf" suspension still found on some trucks. I know it's refered to "torsion bar" by some sources but I don't know why. I don't always go by what things are called but what things are.



wow!
who was purged?
Koshkin made it on his own? Top secret tank moved 1000km w/o beeing spotted...How did they move in yer opinion - regular roads or offroads?


Koshkin was not the original head designer on the project - he took over for another head designer whom was purged for unknown reasons.



Btw A-34 was the name of tank that was accepted to service. A-32 was project name.


Yeah - I realize I've mixxed up the terminology.



wow!
prove it.


I'll watch the documentary and give you the name of the original designer. Is it a surprise that people were purged in the 30's for German sounding names?



man, what political climate was in summer 1941? USSR was already in state of total war with Germany.


I thought we were talking about pre-war tests? Climate was very pro-German, even several hours after the attack. I also believe that the Kubinka tests happened in 1940



btw i've never payed attention to such data before. Now i've checked.
in report they state 0.76 kg/sm^2 for T-34 and 0.88 kg/sm^2 for PzIIIH.
If i converted that rite, it will be some 10.8psi(T-34) vs 12.5psi(PzIIIH).
That data was taken according same criteria by soviet specialists when the GPW had already started.


Hmmm... Well, there is about 4 lbs discrepency in our data. I suppose, full combat load, more fuel etc could provide discrepencies.



Still don't understand how do u read.... i quoted reports that showed that T-34 had worse mobility in mud.


I simply stated that watering down a hill with a hose does not make up for real life muddy hill or a marsh terrain. It's believed that T-34 had better mobility over PzIII - as based on observations in combat. The latter often overwrite the former - polygon tests are not the final say since most conditions are artificial.



maybe since 1943 when allies supplied enuf metals.


I think it was due to thinner pins used on German tanks - not steel composition. Also the design of the track putting more pressure on the pins. I will try to provide the factual reason.



interesting, when do u think T-34 reached it's absolute upgrade?


T-34 upgrades continued post WWII. Obviously T-34-85 was the last big step in WWII



u r wrong here btw at least some T-26 received gyro-stabilizers.


I thought you meant the twin machine gun tank. Well enough - some does not mean all. Do you know how many of those have fought?



did i tell they would fire on move?


I don't know - I thought you did... Could be taken both ways.

"let's make it 'bit' tricky .
Target is not static, it's maneuvring toward u, and shooting at u so u have to maneuvre as well."



but i asked u how will they find out the range if it was beyond RDS and both u and target r moving.


I'm not a gunner. Somewhere in all of the confussion, the commander had time to yell out corrections to the gunner - whom had skills to take into consideration shrinking/growing distance between the tanks.

A soldier can lob a VOG/M203 grenade into a window of a building without using the sights or use it as a mortar - beyond the weapons intended range. I don't know how but it's done. I don't quiestion it nor deny such stories(videos) as untrue because it's not in the manual or I can't imagine it.

Curio fact. Commander told the driver directions by stomping on his head and shoulders with his boots - faster than the radio or yelling over the engine noise. Kick right - turn right. Kick left - turn left. Both legs - stop :) It's not in the manual nor the Soviet propaganda.



why pre-42?
how did they slove those disadvantages of T-34? Designed new tank and took it's turret?


Opps - 43
The design of the T-34 allowed for improvements and for new components to be fitted in and around original T-34 chassis.
PzIII's chassis could not accomodate bigger engine, turret etc because of the limitations of the original chassis design.



of coz i do. All vets can only give u subjective, narrow view the actions they took part.


well enough



well i don't quote memoirs of human-beeing at all. I quote documents and reports. If u have doubts in proffesional skills of soviet specialists, read german reports on captured T-34 or Aberdeen report.


Give me sources and I'll look it up. Also, if I had a dollar for every time an analyst, specialist etc was "wrong". If specialists were always right - tanks wouldn't be created by series of mistakes. Tanks are combat tested - that's the final test. It maybe wrong - but practice overwrites theory every time.



actual engagement data...u r damn lucky!
And it states that F-34 could engage moving targets at >1000m?
Could u share it with me?


Why? So you could respond to it as a myth or "Soviet Propoganda"?



once again, it was summer 1941....


prior to WWII or after? Summer has three months - June, July and August.

And I thought the PzIII tests were conducted in the Summer of 1940?



After military trails(july 1940) Commission's conclusion was: Tank T-34 was absolutely not suitable for modern warfare. All works on T-34 tank should be stopped.
D.Pavlov:"...as soon as possible to eleminate flaws and only then put tank in production..." as he thought that in opposite way :"...we will pay v big price for producing combat-ineffective tanx..."(M.Svirin "Bronevoi schit Stalina")
Pretty same was told about KV.
But as far as design of new tank would take 1-1.5 years T34/KV were produced but all sent to warehouses or training units. As since summer 1941 those tanx should be out of production.
So why do u think tanx that have 'unlimited' upgrade resources were to be pressed out of service after 1 year of production?


The tank had flaws. Was their a better medium tank design? Don't think so. Did the T-34 went on through major improvements? Could a better tank be produced under the conditions that Soviet Production face? Could Axis Germany design a tank that it equally produce as well under the detiriorating conditions of the last two years of WWII?



have number of captured tanx/wrecks? How many of them were burned?
numbers plz, so we can c.


You gotta be kidding me - you can't do your own research? Here, knock yourself out:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=105&lang=ru
Plenty of critical detonations and fires.



check above about ground pressure.
there r tonns of photos of bogged down and abandoned T-34.

I never said that T-34 did not mire - I just simply state that Pz-III would have a higher chance of getting mired for a vehicle 10 tons lighter.



u told u have real ranges of engagements...
at 400m PTRD/S would not hit weak points.


Whom said anything about PTRD/S engaging at 400 meters? Crews were taught to engage at 100 meter tops, however, treads do make an easier target to hit beyond that distance.



who told u that? Official sovier Cold War propaganda?
read reports.


Your mama

It's enough to read upon Churchil tank to know its flaws - I've listed enough.



Matilda II was considered as successful 'hvy armored medium tank' by documents that was pretty equal to KV.
It had better offroad mobility/speed than KV. Same armour as KV. And 2pdr was better than 45mm 20K tho didn't have HE shells. But then USSR received Matilda II CS.


Matilda II was a tank designed for Desert. It even had special openings in the sideskirts to expell the sand - these would trap the mud and unesessary mire the vehicle.



Stalingrad didn't produce tanx since August-September 1942.


Axis were well within city Outskirts in August-Spetember 1942. My point stands. Tanks were produced in the besieged city, tanks went into battle and performed considering lack of crews and ability to finish the tanks to fit the standards.



Agreed.
Tho T-34 wasn't designed for Total War. But was produced in terms of Total War.
T-34 was the best tank for USSR only as it didn't have other that would fit industry.

Any tank design should be proven for the condition of the total war - any other designs begin to fail when corners are being cut.

[dima]

'Combat-ineffective' and 'outdated' is diferent things.

After military trails they found over 80 major flaws in T-34. Such as V2 engine, board frictions, gearbox, tightness, blidness, suspension, drivers hatchet, etc. That's why commision stated that it was 'combat-ineffective' in current state.
First they captured 2(?) damaged(couldn't move) PzIII in 1939 in Poland and test it, and it showed that 45mm gun has little chnce to pen. even side of PzIII at 400m.
And then they bought PzIIIF in 1940 and compared it with T-34. U can picture their surprise when they realized that PzIII is far way better overall.

During counter-attack at Dubno, combat-ineffectiveness was worsen by shortage of diesel fuel as majority of tanx had petrol engines and shortage of 76mm AP shells for L-11/F-32 as vast majority of tanx used 45mm gun.


Tank's design is not only to take out other tanks. L-11/F-34 cannons had superior HP performace for infantry support. KwK37 only had supperior AP performance because Soviets chose to go with lower velocity AP shell
prolly u miss 7.5cm KwK37 with something else, as KwK37 had lower muzzle velocity than F-34 and good HE shell. Maybe slightly less powerfull than 76mm HE shell.


Too general of a statement.
why? what was main sov AT gun?
yes, 45mm 53K. And it performed really average even vs 32mm FHA armor.
So imo PzIII/IV were protected better vs sov AT sources than T-34/KV vs german AT sources. And problem was not only or ,i should tell, not with armor protection at all.
Wanna list of german guns that KO T-34/KV in 1941 according soviet salvage teams? It runs from 2cm to 15cm guns.



however I haven't heard of many reports of PzIII's surviving similar treatment by Soviet 85mm obr 1938 guns.

maybe coz there were no that many of 85mm 52K?;)
Or maybe coz german tanx such as PzIII could spot 85mm at the v long range and outmaneuvre it? And T34 would run into it coz of it's blidness(that's point about 15cm sFH as well)?


One Tank? How does that account for two individual pincers? I don't get it.
ahh, u know i mean T-26 as lite tank design not individual tank.


I'm still waiting on hearing how Dubno proved the latter tanks not combat efficient.
read the beginning of reply.


At what range?
But they have been spending 2-5 shells from each angle at 50-400m due to shortage of captured shells.


Yawn. Wars are won when territory is taken over and occupied by attacking force. Tank's role is to achieve a miriad of support roles and then engage other tanks.
did i argue it?
we were speaking about capability of 5cm gun to KO T34.



Yawn:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...mid=48&lang=ru
What? One is not enough?

haha, knew u'd show me that link.
But if iam not mistaken u were talking about 1945 and copy of Hetzer. I cant c anything about it in that article.


Koshkin was not the original head designer on the project - he took over for another head designer whom was purged for unknown reasons.
task for BT-20 was given to HPZ on 13.10.1937. Koshkin was head-designer by that time.


I thought we were talking about pre-war tests? Climate was very pro-German, even several hours after the attack. I also believe that the Kubinka tests happened in 1940

well, if u read my first reply closely u will notice that i give data of 1940 test(PzIIIF) and compare them from data of 1941 test(PzIIIH).
Both test reports r from Kubinka.


T-34 upgrades continued post WWII. Obviously T-34-85 was the last big step in WWII
T-34-85 had turret from diferent tank. It had larger turret ring.
If germans wanted they could do same with PzIII. But they moved another way.


A soldier can lob a VOG/M203 grenade into a window of a building without using the sights or use it as a mortar - beyond the weapons intended range.
again static target.


PzIII's chassis could not accomodate bigger engine, turret etc because of the limitations of the original chassis design.
doubt it.
PzIII was better armored than PzIV. If they decided to chnge turret ring they could install KwK40. But that's like designing new tank.


Give me sources and I'll look it up.
u r lucky:).
yesterday i found this link(sov intel. report about Aberdeen test):
http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-d/2/aberdeen.html

these 2 T-34 at Aberdeen were ethalon versions, specially made for that purpose by the best factory - 'UTZ im. Stalina'.


Why? So you could respond to it as a myth or "Soviet Propoganda"?
well just curious.
what i know that there is known letter of Rotmistrov to Zhukov after Kursk Strat. Defensive Op. where he states that PzV and PzVI could engage sov tanx at 1500m. And sov tanx couldnt retaliate as german tanx were beyond RDS.
And all reports stated that PzVI and then PzV were first tanx that had RDS of 1500m.
That's why i wonder, how T-34 could engage german tanx at >1000m(according yer statements) in 1941 and weren't able to do that in 1943...


prior to WWII or after?
guess i've already answered this question.


The tank had flaws. Was their a better medium tank design? Don't think so.
well i think u r wrong here.
They were working on deep T-34 modernization, A-43. By June 22 1941 there were sev hulls and turrets rdy.


Whom said anything about PTRD/S engaging at 400 meters?
GazB told that PTRD/S could pen 32mm@400m. I replied it couldn't. U replied that PTRS gunner could hit weak points.


Could Axis Germany design a tank that it equally produce as well under the detiriorating conditions of the last two years of WWII?
do u know when Germany declared state of Total War?


I just simply state that Pz-III would have a higher chance of getting mired for a vehicle 10 tons lighter.

well, u didn't prove it.
Btw PzIIIH weighted 7tons less than T-34.
Specific Power:
T-34 had 16.7t/hp.
PzIIIH had 15.5t/hp.
Plus better gearbox and tracks...


Axis were well within city Outskirts in August-Spetember 1942. My point stands. Tanks were produced in the besieged city, tanks went into battle and performed considering lack of crews and ability to finish the tanks to fit the standards.
ehh.
how did they perform? Do u know how many tanx had 6A in September? How many tanx were in 62A and 64A?

good discussion btw:).

[Lokos]

Well so all in all you're an armchair enthusiast who has read more books than the average.

Would you take my word for it if I said that it takes a little more than 'reading books' to undertake military history studies at that level?

As for my 'arrogance' and 'animosity' - I have very little patience for explaining to each and every Waffen SS fan boy that there are two sides to every story. I've done it too many times, to do it over and over again. Like I said, I'll stick to contempt. If, as you say, I'm ignored - so be it. I really, really don't mind.

Lokos

[StukaJr]

It's late and I can't reply in full, but...

PzIII could not be fitted with a Larger turret ring - the turret ring was already a good width of the tank - that's why it never was originally installed. I'm pretty certain that innability to install a larger turret was what doomed the PzIII from further upgrades. PzIII design translated into larger PzIV design also provided that Suspension would remain on the outside of the vehicle and fuel tanks were to be located on the left side of the hull. Positioning important components like suspension and idler arm outside of the tank can also make interior of the tank much roomier :D

Considering that number one killer of a tank is a landmine - above is a serious disadvantage. German tanks would frequently burn when hitting landmines as well - not sure if that's true for PzIII.

HE performace of T-34 vs PzIII - I was refering to PzIII's 5 cm cannons. Must have copied and pasted the wrong designation :) It should be 5 cm Kw.K. 39 or 5 cm short barreled version - had worse HE delivery capability than that of the Soviet 76mm. My point was that T-34 could deliver much more potent HE charge while retain similar AP capability.

Chassis of T-34 could accept a larger barrel ring. It could also accept better suspension etc... Basically, any design flaw pointed out by the combat could be solved . PzIII began the same route years earlier and was that much further towards exhausting its usability. Personally, if a design straight off the drawing board can compete with a battle proven and 5-6 literations enemy's MBT - that's a good start.

One can't really review tanks in WWII without taking a look on the role these tanks played in battle and effect they had on the enemy. Pure psychological effect cannot be discounted either.

I wouldn't call T-34 blind - just the commander had other tasks other than commanding, yet it did have 360 degree awareness blindness. While there are accounts of T and KV tanks suffering from such condition, I've also read plenty of accounts of more traditional warfare where this was less of an issue.

I consider T-34 and PzIII as two rocks thrown at different times - one was on the way up and the other on the way down. And it's informative post as well - I'm going to try and take on less subjects all at once though. Takes forever to write and forever to read :D

[Musashi]

Oh, I must add it's one of the most interesting topics, I've read recently. Great contribution of particularly Dima and StukaJr.

[OldRecon]

No, it isn't. The Panther has a better gun, especially versus the T-34/85 and better optics. In a one on one situation, the Panther would win.

A T-34/85 knocked out 3 King tigers with no loss to itself on the first occasion those 2 tank types met on the Eastern front.
The Soviet tank being stationary in a camouflaged position spotted the Germans first, and the poor Germans didn't discover the danger until the engagement was over.
Don't forget the terrain factor :lol:

[Luno]

early models did have a problem with the transmission. i've seen photos of t34s with an entire spare transmission strapped to its rear deck! :lol:

Yes they did have some problem with the four speed gear boxes but the 5 speed did work quite well :) i think the biggest problem where poorly trained mechanics in the early parts off the war

[dima]

PzIII could not be fitted with a Larger turret ring - the turret ring was already a good width of the tank - that's why it never was originally installed.
some data for thoughts;):
PzIII had turret ring diameter of 1560mm.
T-34 had turret ring diameter of 1420mm.
T-34-85 had turret ring diameter of 1590mm.
PzVI had turret ring diameter of 1800mm.

Btw F-34 had longer recoil move than KwK40.


Considering that number one killer of a tank is a landmine - above is a serious disadvantage. German tanks would frequently burn when hitting landmines as well - not sure if that's true for PzIII.

guess it depends on mine.
But for sure T-34 had more chnces to catch fire if ran upon landmine. Guess u know why;).


My point was that T-34 could deliver much more potent HE charge while retain similar AP capability.
as i told before KwK37 had better AP perfomance than F-34 (w/o APCR) and pretty same HE perfomance.


One can't really review tanks in WWII without taking a look on the role these tanks played in battle and effect they had on the enemy. Pure psychological effect cannot be discounted either.
hehe,
iam pretty sure that any army soldier was v afraid of enemy tank.


I wouldn't call T-34 blind - just the commander had other tasks other than commanding, yet it did have 360 degree awareness blindness.
well, there were military trails 'on obstacles' in 14th Tk Div(Sept-Oct.1940).
By the order of Chief of ABTU Pavlov all 'obstacles' were constructed according military regulations, fited on terrain, camouflaged and were strengthened with AT guns, MG nests and mine fields. Tank had to pass around 2km, crew received order to spot and 'destroy' spotted targets with blank shots, which in their order should have fired on T-34 with blank ammunition.
All obstacles such as gully, wooden palisade with barbed wire, reverse hill slope and etc. were passed by tank with mark "good". Driver drove tank by his own with opened hatchet and made all decisions on his own. Other crew memeber couldn't tell virtually anything solid as noone has seen neither positions of 45mm AT guns nor trenches of 'enemy infantry' that were slightly to the side of tank pass.
During test T-34 destroyed only 2 MG nests. (M.Svirin "Bronevoi schit Stalina").

extraction from summer 1941 test(Kubinka):
"...IX. Observation. German tank has commander cupola that grants free observation, targets can be easily spotted at ranges up to 1500m. While it's virtually impossible to use most of observation equipment of T-34 (in particulary - commanders panoramic sight located in the middle of evacuation hatchet - above gun breech and turret side panoramic sights..."

So looks like it was BLIND.


I consider T-34 and PzIII as two rocks thrown at different times - one was on the way up and the other on the way down.
Anyway IMO in 1940-42(according to Initial Thread Name) PzIII was more combat-effective than T-34.

[Kalasj]

As for my 'arrogance' and 'animosity' - I have very little patience for explaining to each and every Waffen SS fan boy that there are two sides to every story. I've done it too many times, to do it over and over again. Like I said, I'll stick to contempt. If, as you say, I'm ignored - so be it. I really, really don't mind.
1) Who said anything about the Waffen-SS? What has it to do with the debate?
2) You don't know anything about my experience and knowledge of the Waffen-SS.

[dima]

Oh, I must add it's one of the most interesting topics, I've read recently.
Hehe, it looks like topic starter was banned :).
Wonder why?

[CPL Trevoga]

your getting this from Panzer Leider correct? That book is full of him saying "if only this had happened" or "if only those damn leaders had listenend to me" Memoirs are not reliable as they are inherently biased.

I like personal accounts, just because you'll get a better picture about a weapon or equipment from people who used it on a daily basis. It gives you better overall picture, than just dry tests.

[StukaJr]

some data for thoughts;):
PzIII had turret ring diameter of 1560mm.
T-34 had turret ring diameter of 1420mm.
T-34-85 had turret ring diameter of 1590mm.
PzVI had turret ring diameter of 1800mm.


Inability of PzIII to accept a larger turret to accept a larger gun is an often sited historical mantra to why PzIII was in upgrade dead end. The reasons could be not wide enough turret ring or it could be a miriad of other undisclosed reasons. Could PzIII accept a larger turret weight and length? Could PzIII's 6 bogey wheels distribute the weight properly? Could PzIII tracks support the additional stress? Could the suspension do so as well?

It was a standard dilema - PzIII and PzIV were very similar tanks, along the same upgrade path and served different roles. It was only common sense to go with a larger and less overly extended by continuous re-designs chassis to create one tank. Don't think that PzIII would have made much sense to continue on. PzIII should have been gutted after its "Stellar" performance in France and given way to the more capable PzIV



Btw F-34 had longer recoil move than KwK40.


Muzzle brake - something that Soviets did not have success in implementing until mid war. Still, KwK40 could not fit inside the PzIII's turret's and PzIV turret could not fit onto PzIII's chassis for aforementioned reasons.

I'm not sure what KwK40 has to do with this as neither guns could be fitted in PzIII



guess it depends on mine.
But for sure T-34 had more chnces to catch fire if ran upon landmine. Guess u know why;).


Why? Something along the caused fuel line leaks?

PzIII had a fuel tank directly over the 2nd through 5th bogey wheels. That also made PzIII vulnerable from the left side.



as i told before KwK37 had better AP perfomance than F-34 (w/o APCR) and pretty same HE perfomance.


PzIIIN did not begin manufacture until mid 1942. I thought this discussion was more into what was readily available in high enough numbers in 1942, not best possible testbench results one could provide :)



well, there were military trails 'on obstacles' in 14th Tk Div(Sept-Oct.1940).
By the order of Chief of ABTU Pavlov all 'obstacles' were constructed according military regulations, fited on terrain, camouflaged and were strengthened with AT guns, MG nests and mine fields. Tank had to pass around 2km, crew received order to spot and 'destroy' spotted targets with blank shots, which in their order should have fired on T-34 with blank ammunition.
All obstacles such as gully, wooden palisade with barbed wire, reverse hill slope and etc. were passed by tank with mark "good". Driver drove tank by his own with opened hatchet and made all decisions on his own. Other crew memeber couldn't tell virtually anything solid as noone has seen neither positions of 45mm AT guns nor trenches of 'enemy infantry' that were slightly to the side of tank pass.
During test T-34 destroyed only 2 MG nests. (M.Svirin "Bronevoi schit Stalina").


Thanks for the reference of the book - I'll have to look it up.

But if one would provide an account where a single T-34 destroyed multiple defensive points in combat, we'd go clean slate? :)



extraction from summer 1941 test(Kubinka):
"...IX. Observation. German tank has commander cupola that grants free observation, targets can be easily spotted at ranges up to 1500m. While it's virtually impossible to use most of observation equipment of T-34 (in particulary - commanders panoramic sight located in the middle of evacuation hatchet - above gun breech and turret side panoramic sights..."

So looks like it was BLIND.


I believe that panoramic sight has been removed and plated over on most versions I've seen. Driver's periscope were improved in later versions, so was commander's periscope.



Anyway IMO in 1940-42(according to Initial Thread Name) PzIII was more combat-effective than T-34.

PzIII was Germany's break-through tank 1939 through mid 1942, with PzIV and Stug III as support tanks. Soviets had the KV-1 tank as a breakthrough tank and the T-34 as a medium tank.

Considering the roles, T-34 was well suited for both tasks evenly - it has shined on many occasions when it was used as its intended role - exploiting breakthroughs and running amok amongst support units. KV-1 was serving the role of PzIII - considering that T-34 and PzIII could be argued to have equalized (not equal) combat capabilities, Germans were in trouble.

PzIII's existed in miriads of versions - there were still plenty of 37cm gunned versions without screen armor that fought in Russia, yet we tend to compare the best PzIII available for the time to the run of the mill T-34 still going through its deficiencies pointed out by combat. I won't deny that PzIII holds some edge in certain categories, it looses in others.

[dima]

Could PzIII accept a larger turret weight and length? Could PzIII's 6 bogey wheels distribute the weight properly? Could PzIII tracks support the additional stress? Could the suspension do so as well?
i don't know :).
But what i know that they had to take diferent turret (from T-43), redesign hull and engine to allow 85mm fit on T-34. That was made not of good life as T-43 was overall better tank than T-34 but industry didn't allow for new tank to be produced instead of T-34.

German industry allowed it that's why they chose the way of designing new models instead of upgrading current one.


Muzzle brake - something that Soviets did not have success in implementing until mid war.
well, muzzle brake had too many disadvantages that's why army always chose guns that had no MB if there was choice.
u prolly notice that toward end of war germans tried to remove MB from most of guns even if it meant designing of new ones.


Still, KwK40 could not fit inside the PzIII's turret's and PzIV turret could not fit onto PzIII's chassis for aforementioned reasons.
I'm not sure what KwK40 has to do with this as neither guns could be fitted in PzIII
well i mentioned KwK40 as PzIV had 1600mm turret ring at it was just enuf for 75mm L/48, while T-34-85 had 1590mm and it was enuf for 85mm L/52 to be fit.
c? just diferent doctrines and approaches.

btw that VK3002(MB) had 1450mm (or so) turret ring. That was one of the reason army didn't like it as it was hard for crew to operate in such tigthness as VK3002(MAN) had 1650mm.


Why? Something along the caused fuel line leaks?
yes fuel system was really vulnerable in T-34.


PzIIIN did not begin manufacture until mid 1942. I thought this discussion was more into what was readily available in high enough numbers in 1942, not best possible testbench results one could provide
well i mentioned KwK37 on PzIII as the way of upgrade;).


But if one would provide an account where a single T-34 destroyed multiple defensive points in combat, we'd go clean slate?
well i can provide account when single soviet Valentine KO 2 PzVI. But that doesn't mean it always was like that ;).
Same in one engagement 4 4.7cm pak36(t) KO 12 T-34(confirmed by both sides). But i don't believe it happened everywhere.


Driver's periscope were improved in later versions, so was commander's periscope.
if im not mistaken they were just removed.
and T-34 reminded blind till it got commander cupola in mid 1943.


PzIII was Germany's break-through tank 1939 through mid 1942
hmm, doubt that germans considered PzIII as break thru tank...



Considering the roles, T-34 was well suited for both tasks evenly - it has shined on many occasions when it was used as its intended role - exploiting breakthroughs and running amok amongst support units.

myth;).
T-34 average speed and cruising range was bad till some 1944.
According to the official Russian army regulations for T-34 units on marches:
On good road, the column can move 12 - 15 km./h.
On auxillary roads and field paths, the column can more 8 - 10 km.
After 5 - 6 hours, the column will need to take a 1 - 2 hour technical break and rest for the crews.
For each two hours hereafter, a 20- 30 minute stop is required.
If it's a forced march, during the second half of the march (i.e. after 6 - 7 hours), rest stops for 3 - 4 hours are taken.


PzIII's existed in miriads of versions - there were still plenty of 37cm gunned versions without screen armor that fought in Russia,yet we tend to compare the best PzIII available for the time to the run of the mill T-34 still going through its deficiencies pointed out by combat
by June 22 1944 germans had 327 PzIII with 3.7cm and 1174 PzIII with 5cm.
so looks like we compare T-34 with rite one;).



I won't deny that PzIII holds some edge in certain categories, it looses in others.
yeah it's like comparing 'Mercedes-Benz' and 'Volga'. Im pretty sure that there will be something in Volga that is better for Russia. But im most of aspects M-B will be way better.

[StukaJr]

But what i know that they had to take diferent turret (from T-43), redesign hull and engine to allow 85mm fit on T-34. That was made not of good life as T-43 was overall better tank than T-34 but industry didn't allow for new tank to be produced instead of T-34.


Well, it was a desission dictated by Doctrine - I'm not aware if an 85mm would fit on a T-43 without significant similar chassis/turret re-design T-34 went through. I'm also unaware if T-43 would be able to support heavier gun and extra armor - not to mentioned increased combat load for the ammo etc... I'd also consider dumping a 2 year battle proven tank for an untested prototype a little rash. Leading simultaneous production of 2 similar tanks would just be too "German" :D



German industry allowed it that's why they chose the way of designing new models instead of upgrading current one.


Not sure what you mean by "German industry allowed" - German Army started the war with majority of outdated machines, peaked around '43 and then experienced catastrophical shortages the final years... Even in its peak - Germany never had enough tanks, leave alone its Allies.

But yes, German War Industry was privately run and highly inneficient - up until '43 and then some.



well, muzzle brake had too many disadvantages that's why army always chose guns that had no MB if there was choice.
u prolly notice that toward end of war germans tried to remove MB from most of guns even if it meant designing of new ones.


I simply stated that muzzle brake allows for shorted rearward traverse of the gun. Majority of German tankguns without muzzlebrakes were fitted on late war SPG's with superstructures capable of lengthy rear traverse of the main gun - if one doesn't count the very few Panther II prototypes... Have no idea how they built that one but then nobody really does :)



well i mentioned KwK37 on PzIII as the way of upgrade;).


Well, it was an upgrade - 2 years too late and produced/fielded in low numbers and in multiple theaters. I'm sure it wasn't much of an "upgrade" considering having retrain gunners on completely different gun as well - engagement range for AP duty must have shrunk as well.



if im not mistaken they were just removed.
and T-34 reminded blind till it got commander cupola in mid 1943.


Well, you'd have a gapping hole in the hatch if they were just removed ;)

Soviet "Е.Матвеев. Боевые приемы танкистов. -М.: Воениздат НКО СССР, 1942" seems to emphisize the cooperation of the tanks and infantry to alieviate the "blindness" of the tank. All of the tanks have blind spots, especially while moving - T-34 just had it worse, but I'm not a big believer that PzIII was see everything/kill anything tank.

Driving with a commander hatch open was a common practice in WWII.

Also, as for T-34 being "blind" - I'm surprised the same test was not performed with PzIII and given results of how many AT's it killed with blank shots :D Well camoflauged AT's were any tank's nightmare.



hmm, doubt that germans considered PzIII as break thru tank...


Well, that's the purpose it served - there was really no other tank to serve that role yet it acted as such. When supporting infantry in an attack - PzIII was serving a purpose of the "breakthrough tank" '41-42 - there was no other tank to serve the role and the role just had to be served.



According to the official Russian army regulations...


I see nothing contrary nor a proof that T-34 couldn't travel the distance I've quoted. Your quote would suggest that a mechanized column would travel 90 kilometers in 6 hours or 60 kilometers cross-country. I believe a record advance for a mechanized division is held roughly under 200 kilometers (added: per day)? That could be easily done with the schedule you've posted. Fatique would set in a driver and they'd have to stop (Hell, I get fatigued while driving modern autos on good roads for 6 hours straight :D ) No, T-34 is not a comfortable vehicle to drive - but neither was the PzIII, at least not by a wide margin. Nothing is wrong with checking your vehicle and if anything can be repaired in the field in under two hours - it wasn't really broken.

What you've posted doesn't really prove what I've said was false.



by June 22 1944 germans had 327 PzIII with 3.7cm and 1174 PzIII with 5cm.
so looks like we compare T-34 with rite one;).


I take it you mean 1941? Short 5cm L/24 and long 5cm counts as well - the performance of the latter was not the same as the long.

[GazB]

Cast versions could be penetrated even with 2cm FlaK30/38, not to say about 5cm KwK38(even from front).

So you are suggesting that while 37mm and 45mm anti tank guns couldn't penetrate the T-34 a 20mm cannon could penetrate it from the front?

Then why did they rush long barrel 76mm guns into production on Panzer IVs? Why did they drop the 50mm guns of the Panzer IIIs? Why did they rush the Panther into production with a very long 75mm gun if a 20mm cannon was all they needed?


Bt-2/5/7/7M/T34 all used Cristie Suspension, slightly modified tho. And while it was pretty good for lite tanx, it was bad for hvy ones.


Through each model you mention above it was changed and modified to suit the different vehicle. By the time it got to the T-34 (through many prototypes you havent' mentioned) it has little to do with Christie.


During summer 1941 tests T-34 couldn't climb 30angle raise after rain while PzIII did it with ease.
Plus better tracks allowed PzIII to pass hills more faster.


What another shock. A light tank being more mobile than a medium tank... Imagine that!


Target is not static, it's maneuvring toward u, and shooting at u so u have to maneuvre as well.


Even if your sights reached the moon, no one was firing accurately on the move without gun stabilisation in both planes (vertical and horizontal) and sight stabilisation in both planes too.


extraction from Csonclusions after summer 1941 test(Kubinka) T34 - PzIII:
"...VIII. Cruising range
Table data - 250 - 170.
Practical data - 185 -165..."


No, I mean engine x of x horsepower in two versions, Diesel and Petrol, the Petrol model generally had a slightly higher HP rating but the diesel was more economic with fuel. Just because one vehicle has a diesel engine doesn't automatically mean it has a longer driving range than another vehicle with a petrol powered engine... the petrol driven vehicle could simply have an enormous fuel tank...


They liked Churchill and Matilda II alot. And it was official opinion that they weren't inferior to KV. In some aspects even better.


They didn't like the 40mm guns fitted to the Churchill, or the speed.


That is a pretty generalizing statement. Germany and Russia actually were sharing tank training before the war. German engineers were very interested in Sovjet tank design, but the Sovjets kept the heavier tank types as a secret from them.
No true engineer downgrades the achievement of other engineer just because they life in another country. And during a war you do anything to "learn from your enemy".

For the average German who didn't work with the Soviets, they only knew what they had been told, and I doubt Hitlers propaganda machine was singing the praises of the Soviets. You dont do anything to learn from your enemy if you have a racial believe that the enemy is genetically inferior to you in every way.


No, it isn't. The Panther has a better gun, especially versus the T-34/85 and better optics. In a one on one situation, the Panther would win.

On a completely flat desert with no where to hide, yes, the Panther would almost always win. In reality there is plenty of terrain and other things on a battlefield that can greatly reduce the range at which two tanks can spot each other. In a closer engagement a Panther can still defeat a T-34/85 but a T-34/85 can also very easily defeat a Panther. The reality is that shorter range combat is more common or can be made to be common if you know you lack range against the enemy.


Western idiocies that Soviet Union copied in the post war era - from Space Shuttle to Fiat. As for WWII - I haven't really researched the subject but I'm rather confident of what I will find.


There are a few cases of direct copying by the Soviets of western stuff, but most simply borrowed design features or external shapes as the actual Soviet requirements were often different to western requirements and led to different solutions. Cases of direct copying include the Sidewinder missile... previous Soviet AAMs were complex to build and maintain, whereas the sidewinder was simple and modular... ie seeker, nose controls, warhead, rocket motor, tail controls from nose to tail. It was copied while the Soviet missile makers completely changed the way they designed missiles to match the sidewinder. (the AA-10 is the best example of how they have taken this philosophy to an extreme... there are two different rocket bodies for long and medium range models, plus for both motor types there are half a dozen different seekers that can be fitted including SARH, IR, passive radar homing, Active radar homing, and models adapted for use over water by naval aircraft etc etc.) Another case was the Tu-4 which was a copy of the b-29. It was such a pain in the a$$ Tupolev vowed never to do it again but they needed a strategic bomber and they needed it in a hurry so they used what they had access to. Even with the order to copy directly the result had different guns (20mm instead of 50 cal) and different engines.


I assume you mean directly after the battle. And even that I find rather odd. What's the source?

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Hitler was very keen to put his super weapons to the test and sent in the panther and elefant to battle in kursk probably too early, without proper testing. The result was that when they broke down they had no experience in withdrawing such vehicles or quickly patching them up so when the Soviets ended the battle with control of that battlefield it would make sense that most of the available panthers would therefore be under Soviet control, if most of the panthers were at kursk in the first place...


Kwk37 could be fitted on PzIII and it had better rate of fire, accuracy and better pen. than L-11/F-34.


Which is important engaging the most common target of dug in infantry how?


PzIII and PzIV performed v well against standart Sov. AT capabilities.


German AT capabilities quickly added Soviet 76.2mm artillery guns with solid AP shot to their arsenal. Which german gun did the Soviets adopt and put into production? (and no before anyone suggests the 85mm gun of the T-34/85 was completely unrelated to the German 88mm)

Both use 37mm and 45mm guns of very similar performance that were probably related but they were prewar designs and more likely collaboration of legitimate purchase than theft.


Suspension: individual, spring, Christie type.(T-34 manual).


AK-74M, Avtomat Kalashnikov model 1974 modified. The suspension of the T-34 is no more a Christie design than a Kalashnikov is a Federov Avtomat model 1916 rifle.


how did they slove those disadvantages of T-34? Designed new tank and took it's turret?


They simply used the KV-85 turret because it was both available and suitable for the job. A custom turret design could have been created if the KV-85 turret hadn't been made.


Same armour as KV. And 2pdr was better than 45mm 20K tho didn't have HE shells.

So a gun that could not fire a HE shell as a tank armament... how useful is that?


u told u have real ranges of engagements...
at 400m PTRD/S would not hit weak points.


500m is given as the range for the penetration of 32mm of steel armour. It has nothing to do with effective range nor the range at which the rifles would normally be used. From what I have read they were considered as useful as SMGs in street fighting in Stalingrad. The rounds issued were not streamlined pointed AP rounds but fairly flat tipped tungsten penetrators with rather weak aerodynamics. This would suggest no attempt to produce a long range rifle, but that its use was purely as a short range armour penetrator.


Matilda II was a tank designed for Desert. It even had special openings in the sideskirts to expell the sand - these would trap the mud and unesessary mire the vehicle.


I have heard the Soviet troops liked the armour of the British designs, but they were always inadequately armed.


why? what was main sov AT gun?
yes, 45mm 53K. And it performed really average even vs 32mm FHA armor.


And remained in service till 45 because it fired a HE shell which was rather more useful to the troops than anything heavier that might penetrate more armour but was to heavy to cart around.


Wanna list of german guns that KO T-34/KV in 1941 according soviet salvage teams? It runs from 2cm to 15cm guns.


One KV-2 held up a German unit for 2 days because nothing the Germans had with them would penetrate it. They finally destroyed it when they brought up heavy artillery in the form of a 105mm gun. Hitting it directly 6 times stopped fire from the KV but when the Germans approached it they found only two 105mm shells had penetrated with marks from 50mm strikes but no marks from hundreds of 37mm hits. Some of the crew were still alive and were only killed when a german lobbed a grenade into a roof hatch. Equally during the winter war not a single KV was knocked out or lost. The T-34 was not ready for that battle yet and didn't appear there.

Now there are no invulnerable tanks. Floor armour, roof armour, rear armour are areas of vulnerability for any vehicle. The rear of the Panthers turret was particularly thin and vulnerable, but that doesn't make that tank weaker than a BT-7.


Or maybe coz german tanx such as PzIII could spot 85mm at the v long range and outmaneuvre it?

Soviet performance in camouflage was excellent. The Germans often never saw tank traps till they were inside them.


we were speaking about capability of 5cm gun to KO T34.

With one type of ammo, which wasn't common, from close range, and from behind the T-34. Yeah, that makes the Panzer III way better than a T-34...
In those circumstances the T-72 could take out an M1A2 Abrams...


T-34-85 had turret from diferent tank. It had larger turret ring.
If germans wanted they could do same with PzIII. But they moved another way.


The Panzer III wouldn't support a larger turret ring. It would make more sense to drop the Panzer III and improve the Panzer IV than continue to squander energy on a light tank.


again static target.


The difference between firing at a static target and a moving one isn't that great. You calculate a distance to aim away from the present location of the target and place the crosshairs there and at the right moment you fire. You then watch the fall of shot and then make a correction for your next shot.


he states that PzV and PzVI could engage sov tanx at 1500m. And sov tanx couldnt retaliate as german tanx were beyond RDS.
And all reports stated that

At that range the T-34 couldn't penetrate either a Panther or Tiger from the front so they could't retaliate whether they were beyond RDS or not.


That's why i wonder, how T-34 could engage german tanx at >1000m(according yer statements) in 1941 and weren't able to do that in 1943...


They could engage fortified targets with HE rounds at greater than 1,000m, why couldn't they engage trucks or halftracks or light tanks at that range too?


GazB told that PTRD/S could pen 32mm@400m. I replied it couldn't. U replied that PTRS gunner could hit weak points.

No. I said the round the rifles fired could penetrate 32mm of armour at 500m, I never said the rifles or gunners were able to hit targets at that range. It is how the penetration of the 14.5mm ammo is defined.


well, u didn't prove it.
Btw PzIIIH weighted 7tons less than T-34.
Specific Power:
T-34 had 16.7t/hp.
PzIIIH had 15.5t/hp.
Plus better gearbox and tracks...


Since when did engine power stop an object sinking in mud?
The T-34 had lower ground pressure, despite being a much heavier vehicle... that means it had a larger are of tracks on the ground. I presume you understand the concept of a snow shoe or a ski?
Better gearbox is less important than how low the gearbox goes... and one would assume they both go low enough.


some data for thoughts:
PzIII had turret ring diameter of 1560mm.
T-34 had turret ring diameter of 1420mm.
T-34-85 had turret ring diameter of 1590mm.
PzVI had turret ring diameter of 1800mm.

Btw F-34 had longer recoil move than KwK40.



Ummm.. Duh. That just shows that the German idea of a three man turret crew is both more effective in combat but also takes up more turret space.


well, there were military trails 'on obstacles' in 14th Tk Div(Sept-Oct.1940).
By the order of Chief of ABTU Pavlov all 'obstacles' were constructed according military regulations, fited on terrain, camouflaged and were strengthened with AT guns, MG nests and mine fields. Tank had to pass around 2km, crew received order to spot and 'destroy' spotted targets with blank shots, which in their order should have fired on T-34 with blank ammunition.
All obstacles such as gully, wooden palisade with barbed wire, reverse hill slope and etc. were passed by tank with mark "good". Driver drove tank by his own with opened hatchet and made all decisions on his own. Other crew memeber couldn't tell virtually anything solid as noone has seen neither positions of 45mm AT guns nor trenches of 'enemy infantry' that were slightly to the side of tank pass.
During test T-34 destroyed only 2 MG nests. (M.Svirin "Bronevoi schit Stalina").


So their camouflage technique was good. How does that relate to visibility from a T-34?


extraction from summer 1941 test(Kubinka):
"...IX. Observation. German tank has commander cupola that grants free observation, targets can be easily spotted at ranges up to 1500m. While it's virtually impossible to use most of observation equipment of T-34 (in particulary - commanders panoramic sight located in the middle of evacuation hatchet - above gun breech and turret side panoramic sights..."

So looks like it was BLIND.


To prove it was blind you would need to show a tank fitted with said super cupola that gives the ability to see through camouflage go through the same test and shoot at more than 2 MG positions. Rhetoric from what looks more like a manual describing opfor equipment is just conjecture.


Anyway IMO in 1940-42(according to Initial Thread Name) PzIII was more combat-effective than T-34.

The communication aspect alone even without the coordination of forces that the Germans had with tanks and artillery and tanks and aircraft make any evaluations or comparisons between individual vehicles pointless. Replace the Panzer III with a rowing boat and the result would still be rather similar.


myth.
T-34 average speed and cruising range was bad till some 1944.
According to the official Russian army regulations for T-34 units on marches:
On good road, the column can move 12 - 15 km./h.
On auxillary roads and field paths, the column can more 8 - 10 km.
After 5 - 6 hours, the column will need to take a 1 - 2 hour technical break and rest for the crews.
For each two hours hereafter, a 20- 30 minute stop is required.
If it's a forced march, during the second half of the march (i.e. after 6 - 7 hours), rest stops for 3 - 4 hours are taken.


What happened in 1944 that changed T-34 speed and range?

[GazB]

Western idiocies that Soviet Union copied in the post war era - from Space Shuttle to Fiat.

Should add that although the Soviets copied the external shape of the space shuttle, internally and conceptually they are completely different. The US space shuttle is an aircraft with an enormous external fuel tank and rockets to assist take off. The Soviet Buran is a glider that sits on a rocket for launch. The soviet vehicle is lighter, and has a greater payload and would be much cheaper to operate. It was only built because the US SS was assumed to have a military role and they wanted parity.

[dima]

Well, it was a desission dictated by Doctrine - I'm not aware if an 85mm would fit on a T-43 without significant similar chassis/turret re-design T-34 went through.
T-43 was designed for torsion suspension, larger turret ring and 85mm gun.


I'm also unaware if T-43 would be able to support heavier gun and extra armor - not to mentioned increased combat load for the ammo etc...
yes it was. 75mm frontal sloped armour. T-43-2 - 90mm frontal armour.
T-34 couldn't have more frontal hull armour as it's 1st roller was already overloaded coz of spring suspension.


i'd also consider dumping a 2 year battle proven tank for an untested prototype a little rash. Leading simultaneous production of 2 similar tanks would just be too "German"
yes, that's why they didn't produce it tho it was accepted to service.
Plus STZ was lost in sept. 1942.


Not sure what you mean by "German industry allowed" - German Army started the war with majority of outdated machines,
what outdated machines? PzII(1067) or Pz38t(763)?
If they were that outdated why did USSR desperately try to produce lite tank thruout the war? And why USSR asked for more Vlaentines from allies till the end of war?


But yes, German War Industry was privately run and highly inneficient - up until '43 and then some.
that's becoz Germany wasn't in state of Total War till then.
They produced only the number of tanx Tk Departemnt could buy. They could produce much more tanx and when germans 'declared' total war they reached peak of production in august 1944 dispite of bombing and loss of precious materials.



Majority of German tankguns without muzzlebrakes were fitted on late war SPG's with superstructures capable of lengthy rear traverse of the main gun
like JP38t?;)


if one doesn't count the very few Panther II prototypes... Have no idea how they built that one but then nobody really does
Panther F(KwK44);).


Well, it was an upgrade - 2 years too late and produced/fielded in low numbers and in multiple theaters.I'm sure it wasn't much of an "upgrade" considering having retrain gunners on completely different gun as well - engagement range for AP duty must have shrunk as well.
that upgrade wasn't needed before. PzIV had the role of support tank. After PzIVF2/G received KwK40 it lost it's support ability, so germans needed something that would take it's place.
Same with StuGIII--->StuG40+StuH42.



Well, you'd have a gapping hole in the hatch if they were just removed

they used standard triplex if i remember correctly.


All of the tanks have blind spots, especially while moving - T-34 just had it worse,
Don't forget that T-34 hadn't free commander...so he had to choose either to engage 1 spoted target and stop observation or observe for more targets(that can be much more danger) but then tank couldn't fire.


but I'm not a big believer that PzIII was see everything/kill anything tank.
it was...in comparison to T-34.


Driving with a commander hatch open was a common practice in WWII.
so what? either he needed to fire or to observe.
btw they hold hatchets opened to escape fast as f.e. commander needed 11sec to escape from T-34.


Also, as for T-34 being "blind" - I'm surprised the same test was not performed with PzIII and given results of how many AT's it killed with blank shots Well camoflauged AT's were any tank's nightmare.
dunno.
what i know, that neither KV that had no commander cupola but had free commander nor T-50 that had commander cupola but didn't have free commander received such remark.


No, T-34 is not a comfortable vehicle to drive - but neither was the PzIII, at least not by a wide margin.
T-34:to switch gearbox from 2nd to 3rd speed driver needed to apply strength - up to 30kg. To switch gearbox from 3rd to 4th driver needed to apply - up to 101kg.
PzIII: to switch any speed driver needed to apply strength - up to 8kg.


What you've posted doesn't really prove what I've said was false.
coz u didn't said false. What u said was just exaggeration.
F.e. T-70, M4A2, IS-1/2 marched faster.


I take it you mean 1941?
yes:).


Short 5cm L/24 and long 5cm counts as well - the performance of the latter was not the same as the long.
i take u mean 5cm L/42(KwK38);).
there were no 5cm KwK39 in 1941.
Anyway 5cm KwK38 could deal with most of tasks stood in face of it in 1941-1942.

[StukaJr]

T-43 was designed for torsion suspension, larger turret ring and 85mm gun.


Nope - T-43 had a 76mm F-34 gun - at least the prototypes produced. You can clearely see 76mm gun in all the pictures.




yes it was. 75mm frontal sloped armour. T-43-2 - 90mm frontal armour.
T-34 couldn't have more frontal hull armour as it's 1st roller was already overloaded coz of spring suspension.


Captured Tiger was the reason that killed T-43 project slated for production - Tiger I's main gun was capable of dealing with frontal armor of T-43 yet T-43 was still designed around less capable gun. There is no data that can back up that T-43 could employ both the heavier armor and the new combat load of a heavier 85mm gun.

T-34-85's suspension was modified with additional full length torsion bars in the hull of the vehicle - it was not just an individual spring anymore. Full length suspension distributes the weight across the rollers.

Really out of time - more on the rest later. Good topic!

[StukaJr]

what outdated machines? PzII(1067) or Pz38t(763)?
If they were that outdated why did USSR desperately try to produce lite tank thruout the war? And why USSR asked for more Vlaentines from allies till the end of war?


First. Production of a good light tank has nothing to do with outdated light tanks of the enemy - not sure what your parallel represents. The armies have variable tasks which are then entrusted to heavy, medium and light tanks.

I also did not name any "outdated tanks" by name - PzII went through a series of modifications that made it a good recon tank and Pz38(t) had salvagable and readily available chassis. PzII would be a good light tank in '41 have it not being used as a main battle tank in '41 and '42 - it was ill suited.

Secondly, you've mentioned the best light tanks Germany was fielding :) Germany was fielding over 2000 of various vehicles, raising the number to 3000 by the end of the war. The "outdated" tanks included 35(t)'s, captured French tanks and miriad of others - not all of them were "light" by the standards set in 1941 , they were just renamed "light" because they were poorly protected/armed and thus were "outdated".

But you mentioned Pz38(t). It was indeed an outdated tank and poorly made - its armor was brittle and its front easily penetrated by most common Polish, French and then Soviet fielded AT pieces. (armor thickness had little to do with its poor protection). Soviet 45mm could penetrate its armor from the front at effective combat ranges in the manner that would fold the plates inward and splintering into sizeable chunks of steel, pinning the crew. Its chassis was useful for various SPG designs.



that's becoz Germany wasn't in state of Total War till then.
They produced only the number of tanx Tk Departemnt could buy. They could produce much more tanx and when germans 'declared' total war they reached peak of production in august 1944 dispite of bombing and loss of precious materials.


That's a strange statement - considering that privately owned factories constantly produced less tanks than ordered - rarely meeting 60-70% of the goals. Currently reading memoirs of Albert "F#$knut" Speer, I must also add that privately ran war production was never favored nor beneficial by him and he took painstaking work in trying to omit overspending in German War Production. (I'm glad he wasn't too successful) Absense of Conveyer belt type assembly also significantly undercut production numbers - together with miriad of construction similar yet production different machines accepted into the service.

This also translates into typical shortage of equipment - you'd be surprised to find out that certain divisions also lacked basic equipment other than tanks. Creation of elite and heavy divisions also hides the simple fact that certain not-so-elite divisions were starved of equipment. Afrika is an example of an entire Theater being starved.

I'm also quiestioning your "Total War" defenition - Germany was ordering compulsory conscription, organizing civilian air defense, instituting rationing amongst the civilian population and all other defenition of the "Total War" - not to mention systematic extermination of unwanted social groups. Reliance on... ahem... "foreign workers" (cough! slaves) was also a state funded way to boost the productivity.



like JP38t?;)


Jagdpanzer 38(t) does not have a turret. Neither is Jagdpanzer 38(t) a tank. My statement stands.Guns without muzzlebrakes were installed on German turretless SPG's only - guns with muzzlebrakes were installed in all of the production German tanks. Majority of mid to late war german tanks required a muzzle break to fit into the turrets.



it was...in comparison to T-34.


Comparison would be if PzIII went through the same course and you've posted the results that the similarly trained crew was able to achieve in PzIII. All I've gained from the exert was that PzIII provided clear observation up to 1500 meters - not the same as being able to spot well camoflauged defense from a moving vehicle.

[dima]

So you are suggesting that while 37mm and 45mm anti tank guns couldn't penetrate the T-34 a 20mm cannon could penetrate it from the front?
germans didn't have 45mm guns.
3.7cm PaK35/36 could pen. T-34.
I never told 2cm cannon can pen. T-34 from front.


Then why did they rush long barrel 76mm guns into production on Panzer IVs? Why did they drop the 50mm guns of the Panzer IIIs? Why did they rush the Panther into production with a very long 75mm gun if a 20mm cannon was all they needed?
sounds kinda stupid...
45mm 20K/53K could KO Panther. Does that mean that RA didn't need anything but 45mm gun?


What another shock. A light tank being more mobile than a medium tank... Imagine that!
PzIII was medium tank till 1944.


Even if your sights reached the moon, no one was firing accurately on the move without gun stabilisation in both planes (vertical and horizontal) and sight stabilisation in both planes too.
duh, try to read my replies closely.
I didn't tell anything about fire on the move.


Diesel and Petrol, the Petrol model generally had a slightly higher HP rating but the diesel was more economic with fuel.
not in case with T-34 and PzIII.


They didn't like the 40mm guns fitted to the Churchill, or the speed.
no Churchill supplied to USSR had 40mm gun. It had better offroad speed than KV.


Which is important engaging the most common target of dug in infantry how?
what u mean?


German AT capabilities quickly added Soviet 76.2mm artillery guns with solid AP shot to their arsenal.
germans designed new shell for them.


Which german gun did the Soviets adopt and put into production?
2cm FlaK30 --> 20mm ZA obr.30.
7.5cm FlaK(don't remember digit)--> 76mm ZP obr.32.



Both use 37mm and 45mm guns of very similar performance that were probably related but they were prewar designs and more likely collaboration of legitimate purchase than theft.
license.



The suspension of the T-34 is no more a Christie design than a Kalashnikov is a Federov Avtomat model 1916 rifle.

only for u.
ABTU thought diferently.


They simply used the KV-85 turret because it was both available and suitable for the job. A custom turret design could have been created if the KV-85 turret hadn't been made.
wow!
where did u get it from?



So a gun that could not fire a HE shell as a tank armament... how useful is that?
reclamation was sent. Matilda II CS was supplied.



500m is given as the range for the penetration of 32mm of steel armour.
PzIII had 32mm of FHA.
PTRD was tested against RHA.


And remained in service till 45 because it fired a HE shell which was rather more useful to the troops than anything heavier that might penetrate more armour but was to heavy to cart around
45mm guns didn't have HE shell.
what about OB-25? better penetration with HEAT and good HE shell.


One KV-2 held up a German unit for 2 days because nothing the Germans had with them would penetrate it.
and 1 Valentine KO 2 Tigres. And Apache was shot down by rifle bullet. So what?

Btw do u know why that KV-2 appeared there? Why it stopped there?


Soviet performance in camouflage was excellent. The Germans often never saw tank traps till they were inside them.
dunno about it.


With one type of ammo, which wasn't common, from close range, and from behind the T-34. Yeah, that makes the Panzer III way better than a T-34...
if u mean PzGr40, u r totally wrong.
read reports.

Gun doesnt make tank.


In those circumstances the T-72 could take out an M1A2 Abrams...
u think T-72 is not capable to KO M1A2?:roll:


The Panzer III wouldn't support a larger turret ring.
they tested PzIV turret with KwK40 on hull of PzIII.
so PzIII definetly could support larger turret ring.


The difference between firing at a static target and a moving one isn't that great. You calculate a distance to aim away from the present location of the target and place the crosshairs there and at the right moment you fire. You then watch the fall of shot and then make a correction for your next shot.
if u r static and target move straight toward u.
What if target constantly chnges it's direction?


At that range the T-34 couldn't penetrate either a Panther or Tiger from the front so they could't retaliate whether they were beyond RDS or not.
haha, it was trap. Caught u:).
F-34 couldn't pen. neither PzV nor PzVI frontal armour at any distance. Maybe only with turret ring hit;).
F-34 couldn't pen. PzVI side/rear at ranges more than 200m.

so yer statement is wrong.


They could engage fortified targets with HE rounds at greater than 1,000m, why couldn't they engage trucks or halftracks or light tanks at that range too?
i don't know about it.
For suppression fire u can fire from any distance. To hit, even static fortified target, they started to shoot at 800m.


No. I said the round the rifles fired could penetrate 32mm of armour at 500m
once again FHA is not equal to RHA.


So their camouflage technique was good. How does that relate to visibility from a T-34?
why no other tank received such remark?


To prove it was blind you would need to show a tank fitted with said super cupola that gives the ability to see through camouflage go through the same test and shoot at more than 2 MG positions. Rhetoric from what looks more like a manual describing opfor equipment is just conjecture.
of coz u r smarter than military specialists in the ABTU comission.


What happened in 1944 that changed T-34 speed and range?
new gearbox, modified engine, modified suspension.

[StukaJr]

And Apache was shot down by rifle bullet. So what?


It didn't - a farmer in whom's farmland the Apache crashlanded was just told to shake his Enfield. Apache was after all coming back after a fire mission with some thick AA encountered.



Btw do u know why that KV-2 appeared there? Why it stopped there?


It was immobilized.



if u mean PzGr40, u r totally wrong.
read reports.


Oh yeah? Then why did so many panzers only carried 2-3 rounds(or even 0 rounds) into engagement of their special ammo? If such ammo was plentiful, why carry less capable AP rounds?

Shortage of Wolfram or Tungsten - used in the core of the PzGr40 and 39.



Gun doesnt make tank.


Gunless tanks are called APC's. So yes - it does.



u think T-72 is not capable to KO M1A2?:roll:


In context to the GWI and OIF as in T-72's and ammo fielded - they couldn't. But in the same context, rear shots would penetrate



they tested PzIV turret with KwK40 on hull of PzIII.
so PzIII definetly could support larger turret ring.


Difference of making a prototype and the prototype that would be more effective than PzIV.



once again FHA is not equal to RHA.


Metallurgists are actually on both sides of the discussion - agree and disagree. What's more important is the armor composition, not the creation process... Presence of tungsten and quality of steel ore in the armor is what made stronger armor - Rolled armor would be significantly better depending on the number of rolling passes done. To create a rolled plate twice as good as a homogenous plate (same steel composite) - the rolled plate would have to be forged hundreds, if not thousands of tanks (doh! corrected - times!). Face hardeing is the process of applying bone components and is only "skin deep", so to say. It was a factor until introduction of advanced self discarding sabot, HEAT, sub-munitions rounds and myriad of other advances of early stages of Great Patriotic War.

Time it took to produce rolled armor vs cast armor is another important factor when deliberating what is "superior"

Germans continued to roll and face harden their armor throughout the war - absence of needed qualities of tungsten severely worsened the ability of armor to defeat AP rounds. It's little use to face-harden armor when the entire superstructure fractures on impact of weaker AP rounds :) Tiger II tanks were recorded to crack the frontal glacis when hit with WP shots from 75mm L2 guns :)

Sherman tanks are perfect examples of rolled armor/homogenous armor composite tanks. "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper accounts that once AP round began to penetrate either armor - they would penetrate every single time.

Vacuum cast turrets of T-34's are quoted to have very good hardness and denying angle best suitable for penetration is the best way to deflect a very high velocity round

[StukaJr]

why no other tank received such remark?


Maybe because it wasn't tested in the same manner? The exerts you've provided make it sound that T-34 ran the gauntlet through the course and then the engineers climbed around PzIII - no mention of what any professional would consider a test. No mention of PzIII running the same test and the marks it has received.

There is a photograph I'm trying to find from Kursk battle - in it, there is a camoflauged AT gun that just took out a Stug from what appears like a 50 meter distance, with Stug in a 5-10 degree head on cant. The fact that an SPG can "blindly" stumble onto a large yet well camoflauged AT gun - simply underscores the perils that any tank would face when dealing with well camoflauged positions.

PzIII had a certain edge over T-34 in battlefield visibility, but that's about as far as I would venture.

[dima]

Nope - T-43 had a 76mm F-34 gun - at least the prototypes produced. You can clearely see 76mm gun in all the pictures.
yeah have mistaken here, T-44 was designed for 85mm gun initially.
Anyway that doesn't chnge the thing that 85mm gun could be fit on T-43.
Btw T-43 was in production, 6 were produced. Then production was stopped by direct order of Stalin. All the produced turrets were converted to T-34-85 turrets.



Captured Tiger was the reason that killed T-43 project slated for production - Tiger I's main gun was capable of dealing with frontal armor of T-43 yet T-43 was still designed around less capable gun.

not at all.
PzVIH was captured in January 1943.
Production of T-43 started in either August or September 1943(don't remember for sure).


There is no data that can back up that T-43 could employ both the heavier armor and the new combat load of a heavier 85mm gun.
again, T-43 was designed with 75mm frontal hull armor and 90mm frontal turret armour.


T-34-85's suspension was modified with additional full length torsion bars in the hull of the vehicle - it was not just an individual spring anymore.
maybe u mean T-34-85 that passed UKN?
as manual of T-34-85 says:
Suspension
Type: springs, individual (пружинная, индивидуальная).


First. Production of a good light tank has nothing to do with outdated light tanks of the enemy - not sure what your parallel represents. The armies have variable tasks which are then entrusted to heavy, medium and light tanks
yes, u r rite here.


The "outdated" tanks included 35(t)'s
there were 189 of 35(t) in June 1941.


captured French tanks and miriad of others - not all of them were "light" by the standards set in 1941, they were just renamed "light" because they were poorly protected/armed and thus were "outdated".
in front line units?



Soviet 45mm could penetrate its armor from the front at effective combat ranges in the manner that would fold the plates inward and splintering into sizeable chunks of steel, pinning the crew.

u mean internal shattering?


That's a strange statement - considering that privately owned factories constantly produced less tanks than ordered - rarely meeting 60-70% of the goals.
didn't read Speer memoirs unfortunately.
but i've read that german tk department received money from budget, and it could buy only the number of vehicles it had money for. Plus Germany had Year Plan of Production. So money was planned in year military budget and Tk Department had them according the situation they have planned year ago like how many crews they would train, how many ammunition they would produce, how many tanx would be lost, etc.
So even when they needed f.e. 100 tanx they couldn't afford them as they had money only for 60-70. And private companies needed to earn money so they didn't produce more than Army could buy.



absense of Conveyer belt type assembly also significantly undercut production numbers - together with miriad of construction similar yet production different machines accepted into the service.

i can be mistaken here but soviet industry didn't have conveyer belts either.
german production equipment was better than soviet and vehicles were generally more technological. But of coz so many of diferent types wasn't that good.



This also translates into typical shortage of equipment - you'd be surprised to find out that certain divisions also lacked basic equipment other than tanks

yes, but they prolly were on auxiliary theatres of operations?



Afrika is an example of an entire Theater being starved.

supply problems.
still PzIVF2/G and then PzVI appeared there in pretty same time as in EF.


I'm also quiestioning your "Total War" defenition
until late 1943 their military factories produced civilian goods, there were no rushed training courses for crews, they didn't simplify production of vehicles. W/o Total War state they wouldn't produce such cheap and easy to operate vehicles like JP38t. Even StuGs were simplified by removing task of FHA frontal armour.


Guns without muzzlebrakes were installed on German turretless SPG's only - guns with muzzlebrakes were installed in all of the production German tanks.
well, have u heard of PzWaffe 46 program?
why do u think they designed new guns like 7.5cm KwK44/1/2(~KwK42 w/o MB), KwK43/2(~KwK43 w/o MB)?
Btw JP38t why do u think they designed new PaK39/3 gun tho they did have PaK39 already in use by JPIV?


Comparison would be if PzIII went through the same course and you've posted the results that the similarly trained crew was able to achieve in PzIII.
again, all the soviet tanx since 1938 or so passed same trials. But only T-34 received such bad remarks about blindness.
But yes, that's true about comparison, should be compared with by same criterias.


It didn't - a farmer in whom's farmland the Apache crashlanded was just told to shake his Enfield. Apache was after all coming back after a fire mission with some thick AA encountered.
ahha, good to know :). always suspected it was propaganda ;).
Still that doesn't chnge the things. Single cases don't prove the rule.


It was immobilized.
why did it come there? what immob it?


Oh yeah? Then why did so many panzers only carried 2-3 rounds(or even 0 rounds) into engagement of their special ammo? If such ammo was plentiful, why carry less capable AP rounds?
U didn't understand.
I meant that PzGr40 wasn't better than PzGr38 vs sloped armour.


Shortage of Wolfram or Tungsten - used in the core of the PzGr40 and 39
PzGr39 didn't have tungsten;).


Gunless tanks are called APC's. So yes - it does.
tank is a battle system.



In context to the GWI and OIF as in T-72's and ammo fielded - they couldn't. But in the same context, rear shots would penetrate

so u believe that side hit won't pen?
Btw, it's kinda beyond my interests but does anyone have photo of battle KO T-72, especially with penetrated frontal turret detail?


Difference of making a prototype and the prototype that would be more effective than PzIV.
well, they had PzV in work that should take the place of PzIII.


It was a factor until introduction of advanced self discarding sabot, HEAT, sub-munitions rounds and myriad of other advances of early stages of Great Patriotic War
At least HEAT was less effective vs FHA. Not sure about other.


Time it took to produce rolled armor vs cast armor is another important factor when deliberating what is "superior"
no country could make good cast armour during WW2. that's accepted by everyone that only USSR learned how to make good cast in early 1945.
USSR RHA was flawed till some late 1943 - early 1944.


It's little use to face-harden armor when the entire superstructure fractures on impact of weaker AP rounds Tiger II tanks were recorded to crack the frontal glacis when hit with WP shots from 75mm L2 guns
neither Tiger or Tiger II had FHA plates;).
what is 75mm L2?


Vacuum cast turrets of T-34's are quoted to have very good hardness and denying angle best suitable for penetration is the best way to deflect a very high velocity round
Vacuum cast - what's that?


Maybe because it wasn't tested in the same manner?
i meant soviet tanx.


Stug from what appears like a 50 meter distance, with Stug in a 5-10 degree head on cant. The fact that an SPG can "blindly" stumble onto a large yet well camoflauged AT gun
interesting!
what gun it was?


simply underscores the perils that any tank would face when dealing with well camoflauged positions.
still, if u remember T-34 didn't notice infantry trenches and ATGs used standard cover plus were shooting.

Anyway that's not a subject for discussion as it is stated by tonns of reports from combat units about blindness of T-34. They asked for commander cupola desperately as it would lower casualties they thought.

T-34 was not the best opponent for any german tank till the end of war dispite all of the flaws in construction.

[StukaJr]

yeah have mistaken here, T-44 was designed for 85mm gun initially.


Fair enough. Nomencluture is confusing - I better memorize things visually.



Anyway that doesn't chnge the thing that 85mm gun could be fit on T-43.


That's a speculation and would still require a fair amount of re-design and re-testing, giving T-34 the edge.



Btw T-43 was in production, 6 were produced. Then production was stopped by direct order of Stalin. All the produced turrets were converted to T-34-85 turrets.


So the T-43 prototype production was not given a go ahead with availability of the evaluation data from some captured Tiger I tanks some 5 months earlier? I'm at odds what the contradiction to what I've said is.




not at all.
PzVIH was captured in January 1943.
Production of T-43 started in either August or September 1943(don't remember for sure).


June, according to my sources. Prototype production.

Data for Tiger I evaluation was not available right away after its capture.




in front line units?


Yes. Entire tank division armed with Pz38(t)'s or at least the most common tank - got an impression it was an entire divission. Fall of 1941. Russia.



u mean internal shattering?


I don't know. Beyond "spall". The armor plate would actually deform inward and parts of it would separate like petals - on a scale where a driver was actually pinned to the back of the seat by such piece, with entire arm requiring amputation. And that was caused by a frontal hit by a 45mm

I will look up an actual account if that's of any interest.



didn't read Speer memoirs unfortunately.
but i've read that german tk department received money from budget, and it could buy only the number of vehicles it had money for. Plus Germany had Year Plan of Production. So money was planned in year military budget and Tk Department had them according the situation they have planned year ago like how many crews they would train, how many ammunition they would produce, how many tanx would be lost, etc.
So even when they needed f.e. 100 tanx they couldn't afford them as they had money only for 60-70. And private companies needed to earn money so they didn't produce more than Army could buy.


Well, for example - out of 300 Panther tanks ordered for Operation Citadel, only 200 were delivered and then months later than supposed. I could look up failed delivery quotes from other vehicles - just don't know them off-hand.

So I guess Germany was in state of Semi-Total War then :)



i can be mistaken here but soviet industry didn't have conveyer belts either.
german production equipment was better than soviet and vehicles were generally more technological. But of coz so many of diferent types wasn't that good.


Used the wrong term - should be assembly line... German vehicles were assembled individually - like cars during pre-Ford days.



yes, but they prolly were on auxiliary theatres of operations?


Well, it was also partially due to British Control of Malta which in turn was an effective base of attack upon Axis shipping and Air routes. A lot of tanks sent to Afrika ended up on the bottom of Mediteranean...



well, have u heard of PzWaffe 46 program?

No. Has it ever gone in working prototype stage? I'm not very impressed by multitude of napkin doodles of super panzers :D



why do u think they designed new guns like 7.5cm KwK44/1/2(~KwK42 w/o MB), KwK43/2(~KwK43 w/o MB)?


Haven't seen any production tanks photos without muzzlebrakes. Saw a knocked out Panther with muzzlebrake sheered off - that's about it. Tiger II could potentually accept a main gun w/o a muzzle brake considering the size of its turret.



Btw JP38t why do u think they designed new PaK39/3 gun tho they did have PaK39 already in use by JPIV?


I would guess... Since the turretless superstructure of the Jagdpanzers would allow for longer rearward traverse of the gun? Same reason for "Guiderian's Duck"... "Goose?" :D

Still, this is going off topic, considering that muzzlebrake was essential for fitting KwK 40 into the turret of PzIV and was one of the means of shortening the rearward traverse :) . I also believe that KwK 40 has additional recoil springs if I remember the cutaway correctly.



why did it come there? what immob it?


I believe it was a singular tank defending the village. 105 mm direct fire howitzer took out its tracks.



tank is a battle system.


And how do you do battle without a gun? :)

Tank is a combination of armor, mobility and firepower. Firepower includes ability to combat other tanks, enemy infantry and engage fortifications... in the laymen's terms of course. And not in order of importance.



At least HEAT was less effective vs FHA. Not sure about other.


Face hardened surface is useless once the penetration begins - because if there is even a slight nick in the surface, that's already past the hardened surface.



neither Tiger or Tiger II had FHA plates;).
what is 75mm L2?


Early low velocity Sherman guns.
True. But they still used rolled armor which were in turn core hardened. Obviously, one can't face harden nor core harden lower grade steel - that was my point.

Battleships were the first to introduce face hardened armor in 19th century and were easily defeated by soft steel caps that prevented projectiles from breaking up. It was a Russian engineer that came up with that btw.



Vacuum cast - what's that?


I'll look up the proper term for that



I will also look through my cutaway drawings to properly add to the T-34-85 suspension debate.

[Lt. Wittmann]

Well it seems to me that regardless of the issues facing the production of the T-34 in comparrison to the Pzkpfw III, the T-34 obviously scared the Germans enough to devote significant energy into countering it irregardless of wether the tank was a good or bad one. The tank was also important in that it did allow Russia to dominate the tank design and production arena until the time of the American M-1 Abrams and subsequent Western European tanks. Look at the post war Russian tanks and how well built and produced they are, just a little technologically backwards, other than that, they are engineering beauties. Thus, in the long run the Pzkpfw was a much better tank, especially on the harsh Ostfront.

[Lt. Wittmann]

I meant T-34 not Pzkpfw in the last sentence. Oops.

[Kilgor]

didn't read Speer memoirs unfortunately.
but i've read that german tk department received money from budget, and it could buy only the number of vehicles it had money for. Plus Germany had Year Plan of Production. So money was planned in year military budget and Tk Department had them according the situation they have planned year ago like how many crews they would train, how many ammunition they would produce, how many tanx would be lost, etc.
So even when they needed f.e. 100 tanx they couldn't afford them as they had money only for 60-70. And private companies needed to earn money so they didn't produce more than Army could buy.
tion.

A central point to why germany lost.

Their arms industry was a mess of private empires, squabbling, lack of co-operation, advanced but too short production runs, and a staggering array of tanks, cars, aircraft, motorbikes with seldom spare parts. Speer took the helm, helped things greatly but was far too late.

[dima]

That's a speculation and would still require a fair amount of re-design and re-testing, giving T-34 the edge.
don't forget that T-43 used torsion suspension and 1600mm turret ring.



So the T-43 prototype production was not given a go ahead with availability of the evaluation data from some captured Tiger I tanks some 5 months earlier?I'm at odds what the contradiction to what I've said is.
didn't get it.
Production started in late summer 1943.
PzVI tests report was available by 04.05.1943 (they tested it 24-30 April 1943 on Polygon GBTU RA).


June, according to my sources. Prototype production
iam not talking about prototypes. T-43 was accepted to service.



es. Entire tank division armed with Pz38(t)'s or at least the most common tank - got an impression it was an entire divission. Fall of 1941. Russia.

i've asked the question about 'outdated' french tanx. Were they in front line units?


Well, for example - out of 300 Panther tanks ordered for Operation Citadel, only 200 were delivered and then months later than supposed. I could look up failed delivery quotes from other vehicles - just don't know them off-hand.
well, check the price for PzVD Tk Department planned and how much did it cost during production. That's why they couldn't produce more as in opposite way they'd loose alot of money.
That's why Tk Department gave order to simplify PzVD in March-May 1943 to make prices lower.


So I guess Germany was in state of Semi-Total War then
so looks like not ;).


No. Has it ever gone in working prototype stage? I'm not very impressed by multitude of napkin doodles of super panzers
hehe, no they didn't plan to produce Super Panzers.
They planed to produce series of AVFs on Hetzer chassis. A-la T-34.
Btw that Hetzer-Starr is from PzWaffe 46.


Haven't seen any production tanks photos without muzzlebrakes.
didnt have enuf time. Took alot of time to design new guns.
Panther F should use 7.5cm KwK44/2 (w/o MB), Panther II should use 8.8cm KwK43/2 (w/o MB), all tanx in PzWaffe program should use guns w/o MB.


I would guess... Since the turretless superstructure of the Jagdpanzers would allow for longer rearward traverse of the gun?
well, PaK39 had MB intially but then they removed it since May 1944.
as i told before MB had too many disadvantages.

Btw check mid-late 1944 StuHs, and check if they had MBs;).


I believe it was a singular tank defending the village. 105 mm direct fire howitzer took out its tracks.
there were ~50 KV(2.TD) at Rassenai and there was meeting engagement with 6.PzD (guess what tanx it had ;)).
anyway if u r interested in that event, check either : "The initial period of war on the Eastern Front, 22 june - august 1941"(D.Glantz), or "Panzer on Eastern Front.General Erhard Raus and His Panzer Divisions in Russia, 1941-1945"(E.Raus), or "Antisuvorov.Ten myths of Second World War"(A.Isaev).
v good information in these books about Rassenai actions.


Early low velocity Sherman guns.
ahh, u meant M2? I believe all the Shermans used M3 in 1944.
guess u took that case with 75mm WP from "Survivelance of US Armored Division in ETO"(or so) book?
again single case.


True. But they still used rolled armor which were in turn core hardened. Obviously, one can't face harden nor core harden lower grade steel - that was my point.
u mean they tried to temper armour to high strength that made it v weak?

[StukaJr]

Now, I did f#$kup and quoted T-44 suspension in confussion with the T-34-85 - I appologize for letting it go as long as I did :) So T-34-85 suspension was indeed a derivative of "Christie", not torsion bar. With that said, however - I expand more on the topic in detail below.

BTW, high stress on the 1st roller is something that is common to almost every Soviet tank design and was caused by rear engine/transmission with the turret further forward.


don't forget that T-43 used torsion suspension and 1600mm turret ring.


It all depends on what kind of torsion bar suspension. PzIII had "torsion bar" suspension in the name, but in fact these were external type "leaf" springs (combined steel plates, like on old truck rear suspension) and two short (maybe 12-15cm) steel torsion bars.

T-44 and Modern tanks married Rod and Coil of "Christie Suspension" with torsion bars that run continuously through the hull in line with fenders (I believe the Soviet tanks have two on each side), distributing the weight more evenly yet allowing individual movement of the rollers. I guess, that's why T-34's suspension is held in such high regard.

So when you say "torsion bar" suspension - I automatically assume the best possible type :D I hope that explains



didn't get it.
Production started in late summer 1943.
PzVI tests report was available by 04.05.1943 (they tested it 24-30 April 1943 on Polygon GBTU RA).


I was stating that having reviewed the results of the Tiger I evaluation, it was decided not to produce any more T-43's and instead to concentrate on a medium tank with more powerful main gun. Soviet Doctrine changing from tanks with heavier armor to tanks with higher caliber guns - it can only be speculated if T-43 would be as capable as it was with a



iam not talking about prototypes. T-43 was accepted to service.


They are still listed as "6 prototypes produced". Have they fought?



i've asked the question about 'outdated' french tanx. Were they in front line units?


Will have to check



well, check the price for PzVD Tk Department planned and how much did it cost during production. That's why they couldn't produce more as in opposite way they'd loose alot of money.
That's why Tk Department gave order to simplify PzVD in March-May 1943 to make prices lower.


If 300 were ordered, but 200 were bought... This would suggest that 100 were left in surplus? I don't know - was it pay on delivery? Nobody got an idea to break into the plant with a pair of lock cutters and wheel the rest out? :D Did OKW get to collect refunds on the PzVD's that broke down after traveling less than 20 kilometers or exchange them for the ones in overstock? Was it cash on the barrel?

That's a little odd, considering that every historical source claims that not enough panzers could be produced, but not that not enough panzers were bought. I'm not nesessarily denying it, just sounds f#$king stupid, that's all. Just a little too much like "Catch 22" - I'm sure SU would have money to pay for the remaining 100 Panthers left without a buyer :P

I will remain with the popular quote that PzVD had production difficulties.



hehe, no they didn't plan to produce Super Panzers.
They planed to produce series of AVFs on Hetzer chassis. A-la T-34.
Btw that Hetzer-Starr is from PzWaffe 46.

LOL - like I've said, napkin drawings of non-existent tanks do not impress me. Plans to make future tanks does not mean it could be done.




didnt have enuf time. Took alot of time to design new guns.
Panther F should use 7.5cm KwK44/2 (w/o MB), Panther II should use 8.8cm KwK43/2 (w/o MB), all tanx in PzWaffe program should use guns w/o MB.


Neither of the tanks existed past the prototypes. And I did mention Panther II turret as an "exception" :) There is lack of info in regards to these vehicles for me to really comment on them, other than artist representations and models.



well, PaK39 had MB intially but then they removed it since May 1944.
as i told before MB had too many disadvantages.




Btw check mid-late 1944 StuHs, and check if they had MBs;).


Not a tank :D For the sake of the conversation... The only ones without the Muzzle Brakes - are the ones with shorter barrels. No long barrel w/o MB



there were ~50 KV(2.TD) at Rassenai and there was meeting engagement with 6.PzD (guess what tanx it had ;)).


Well, there was just one tank in the village... Or is there a different account of it in that book?




anyway if u r interested in that event, check either : "The initial period of war on the Eastern Front, 22 june - august 1941"(D.Glantz), or "Panzer on Eastern Front.General Erhard Raus and His Panzer Divisions in Russia, 1941-1945"(E.Raus), or "Antisuvorov.Ten myths of Second World War"(A.Isaev).
v good information in these books about Rassenai actions.


Is it available on militera.ru? :D Will check it out.



ahh, u meant M2? I believe all the Shermans used M3 in 1944.
guess u took that case with 75mm WP from "Survivelance of US Armored Division in ETO"(or so) book?
again single case.


Yes, the 75 mm low velocity. There were still plenty around - even a good number of M4A3's were still manufactured with 75mm

WP account is taken from "Death Traps" by Lt.Cooper with 3rd Armored Division. Lots of insights into Sherman tanks - flaws, versions and advantages.



u mean they tried to temper armour to high strength that made it v weak?

Lack of tungsten and other quality ores made the plates weak. I was just saying that tempering/rolling steel of lower hardness than required for armor, wouldn't make up for it :)

Germans tempred the center of the plate, trying to give it uneven hardness - the round was suppose to expend its force through relatively softer steel and then break up against the hardened center. This only applies to the most basic of AP round - not to any specialized types introduced throughout the WWII. That's why Allies created their armor of even hardness.

Face hardened armor is meant to break up incoming projectile - works against solid steel shots. I found this image:



Little hard to see, but shows FH plate defeated. It's also quoted, that FH armor offers less protection against AP ammo with soft steel cap.

[dima]

I was stating that having reviewed the results of the Tiger I evaluation, it was decided not to produce any more T-43's and instead to concentrate on a medium tank with more powerful main gun. Soviet Doctrine changing from tanks with heavier armor to tanks with higher caliber guns - it can only be speculated if T-43 would be as capable as it was with a
not reallty like that.
Stalin ordered to stop production of T-43 coz they were afraid that factories would produce less tanx than if they would continue producing T-34. And RA was in offence in late 1943 so it needed each tank.
Btw Morozov, designer of T-43, received Stalin Premium for T-43.



They are still listed as "6 prototypes produced". Have they fought?

no, there were 2 prototypes and 6 serial tanx.
Yes, they passed front trails in "100th special tank company". I believe there is something about it in M.Svirin 'T-43 tank' pamphlet.


No long barrel w/o MB
Wasn't PaK39 long barreled? What about PaK42(JPIV/70)?


Well, there was just one tank in the village... Or is there a different account of it in that book?
AFAIK there wasn't village. There was a bridge over Dubissa river.


Is it available on militera.ru? Will check it out.
yes it is, have just checked.
Check part 7.


Yes, the 75 mm low velocity. There were still plenty around - even a good number of M4A3's were still manufactured with 75mm
it wasn't that bad. It had better AP perfomance than F-34 and pretty same HE peromance.


WP account is taken from "Death Traps" by Lt.Cooper with 3rd Armored Division. Lots of insights into Sherman tanks - flaws, versions and advantages.
yeah, meant that book.


Lack of tungsten and other quality ores made the plates weak.
afaik tungsten wasn't used in armour ;).


It's also quoted, that FH armor offers less protection against AP ammo with soft steel cap.
yes, have heard that APCBC performed better vs FHA than vs RHA.


btw IS-85/122 had pretty same flaws in armour. They tried to temper it to v high hardness.In theory it should have make armour some 20% more resistant, in practics armour became really weak.
Had to fix that in IS-2 obr.44.

[StukaJr]

not reallty like that.
Stalin ordered to stop production of T-43 coz they were afraid that factories would produce less tanx than if they would continue producing T-34. And RA was in offence in late 1943 so it needed each tank.
Btw Morozov, designer of T-43, received Stalin Premium for T-43.


So marginal improvements of T-43 did not validate removal of T-34 from production nor dual production of similar machines/logistical problems that evoked... That makes sense.

It would have been pushed into production, have it offered a significant improvement over the existing model - like IS tank replacing the ailing KV tank.

Just drawing parallels here :)



Wasn't PaK39 long barreled? What about PaK42(JPIV/70)?


Yes. But neither guns were fitted into the production tank turrets. That's my point - muzzle brakes were required for fitting these guns in the turrets.




yes it is, have just checked.
Check part 7.


Will give it a read



it wasn't that bad. It had better AP perfomance than F-34 and pretty same HE peromance.


Producing existing modification with outdated gun is one thing. Producing new and improved modifications yet keeping the old gun is a whole other thing. Manufacturing old outdated guns while a number of much more effective guns are available and being manufactured - is what I was hinting at. :)

It was a good use of WWI field gun, however it was rather outdated in 1943 and especially in 1944. The percentage of the 75mm vs 76mm Shermans in Normandy was also very high - I believe it was as high as 90% or more. The breakouts of the Beachead were mostly accomblished by fire of the M12 and M40 152mm howitzers, fighter and carpet bombing - aided by artillery spotter planes. Shermans were indeed like a T-34 - some overblown statistics, good models, bad models but in the end - these tanks fought and got from point A to point B. :)



afaik tungsten wasn't used in armour ;).


Ack! Okay. But they did started running low on Molybdenum and other elements used to make armor grade steel :)



btw IS-85/122 had pretty same flaws in armour. They tried to temper it to v high hardness.In theory it should have make armour some 20% more resistant, in practics armour became really weak.
Had to fix that in IS-2 obr.44.

Could it be a case of "copying" someone else's mistake? ;)

It's kinda dumb, considering that the tank designers repeated the same mistakes of guns VS armor from the drednaught days. The Face Hardened armor was defeated by accident. In one presentation to the client, the armor plate was positioned backwards on the firing range and a standard solid shot went clean through the plate, while before it would just bounce off. Soft Steel cap attached to the tip of the projectile recreated the same effect... And this all happened 4 decades or so before WWII :)

[dima]

It would have been pushed into production, have it offered a significant improvement over the existing model - like IS tank replacing the ailing KV tank.
not the best paralell, i must say, as production of KVs took ~15% of industry capacities while production of T-34 took >50%.



Producing existing modification with outdated gun is one thing. Producing new and improved modifications yet keeping the old gun is a whole other thing. Manufacturing old outdated guns while a number of much more effective guns are available and being manufactured - is what I was hinting at.

76mm didn't have smoke shell, HE shell was about 2 times less effective than 75mm HE shell.
Btw vs Panther and Tiger frontal armor 76mm had pretty same chance - to hit turret ring.



The percentage of the 75mm vs 76mm Shermans in Normandy was also very high - I believe it was as high as 90% or more.

first 76mm Shermans landed in Normandy in mid July. There were 102 of them vs ~1100 75mm Shermans ready for the Operation Cobra.



The breakouts of the Beachead were mostly accomblished by fire of the M12 and M40 152mm howitzers, fighter and carpet bombing - aided by artillery spotter planes.

well if u don't take into account ~3:1 superiority in men and ~3:1 superiority in tanx, than yes.



But they did started running low on Molybdenum and other elements used to make armor grade steel
still it worked pretty well vs 100mm<= soviet guns.



It's kinda dumb, considering that the tank designers repeated the same mistakes of guns VS armor from the drednaught days. The Face Hardened armor was defeated by accident. In one presentation to the client, the armor plate was positioned backwards on the firing range and a standard solid shot went clean through the plate, while before it would just bounce off. Soft Steel cap attached to the tip of the projectile recreated the same effect... And this all happened 4 decades or so before WWII

no country used FHA since late 1944.

[OldRecon]

...

there were ~50 KV(2.TD) at Rassenai and there was meeting engagement with 6.PzD (guess what tanx it had ;)).
anyway if u r interested in that event, check either : "The initial period of war on the Eastern Front, 22 june - august 1941"(D.Glantz), or "Panzer on Eastern Front.General Erhard Raus and His Panzer Divisions in Russia, 1941-1945"(E.Raus), or "Antisuvorov.Ten myths of Second World War"(A.Isaev).
v good information in these books about Rassenai actions.


Nominal strength of the 6. Pz div. on the eve of Operation Barbarossa I guess was 170 PzKw 35(t), 15 PzKw II, 42 PzKw IV (short barreled version), 12 PzKw III (Befehlspz variant).

Tank for tank as far as performance tables goes in theory at least not much of a match for a bunch of KV-1's and II's. :roll:

On another note. Was the Soviet main gun ammo for T-34 during WW-2 (76 and 85 mm) percussion primed or elecricaly primed (as was German and I also believe US 75/76 mm & 17 pounder ammo for Shermans)?

[dima]

Nominal strength of the 6. Pz div. on the eve of Operation Barbarossa I guess was 170 PzKw 35(t), 15 PzKw II, 42 PzKw IV (short barreled version), 12 PzKw III (Befehlspz variant).

6.PzD had 47 PzII, 155 Pz35(t), 30 PzIV and 13 Befehls tanx by 27.06.1941 according A.Isaev "Antisuvorov.Ten myths of Second World War".


Tank for tank as far as performance tables goes in theory at least not much of a match for a bunch of KV-1's and II's.:roll:
2nd Tk Div had 30 KV, 220 BT and ~30 T-26 according same source.
2nd Tk Div was virtually destroyed by 6.PzD in 2 days.

Btw i was wrong about KV-2 at Dubissa river bridge. It was KV-1.


On another note. Was the Soviet main gun ammo for T-34 during WW-2 (76 and 85 mm) percussion primed or elecricaly primed (as was German and I also believe US 75/76 mm & 17 pounder ammo for Shermans)?
percussion primed, tho i can be mistaken.