Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (7) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Who was most successful in tank design?
 
Who was most successful in tank design?
Germany [ 25 ]  [119.05%]
Soviet Union [ 15 ]  [71.43%]
USA [ 1 ]  [4.76%]
Great Britain [ 2 ]  [9.52%]
France [ 2 ]  [9.52%]
Czechoslovakia [ 1 ]  [4.76%]
Total Votes: 46
Guests cannot vote 
C-2
Posted on February 23, 2004 09:38 pm
Quote Post


General Medic
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 2453
Member No.: 19
Joined: June 23, 2003



I'm a Panther fan,but I voted for the T-34.It was the first modern tank:wider tracks,that achived lower ground presure and as a result impruved traction.He was capable to further developments,coil springs suspention,450 km range,and easy to manufacture without great expences.
Was in use long into the 50's.
In the war museum in Bucharest ,there are side by side a PZ4 and a T 34.
The quality of the 34 would make a German tank ingenier to make a sepuku..,but I cam imagine myself the PZ 4 in the Russian mud....
And to admit it ,the Panther was greatly inspired from the T-34!
PMUsers Website
Top
Dr_V
Posted on February 23, 2004 11:42 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 71
Joined: August 05, 2003



QUOTE
C-2:
And to admit it ,the Panther was greatly inspired from the T-34!


Of course it was! In outside shape the most, but also in some functional features, as the idea of a swift, fast moving tank that gives a bit from the armor for agility and maneuvrability in harsh terrain conditions.

Actually the Panther is what a T34 would have been if it would have been constructed in Germany. The early T34 tanks suffered from a lot of problems in actual combat, the most severe being the poor gun accuracy at long range and the need to stop the tank to fire the gun accurately (regardless of how close). The T34 also had quite a few mechanical problems at its beginings, but was compensating by being relatively easy to repair in the field.

Only the T34/85 was a real mach for the Panther, but not superior. The early mechanical faults of the Panthers refined engine under Russian terrain conditions played a decissive role, as they occured in the crucial moment when the Panther design could have altered the fate of the battle.

My belief is that the Panther was a bit ahead of its time, being a wonderfull and complex machine, inspired by an already good, but crude design (the T34). But in the circumstances of the the rush of the German strategy it had no time for the "maturation" test period that would have given it the endurance needed in battle.


Against the IS2... "face to face" it's obvious that a Panther couldn't withstand that Russian monster, but as the IS2 was a heavyer and much slower tank (I've found it even described as "clumbsy") in a battle the agility could count for something. Anyway, the Soviet workhorse was the T34, not the Stalin and there were the Tigers and the Jagdpanthers to engage them. I don't say the Panther was the most powerfull tank, just that I believe it was overall the best design of its class and trully was an effective weapon against its main foe, the T34.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted on February 24, 2004 12:21 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Dr, you post is full of inaccuracies. All tanks in WW2 had to stop in order to mark a clear shot, since the gun stabilizer was invented after the war. Then, IS-2 was not heavier than Panther, they had aproximately the same weight. T-34 was the Soviet tank that resembled the Panzer IV in production and class (given by weight). Then, you say that only T-34/85 was a real match for Panther, what about KV-85? Even the T-34 with long barelled 76mm gun could penetrate the armor of Panther.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted on February 24, 2004 10:59 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



It seems I have been wrong about gun stabilizer. US tanks M4 Sherman, M3 and M5 had gun stabilizers, but a primitive gun stabilizer was also used by some Soviet T-28s.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted on February 24, 2004 11:29 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Here is an interesting evaluation of the T-34.
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives...stat/stat7.html
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Von Maybach
Posted on February 24, 2004 07:31 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Member No.: 209
Joined: January 27, 2004



I see that the discussion fosused on a T-35 vs. Panther debate. I'll add some quotes in favour of the Panther:

QUOTE
German comparison of German tanks with the new (at the time) Russian T-34/85 and JS-II (122mm), from March 23rd of 1944, stated that: \"The Panther is far superior to the T34-85 for frontal fire (Panther Ausf G could penetrate frontal armor of T-34/85 at 800m, while T-34/85 could penetrare frontal armor of Panther Ausf G at 500m), approximately equal for side and rear fire, superior to the JS for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear fire.\" In 1943 and 1944, Panther was able to destroy any enemy tank in existence at ranges of 2000m, while in general veteran Panther crews reported 90 percent hit rate at ranges up to 1000m. According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s.  


from achtungpanzer website.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

QUOTE
Since 1943, Soviets captured some number of various variants of Panther, which equipped some of their tank units such as Lieutenant Sotnikov's Guard Company. This unit used captured Panthers as late as spring of 1945, when they had 3 Ausf As, while operating in Prague (Praga) - district of Warsaw. Soviets held Panthers in high regard and considered captured Panther to be a prize. Captured Panthers were then given to successful crews as a kind of reward. In order to keep them running captured German mechanics were pressed into service and in 1944, Panther's manual was printed in Russian for distribution among tank crews. Captured vehicles temporarily remained in their original colors but with markings of their new owners. Later, some were repainted in dark green and were marked with large tactical markings and white stars for indentification purposes.
PM
Top
C-2
Posted on February 24, 2004 08:14 pm
Quote Post


General Medic
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 2453
Member No.: 19
Joined: June 23, 2003



The Germans used to call the Sherman tank "Ronson"(the famous lighter)-because they caught fire imediatly....
PMUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted on February 24, 2004 09:38 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
The JS-2 had better penetration ability, it could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor from 1100-1200 metres, while the Panther could penetrate the JS-2's armor from only 600-700 metres.


From The JS-2 in Comparison with Its German Counterparts

So where is the truth ?
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
cuski
Posted on February 24, 2004 11:29 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Member No.: 85
Joined: August 21, 2003



QUOTE

From The JS-2 in Comparison with Its German Counterparts

So where is the truth ?


Truth about...? I don't know, but from that article it is not obvious that the JS-2 is highly superiour to any of its german counterparts.

As for penetration, capabilities are not only determined by caliber, but also muzzle velocity... all in all, the 88mm Kwk had about 130m/s more than the 122mm on the JS2. AFAIK, even the 100mm gun the russians had, had better penetration values than the 122mm. Additionally, the German shells, with tungsten core, had better penetration abilities than the regular steel russian shells. The allied shells had a tendency to shatter, resulting in a far lesser practical real life value than the calculated value.

Here's my info regarding penetration figures:

88mm Kwk 36 L/56 (with PzGr40):
Muzzle velocity: 930 m/s

Penetration table
100m: 171mm
500m: 156mm
1000m: 138mm
1500m: 123mm
2000m: 110mm
2500m: ?

Source for these figures is JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

122mm M1931 A19 L/45
Muzzle velocity: 800m/s

Penetration table
100m: 128mm
200m: 127mm
400m: 125mm
800m: 121mm
1200m: 117mm
1600m: 112mm
2000m: 108mm
2400m: 104mm

All the values above, for the A19 gun, are calculated. You can expect penetration values to be much lower in reality, considering the shattering effect of allied projectiles.


About the stabilization present in the M3s and M4s, it was such a crude device that it ended up being completely removed or, if not, turned off by the crews, as there were many issues and hazards with using it... it was later on reintroduced in the M26 Pershing (I think the E1 version).
PM
Top
dragos
Posted on February 25, 2004 08:12 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
Truth about...? I don't know, but from that article it is not obvious that the JS-2 is highly superiour to any of its german counterparts.


Achtung Panzer says that Panther is "superior to the JS for frontal fire", while the article in Russian Battlefield says the oposite.

Note that the gun used by Panther was 75mm KwK 42, and for IS-2 122 mm D-25 not A-19.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
cuski
Posted on February 25, 2004 08:28 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Member No.: 85
Joined: August 21, 2003



QUOTE
Achtung Panzer says that Panther is \"superior to the JS for frontal fire\", while the article in Russian Battlefield says the oposite.

Note that the gun used by Panther was 75mm KwK 42, and for IS-2 122 mm D-25 not A-19.


The D-25 was the result of the marriage between the barrel of A-19 Field Cannon and the carriage of the M-30 Howitzer. Both designations are correct.

My comparison was not between JS2 and Panthers specifically, but rather JS2 and its german counterparts at the time, as you can see from my post.

I chose to compare the 122mm gun with the 88mm Kwk L/56 (since this is commonly accepted as the best performing gun the germans had) installed on the Tiger - just for the purposes of demonstrating that larger caliber doesn't necessarily mean better penetration.
PM
Top
cuski
Posted on February 25, 2004 08:38 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Member No.: 85
Joined: August 21, 2003



Here's the penetration table for the 75mm Kwk 42 L/70 - surprisingly, even better figures than the 88mm, mainly due to the higher muzzle velocity:

Muzzle velocity: 990m/s

Penetration table
100m: 194mm
500m: 174mm
1000m: 149mm
1500m: 127mm
2000m: 106mm


Still better than the JS-2.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted on February 25, 2004 09:11 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Penetration values for D-25 gun (http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_4.htm...gun_penetration)

500m: 152mm
1000m: 142mm
1500m: 133mm
2000m: 122mm

It seems it was weaker for lower range and better for longer range. However, the armor protection of IS-2 was also better.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted on February 25, 2004 04:14 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



T-34 and Iosef Stalin - all things considered (design, manufacturing technology, cost of production, fuel used, tracks pressure, speed).

I know, the Soviet optical aim systems were not so good. But I still back my option.
PM
Top
Von Maybach
Posted on February 25, 2004 04:44 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Member No.: 209
Joined: January 27, 2004



I notice that everyone talks about the Panther, Tiger, T-34 and Joseph Stalin tanks. Do you people forget about the excellent Panzer 3 and 4? I think that those 2 were the best designs of WW2 (mostly the Pz. IV) -they were very well balanced from all points of view (think at the PZ. IV H and G versions or the 50mm cannon version Pz. III), performed well in all theaters of war, and could be up-graded.

And another type of tanks usualy forgotten are the assault guns and tank hunters, the Stug, Hetzer, Sturmgeshutz, the Jagdtpanzers and Marder. They were produced in greater numbers than the regular tanks and they were put to good use. Aren't those excellent designs as well -far better than any allied tracked AFV?

And another prof that the germans had better designed tanks: the russians had two man turrets -the t-34 in particular had little crew space in it's turret- while the german had 3 men in a turret - with lots of room inside. The german tank commander didn't have a secondary duty (such as gunner or loader) and he could concentrate only on naviation and observation, while in a T-34, the commander was gunner. Instead of looking on the road he was busy with the gun, that's a major drawback of the soviet designs. And also, the germans had the comander cupola, giving the commander (and the tank) a full and clean 360 degres view.
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (7) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0365 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]