Slitherine

Panther as heavy as an IS-2? I've never heard that one before.

Hmm. Apparently you're right. Their weights are pretty close.

alex0809 wrote:AFAIK, the T34 "on paper" was unbelievably superior to the German tanks in '41.

Only on paper. Have you ever had the experience with rough Russian production quality?

That's not "glorifying the tank", that's a fact. After all, as soon as the T34 was discovered the Germans (I guess partially also because of the KV tanks), you could almost call it overreacted and immediately (re-)started development of their heavy tanks.

This started earlier, in France tanks also had problems with heavy French tanks. Hitler demanded for tanks to be equipped with heavier gun.

However, it had a lot of shortcomings too. First of all, when the T34 really was outclassing ANY German tank on the battlefield by far, it was only used in extremely low numbers so the Germans could (after all they had radio equipment which the Russians were lacking too) encircle the T34 and destroy it (there goes your T34 horde bonus ). And the Germans also had their StuKas.

French heavy tanks were also outclassing German ones.

Stuka in version G was introduced later.

From battlefield.ru:

By the beginning of the war Western frontier districts had 19 mechanized corps, including 10,394 tanks of all kinds (other sources state — 11,000). Taking in consideration tanks in some rifle, cavalry, and separate tank units this amount increases to 12,782 tanks (by information at June 1st). T-34 tanks were only 7.5% of this amount.

However, on June 22, 1941, Germany with its allies deployed 3,899 tanks and assault guns including the Reserve of Supreme commandment of Wehrmacht — 2nd and 5th tank divisions (originally didn't participate in fights) — against our Western frontier. Only 1,404 of them were medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV, so 967 T-34 tanks (we should consider also 504 heavy KV) were supposed to be formidable force.

In other words, you have around 1400+ best medium and heavy tanks in the world. Adding to that, you have also 10.000 tanks of the other types.
On the German side you got around 1400 "outclassed" German Pz III and Pz IV and some additional wonders like Pz II, Pz I and Czech tanks, that should never come there.

Yes, USSR as a friendly and peace-loving country had "extremely low number" of tanks. You got it right .

Not true. In '41 the T34's were scarce and they inflicted heavy casualties in direct tank to tank combat (it usually wasn't the German tanks that got em, it was Howitzers, FlaK's, air support etc)

Tank's main role is not to fight another tank. This is the end of list of tasks. People think about tanks in WWII only in terms of "tank duels". Thats really, really wrong.

What are the disadvantages? The purpose of armor is protection, sloping armor increases protection. Or am I missing something?

You have to fit everything inside, somehow. Sloped armor drastically reduces the space.
In first version everything was so so packed inside, that it posed problems for crews. Turret was changed few times before the T-34/85 was introduced.
Not to forget that you create beautiful sloped armor, but you also make two places in which the frontal armor is weakened (machinegun place and driver's hatch).

Face it guys, the T34 was the best tank of World War 2

Nope.

Best only in production numbers. It had some upper hand in 41, that this was lost due to faults I mentioned earlier.
Some of faults were fixed in later versions in the following years, but then T-34 was no longer "the best". It was an average tank.

On battle field Pz IV H was pretty equal to T-34/85.

And it cannot compare to Panther, but Panther should not be compared to it. Panther was something around medium-heavy tank.
Compare it rather to JS-2.

skarczew wrote:

alex0809 wrote:AFAIK, the T34 "on paper" was unbelievably superior to the German tanks in '41.

Only on paper. Have you ever had the experience with rough Russian production quality?

That's why I explicitely said "on paper". Because that data is what you have to use for a game.

skarczew wrote:

That's not "glorifying the tank", that's a fact. After all, as soon as the T34 was discovered the Germans (I guess partially also because of the KV tanks), you could almost call it overreacted and immediately (re-)started development of their heavy tanks.

This started earlier, in France tanks also had problems with heavy French tanks. Hitler demanded for tanks to be equipped with heavier gun.

Maybe, but I think serious development started only after the shortcomings against T34 had been discovered (after all, the Panther was built as a counter to it).
And Hitler... yeah, let's just say.. Hitler demanded a lot

skarczew wrote:

However, it had a lot of shortcomings too. First of all, when the T34 really was outclassing ANY German tank on the battlefield by far, it was only used in extremely low numbers so the Germans could (after all they had radio equipment which the Russians were lacking too) encircle the T34 and destroy it (there goes your T34 horde bonus ). And the Germans also had their StuKas.

French heavy tanks were also outclassing German ones.

Stuka in version G was introduced later.

Sorry, I don't really get that one. I don't know anything about WW2 planes, but wasn't StuKas used with success in the French and Polish campaign too?

skarczew wrote:From battlefield.ru:

By the beginning of the war Western frontier districts had 19 mechanized corps, including 10,394 tanks of all kinds (other sources state — 11,000). Taking in consideration tanks in some rifle, cavalry, and separate tank units this amount increases to 12,782 tanks (by information at June 1st). T-34 tanks were only 7.5% of this amount.

However, on June 22, 1941, Germany with its allies deployed 3,899 tanks and assault guns including the Reserve of Supreme commandment of Wehrmacht — 2nd and 5th tank divisions (originally didn't participate in fights) — against our Western frontier. Only 1,404 of them were medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV, so 967 T-34 tanks (we should consider also 504 heavy KV) were supposed to be formidable force.

In other words, you have around 1400+ best medium and heavy tanks in the world. Adding to that, you have also 10.000 tanks of the other types.
On the German side you got around 1400 "outclassed" German Pz III and Pz IV and some additional wonders like Pz II, Pz I and Czech tanks, that should never come there.

Yes, USSR as a friendly and peace-loving country had "extremely low number" of tanks. You got it right .

It also says

As a result, crews did not master most of the received T-34s. Mechanics knew the system of the tanks very poorly. This was one of the reasons for high percentage of non-fighting losses of the KVs and T-34s during first months of the war.

Unfortunately, we couldn't use it in full. Unsuccessful location, shortage of people and equipment, lack of crews' training, reserve parts for tanks and evacuation vehicles significantly reduced fighting efficiency of the Soviet mechanized corps. During long marches (most of the mechanized corps formations were deployed pretty far from the borderline) not only old tanks but also new T-34s and KVs were breaking.

T-34 tanks were only 7.5% of this amount.

I admit, I thought it was lower. But the fact remains, it was not even a tenth of the available tanks, the crews werent trained and non-combat losses were very high. And still the T34 had big success in some places and caused panic among Germans.

Not true. In '41 the T34's were scarce and they inflicted heavy casualties in direct tank to tank combat (it usually wasn't the German tanks that got em, it was Howitzers, FlaK's, air support etc)

Tank's main role is not to fight another tank. This is the end of list of tasks. People think about tanks in WWII only in terms of "tank duels". Thats really, really wrong.

But this topic IS about tank vs tank fights. Of course the T34 was not especially designed as a tank hunter - but that doesn't mean you can't compare it to German tanks.

What are the disadvantages? The purpose of armor is protection, sloping armor increases protection. Or am I missing something?

You have to fit everything inside, somehow. Sloped armor drastically reduces the space.
In first version everything was so so packed inside, that it posed problems for crews. Turret was changed few times before the T-34/85 was introduced.
Not to forget that you create beautiful sloped armor, but you also make two places in which the frontal armor is weakened (machinegun place and driver's hatch).

But that's also, at least in my opinion, not really of any matter for the game. Well, maybe it could be portrayed by something like a low initiative.

Face it guys, the T34 was the best tank of World War 2

Nope.

Best only in production numbers. It had some upper hand in 41, that this was lost due to faults I mentioned earlier.
Some of faults were fixed in later versions in the following years, but then T-34 was no longer "the best". It was an average tank.

On battle field Pz IV H was pretty equal to T-34/85.

And it cannot compare to Panther, but Panther should not be compared to it. Panther was something around medium-heavy tank.
Compare it rather to JS-2.

For me it is the best tank because it is in my opinion the best combination of firepower, protection and mobility. Apart, as I said, from the Panther - but that is not really comparable. Maybe I should have put it "most useful tank". The Panzer IV H was equal in combat, maybe, but technically it had a worse gun, was slower and the armor was more or less equal.

Also, take in mind that lots of western publications glorify T-34 beyond limits, and flame Sherman to be the worst thing in the world. And imho Sherman was better tank than T-34.

If someone wants to read how great T-34 was, google "Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S.".

When one wishes to verify historical facts, one need only to turn to primary source documents - it is not difficult to find interviews with the German Panzer Veterans who state quite plainly exactly how powerful T-34 was(and how vulnerable Sherman was).
German saving graces in much of the war almost always were superior communication, tactics, and synergy of arms.

From Ostfront, Hitler's War on Russia 1941-1945, by Charles Winchester, pages 90-91.

That's not exactly a primary source, but I'll bite.
Point is that Panther and Tiger were designed as German counters to the T-34 and KV, so obviously they did what they were designed to do, once they were introduced(though both had major mechanical issues).
Yet, during the time after the invasion of Russia began, but prior to Panther/Tiger being introduced, Germans were severely outmatched by Soviet KV and T-34.
With KV in particular Germans had basically three options - wait for it to run out of ammunition, call in Luftwaffe strike on the tank, or roll in/set up the 88mm AA Gun (and when soldiers are forced to re-purpose an antiaircraft gun to shoot tanks it shows just how desperate the situation was). There are some very striking records of the early encounters of these two Russian tanks and the Panzers, if you are curious.

If you wan't the stats I'm happy to type them in but suffice to say that The armour thickness of Pz III J ( germanys top tank in 41) was thinner on all sides than T-34's except for a slight advantage at the front but T-34 wins here because of its dramatic frontal slope. Penetration of the comparible guns is similar so they both get 9 (which is fair enough) but because the 50 mm KwK 38 L/42 was a smaller and lighter round, its shell is much less likely to bite into the sloped armour of the T -34. This is why you hear about deflections and bounces etc, where the heavier shot from the Russian tank was easily more damaging (even if it did not penetrate).
Again in Panzer corps, IV F tank has surprising superior defense of 13 in 1941, (I'm really not sure why maybe some skirts) where its armour was also thinner on all sides except for front. It is true that this tank received the longer barrel in 42 and had better penetration but its armour remained thinner throughout. It was very likely a more polished vehicle than the russian's produced at this time but its defensive rating of 13 seems to short change T-34 a bit here.
It should also be noted that T34 43 (actually arrived in 42), received a larger turret with a better gun, stronger amour, space for gunners and better vision but gets only + 1 attack .
I can't comment on quality of amour as this tends to vary even from factory to factory but it seems likely that German plate was of better quality earlier on in the war than what the russians could produce, but hard penetration data on these variations are hard to come by. Its obvious that the 76.2 mm gun caused a few concerns here.
I'm not here to glorify T-34, far from it. Like all tanks it had its problems but i think it was modelled better in Pg 1 were it commanded respect from its more experienced adversaries and had more credible defensive stats.
And to those who mention slope was not so important should look closely at all the tanks that came out after T-34, even to the modern day.

alex0809 wrote:That's why I explicitely said "on paper". Because that data is what you have to use for a game.

You are really wrong there. I will give an example from PG 1:
- early versions of T-34 have very low Initiative; this improves a bit later; reason - cramped turret, very hard to observe terrain around;
- Me-109 G has lower Initiative than Me-109 F; reason - after adding new engine the plane got heavier, less maneuverable and lost a lot of its good flight characteristics;

And Hitler... yeah, let's just say.. Hitler demanded a lot

This time he was right. You do not really think he was always wrong, do you?
Later he discovered that his demands / instructions were ignored.

Sorry, I don't really get that one. I don't know anything about WW2 planes, but wasn't StuKas used with success in the French and Polish campaign too?

In Poland there was no problem, as German tanks presented pretty the same level as Polish ones. Just on the Polish side there were much less of them than on German, and adding to that they were very dispersed.
I don't have knowledge about France.
Stuka's prime AT version was G. Before that it just could try to divebomb - but with not-so-slow T-34 it could be a problem. I believe early Stukas were more successful against soft targets - or stationary hard ones.

I admit, I thought it was lower. But the fact remains, it was not even a tenth of the available tanks, the crews werent trained and non-combat losses were very high. And still the T34 had big success in some places and caused panic among Germans.

The point I wanted to give is that Russians had either advantage in numbers, or in technology (better tanks on paper). The Purges removed a lot of experienced soldiers, so when you combine it with better equipment, it should be on the same level with Germans. It was not, so I agree that the problem was the same as with Panther on Kursk - breaking due to technical problems.

I also represent position that some problems with equipment should be reflected in stats .

But that's also, at least in my opinion, not really of any matter for the game. Well, maybe it could be portrayed by something like a low initiative.

I will give you an example. Where would you feel better, hours after driving to battlefield: in cramped, noisy, problematic T-34, or in luxurious Pz III or Sherman?
There are things you cannot translate into "paper" values, but it had influence on real fight.

For me it is the best tank because it is in my opinion the best combination of firepower, protection and mobility. Apart, as I said, from the Panther - but that is not really comparable. Maybe I should have put it "most useful tank". The Panzer IV H was equal in combat, maybe, but technically it had a worse gun, was slower and the armor was more or less equal.

I am not sure with the gun, as millimeter does not really translate into "better" in case of T-34.
Sherman's 76 mm was better than T-34/85 main gun (Russians tested it themselves and they were surprised).
Same for Panther's 75 mm.

For me Panzer IV probably got better gun, T-34 got thicker armor (lower quality, but sloping may make it equal).
In the end, the winner is T-34 with its 40-60k units produced.

ImaginaryStar wrote:When one wishes to verify historical facts, one need only to turn to primary source documents - it is not difficult to find interviews with the German Panzer Veterans who state quite plainly exactly how powerful T-34 was(and how vulnerable Sherman was).
German saving graces in much of the war almost always were superior communication, tactics, and synergy of arms.

T-34 was powerful when it was working . And yes, I agree - it was a threat then.

But now you compare situation from year 41 with the situation from 44. If you would be driving in Panzer I then T-34 or KV-1 would be like a suicidal fight.
Similar example is with Sherman - in years 44-45 they were vulnerable to Panther and Tiger - and somewhat equal to Panzer IV, but German tanks were a different class.

Seeing problems with German tanks, British modified Sherman and made a Firefly, which become a real danger even for Tigers.
And Yankees were just calling for air support.

Sherman was less brutal for its crew (very comfortable compared with Russian products), some problems with catching fire were solved after introduction of "wet" ammo boxes.
Far more reliable, easy to produce, modify (look at Firefly and Jumbo).

I have an impression that most of military enthusiasts from western countries are blaming Sherman for nothing and idolizing T-34 after reading some of best USSR propaganda.

Check conflict in Korea, Sherman did not do so bad against T-34.

(...)
59 of the engagements involved Army M4A3E8 76mm. The Marines didn't operate the 76mm M4's in Korea, only the Army and later, ROK forces (ie. the photo in Hunnicutt "Sherman" p.501 is mislabelled). Marine 105mm flame or dozer M4's were present in 2 engagements including M-26's, no tank v tank engagements on their own. 20 M4A3E8's were knocked out by T-34's, 6 recovered and repaired, 8 permanent losses, 6 undetermined by the study. They were credited with 64 out of 144 T-34's definitely or possibly ko'd by US tanks according to the study. Of that 144, 97 were definite, 18 probable and 28 'improbable', but that's not broken down by US type. Numbers were equal in 55% of the individual combats even though the US tank force started out smaller in July but rapidly became much larger than the KPA one by August, KPA numbers superior 17% of the time, US 27%.
(...)

Check conflict in Korea, Sherman did not do so bad against T-34.

Confused - the excerpt is about the M26 not the Sherman.

El_Condoro wrote:

Check conflict in Korea, Sherman did not do so bad against T-34.

Confused - the excerpt is about the M26 not the Sherman.

Thanks for noticing it . Fixed. I blame the late hour - after midnight already and I havent slept too much today (lots of work).

You think that's a problem - I'm on 297 (298 with this one) posts and will probably lose my StuG avatar! Now, that's tension.

Some people glorified T-34, so some additional info for their delight I remembered .

- Due to a process of creatign armor for T-34, its armor was really "hard" in technical terms. It was quite often happening that even though the armor was not penetrated, the crew was severely injure due to internal fragments of cracked armor.
This was much less frequent in German and Yankee tanks. In German tanks in particular the surface was harder, but the inner part was soft. German crews especially liked the armor of Tiger I.

Btw, the armor of King Tiger was considered inferior to that of Tiger I by both German crews and Russian engineers who tested it at Kubinka, even though it was thicker and sloped.
Moreover, it had the same characteristic of T-34 that after being hit the internal fragments of armor were ricocheting inside in the hull.

- Sherman 75mm gun outpenetrated T34 76.2mm, and Sherman 76mm outpenetrated T34/85 85mm.

- In Soviet live fire tests vs Tiger II at Kubinka US "76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater then domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."

- US inspections of KO'd T-34-85s in Korea found that 75% of the North Korea PA crews did not survive their tanks destruction compared to 18% in US tank crews.

El_Condoro wrote:You think that's a problem - I'm on 297 (298 with this one) posts and will probably lose my StuG avatar! Now, that's tension.

I would like to have some tank instead of this destroyer . .

skarczew wrote: - US inspections of KO'd T-34-85s in Korea found that 75% of the North Korea PA crews did not survive their tanks destruction compared to 18% in US tank crews.

It was part of Soviet war philosophy - winning by overwhelming production. Crews were given a few hours of lecture and sent into battle, tanks themselves easily salvageable. Mortality rate of the crews was not a major concern, since much like tanks themselves, they could be replaced at the drop of a hat.
To put it simply, I would sum up Tiger, with it's elite crew and sophisticated tech, as a tank that "wins battles, not wars" while T-34 as a tank "that wins wars, not battles".

It is actually a fascinating to see what would happen if a unit of high quality, "elite" T-34 was made: with great optics, radio, high quality steel, spall liner, with highly trained, veteran crew. Alas, we'll never know.

German saving graces in much of the war almost always were superior communication, tactics, and synergy of arms.

A point very much missed by many. German tanks since 39 had ALL radio equipment a feature which allow direct Tank-Tank communication and definitely has been a major factor in the superior tactical organisation of the german tank forces on the battlefield.

The french did not have (many) seperately organized tank units. The tanks were instead scattered around infantry or cavalry formations where they where then facing the organized tactical combat units of 4 or 5 tanks of the germans and therefore where at a major tactical disadvantage.
PLUS they lacked radio communication, whilst the germans could easily coordinate their tank fire via Radio.

I agree though that in PzC the T-34 maybe has a too low GD value (compared to 41 Pz III and Pz IV models), but at the same time its initiative is way too overpowered...as scarczew brough up, turret cramped, no radio communication, etc.

A similar "scattering" of tanks was a major drawback for the effective use of T-34 / KV tanks in russia in '41. The really superior (compared to german '41 tanks) T-34s were used as "command" tanks for units of otherwise ultra weak tanks like the T-26.

So it was 1 T-34 and 3 or 4 or even more low grade tanks....without proper communication the numerical effect was also less sever and the germans could much better maneuver in battle. Whilst the already cramped crew of the T-34 had also the heavy task of commanding the less effective tanks around the battlefield (by hand sign or similar....remember NO radio).

This had the effect that the germans had to face only low numbers of high grade russian tanks at once, although the overall number of good quality T-34 / KV models was equal or even higher than the amount of "good" Pz III/IV models of the germans (in '41).

IMO the Pz IIIs and IVs in '41 should have an initiative advantage against (nearly) all tanks of that time, whilst having lower GD as T-34 someone already pointed out correctly the armor was thinner than T-34s at that time.

HA of the 50L42/L60 should be roughly equal to the T-34s value....the IVs 75L24 gun should have a lower HA though - BUT higher initiative.

Just my 2 cents without diving too deep into the discussion here.

EDIT: Tiger II armor weaker than Tiger Is ?!?....not really, for the earlier Tiger IIs, only the latest few were already manufactured with "low" quality steel which caused very detrimental effects on the armor quality - this is true though for nearly all german tanks produced in spring '45.

ImaginaryStar wrote: It was part of Soviet war philosophy - winning by overwhelming production. Crews were given a few hours of lecture and sent into battle, tanks themselves easily salvageable. Mortality rate of the crews was not a major concern, since much like tanks themselves, they could be replaced at the drop of a hat.
To put it simply, I would sum up Tiger, with it's elite crew and sophisticated tech, as a tank that "wins battles, not wars" while T-34 as a tank "that wins wars, not battles".

It is actually a fascinating to see what would happen if a unit of high quality, "elite" T-34 was made: with great optics, radio, high quality steel, spall liner, with highly trained, veteran crew. Alas, we'll never know.

Yep.
It was general philosophy in USRR these years, based deeply in the history of pre-Soviet Russia.
Human life has never been the issue there: purges, collectivization (and famine in Ukraine), etc.

USRR had such human reserves Germany could only dream of. So the tanks and crew could always be easily replaced .

I think those tanks in Korea were quite high quality. War was no longer on Russian territory, also after WW II the production of T-34 begun in Poland and Czechoslovakia - a lot of nowadays functional T-34 were produced there, not in USRR.
Also, those tanks shipped to Aberdeen were from one of the best factories.

Regarding the discussion, I see the following fix possible: increase strength of T-34 (T-26 also) units to 15. This would create quite accurate feeling of "overwhelming hordes of T-34" .

Just my 2 cents without diving too deep into the discussion here.

Quite good ones. Thanks for input .

Tiger II armor weaker than Tiger Is ?!?....not really, for the earlier Tiger IIs, only the latest few were already manufactured with "low" quality steel which caused very detrimental effects on the armor quality - this is true though for nearly all german tanks produced in spring '45.

I meant to say that Tiger I from 1942 had better armor than King Tiger from 1945.