# The best AFV in the Kursk bulge 1943.



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2006)

Simple question, wich was in your opinion the best performer Armored vehicle in this enormous battle.


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2006)

The Tiger, no doubt.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

Simple answer to a simple question; Tiger I. 

The Churchill does not even come into the competition, although it's inclusion in the battle does show the importance of the Western aid to the Red Army. In the Battle of Prokhorovka the only available heavy tanks for the Fifth Guards Tank Army were 35 Churchills. 

The Ferdinand gained a deadly reputation, and achieved many kills. But in reality it was vulnerable to Russian infantry at this point and it was far from a perfect machine. 

The Panther was a bitter let down. It's mechanical troubles were far from iron out and it was released into combat much too early to make a difference, or even an impact. 

The Pz. Kpfw IV Ausf G was the standard machine of the Wehrmacht and made no impact on the battlefield. Yes, it did achieve a healthy record as the whole Wehrmacht did during the battle of Kursk. But it certainly did not stand out. 

The Pz. Kpfw III could not stand out it was too light. It suffered heavily from the hordes of T-34s. 

The T-34 suffered heavily during the combat, alongside the KV-1. Both were thrown headlong into the German machines which were plainly superior. And the tanks, along with their crews, suffered accordingly. 

The SU-152 is a close contender here. It achieved the nickname "Beast Killer" during Kursk, as it was the only machine in Soviet hands that would stand up to any of the Wehrmacht machines and have any chance of survival. It certainly made a name for itself in both armies. 

However, the gold goes to the Tiger I. Alone it almost achieved complete victory for the Wehrmacht during Kursk. They alone collapsed a whole frontage on the northern flank. They were the piercing point of the German attack and they carried the assault straight through. With better support and more depth the Tiger would be remembered as the machine that won Kursk, because it came so close to doing so anyway.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2006)

I Think that the performance of the Ferdinand in 7-1943 was always understimated.

Churchill in Kursk:

*Churchill Mk.IV of the 49th Guard Heavy Tank Regiment of the 18th Guard Tank Corps of the 5th Guard Tank Army passes a destroyed SdKfz 232. Kharkov area. July 1943.* 






*Churchill Mk.III of the 36th Guard Heavy Tank Regiment of the 18th Guard Tank Corps of the 5th Guard Tank Army destroyed at Prokhorovka area. July 1943. *


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

I don't think it is under-estimated. Everything I have read about it has given me the idea that it was a truly remarkable tank destroyer, and extremely deadly to anything and everything. But it was vulnerable to infantry... 

Good pictures of the Churchill, as I said, those were the only heavy tanks available to the Fifth Guards Tank Army. It really shows that the Western aid was needed, and definately appreciated by the soldiers at the front if not the anti-West propaganda of the Communist government.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 19, 2006)

Tiger for me too, the 88 took a terrible toll on the T-34's (and did the Panther's when they didn't break down).


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2006)

*Some notes about the performance of the Porsche Ferdinand in KursK:*

Ferdinands were assigned to schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and 654 (each was to be equipped with 45 Ferdinands), in preparation for the Kursk offensive (Unternehmen "Zitadelle") in July of 1943. Both units were formed in April of 1943 at Bruck. sPzJagAbt 653 was formed from personnel from 197th Sturmgeschuetz Abteilung. sPzJagAbt 653 was commanded by Major Steinwachs, while sPzJagAbt 654 by Major Karl-Heinz Noak, both (along with Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 - equipped with Brummbars) formed the 656 sPanzerjager Regiment commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Jungenfled.In fact, sPzJagAbt 653 had 45 Ferdinands, while sPzJagAbt 654 had 44 Ferdinands as a single one was still being tested at Kummersdorf. In order to provide Ferdinands with ammunition, six Panzer IIIs were converted into Munition Schleppers attached to the Ferdinand units. 656 sPanzerjager Regiment was part of 41st Panzer Corps (under command of General Harpe) of Army Group Center for the upcoming operation.


Many Ferdinands were destroyed either by their crews after being immobilized (by combat damage or mechanical problem) or by Soviet infantry and artillery as well as by SU-152 "Zwieroboj" heavy mechanised guns. It was recorded that some Ferdinand's crews (ex. Major Noak's crew) used to fire their 7.92mm MG34 machine guns through the barrel of main 88mm gun while others mounted their 7.92mm MG34 underneath the gun, in order to fire at the enemy infantry units. Temporary field-made solution was the rear mounted platform for Panzergrenadiers, but it only resulted in heavy casualties among them. During the Kursk offensive until November of 1943, Ferdinands from sPzJagAbt 653 destroyed some 320 Soviet tanks and lost 13 Ferdinands, while entire 656 sPanzerjager Regiment destroyed some 502 Soviet tanks and 100 other vehicles. Ferdinands proved to be very effective when employed behind the lines.


*On the first day of action, we successfully engaged bunkers, infantry, field and anti-tank artillery positions. For three hours our guns (Ferdinands) fought in the cavalcade of enemy fire and proved to be immune to enemy fire !. In the evening of the first day, first enemy tanks were destroyed, while others retreated. Crews of field and anti-tank guns run away after firing few uneffective shots against our guns (Ferdinands). In first engagements our regiment (656 sPanzerjager Regiment) destroyed numerous artillery positions, bunkers as well as 120 enemy tanks...".* - Report from July 19th of 1943 by Platoon commander Boehm


----------



## Erich (Feb 19, 2006)

Tiger 1 without a doubt, the W-SS korps destroyed the Soviet opposition with hardly a casualty.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 19, 2006)

Tiger 1 hands down....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2006)

> The Pz. Kpfw III could not stand out it was too light. It suffered heavily from the hordes of T-34s.



And also from the well entrenched AT guns.

















Panther destroyed....By his own crew maybe ?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 21, 2006)

That Panther could well have destroyed itself CharlesBronson.


My views are broadly the same as PlanD's - yes I also rate the Tiger highest!

These are the differences:

KV1

The S was IMHO the worst version, the later KV1's were good but not great.

Pz IV

The only German tank that came close to the T34's near-perfect balance of attributes, but never excelled in any area.

Panther D

This was an own goal. Rushed prototype, bad design, quality that was way below the T34's - silly idea. Hopes were pinned on this tank, it's absolute failure destroying German morale (and improving the Soviet's). However it's gun was still very lethal and frightening to the soviets, a few 75mm L70's used as field guns or in PanzerJagers would have been better?

SU-152

Zveraboy 8) - But has a massive reload to match it's mega payload.

Tiger

Unreliabe, used wrongly - but the best all-rounder.

Ferd

Used wrongly. The best vs tanks, but is infantry considered or not??
IIRC some upgraded Ferd's (Elefant's) were used in the closing stages of Kursk? This may be my 1st choice too CharlesBronson.  

Churchill

You underestimate this PlanD. The MkIII had 102mm of armour and a 6pdr gun - OK if not excellent.

It was also hard to immobilize, as it's tracks were designed to stand up to extreme punishment.

Pz III

This had well passed it's sell-by date by this point, but could still take on a T34 or KV1 if handled properly.

T34

The best of the /76 versions. Could (and did) take on a Tiger if used craftily enough, though cavalry charges reduced it's effectiveness drastically. Many simply rammed the Tigers.


Tactics need looking at, the Soviets even fired on the move!

The smokescreen the Soviets layed down was the deciding factor IMHO.


There are a few omissions I believe are important:

Canuck Valentine/76

Tetrarch

SU85

SU122


----------



## MacArther (Feb 21, 2006)

Can anyone find a picture of a refitted Valentine that has the 76mm gun? I have looked high and low, and can't find one.


----------



## Erich (Feb 21, 2006)

CB none of the German armor was destroyed by Soviet AT. they have all been exploded from within


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2006)

Came on Erich, a simple 57 or 76 mm shot could penetrate in the Pz III and detonate his magazine.



> Can anyone find a picture of a refitted Valentine that has the 76mm gun



A have an image of a Valentine in Kursk but i think is a 6 pounder.


----------



## Henk (Feb 21, 2006)

CharlesBronson do have more pics on the Ferdinand. Din't the Ferdinad suffer great losses in the battle of Kursk, because it did not have anti infantry weapons?

Was the Elifant not a better one?

The Tiger Tank are the best tank in this suttuation.

Henk


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2006)

I do have.

A couple of Ferdinands under fire.







Captured, check the side penetration.


----------



## Henk (Feb 21, 2006)

Thanks mate. What do you think was the best the Elifant or the Ferdinand?

Henk


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2006)

The Elefant because his hull Mg and increased armour.


----------



## Henk (Feb 21, 2006)

I agree mate the Elefant was the best, dit it have great success in battle?

Henk


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 21, 2006)

Agreed...


----------



## Udet (Feb 21, 2006)

Sorry for not bringing up exact sources, but people who have devoted about their entire lives to research and/or study world ward two AFVs told me one of the greatest -and groundless- myths of the war is precisely the one affirming the Ferdinands took "horrible" losses to assaulting infantry during this battle. (By the way, Kursk is full of myths).

They told me their researches showed up the conditions to have soviet infantry assaulting the massive Ferdinands simply did not occur during this battle.

If I recall correctly only 89 Ferdinands were deployed during Kursk. 

Mr. Charles Bronson´s numbers are correct when referring to their losses: only 13 machines lost -*none*, repeat *none*, of them lost to "assaulting infantry"-.

Also the number of kills scored by the Ferdinands clearly speak of a pure killer. It is clear the Ferdinand surpassed any soviet tank killer.

It could be by far the greatest killing ratio ever achieved by any AFV.

One of my favorite books is George Nipe´s "Decision in the Ukraine". The book delivered a massive blow to the story told for such a long time by the soviet propaganda. Soviet mythology made one of its most prolific jobs out of Kursk, namely Prokhorova.

The book shook the walls of official soviet history so critically, all you have to do is visit some russian websites where -without making a clear mention of Nipe´s book- they try to "contest" the numbers provided by the author in his book, which showed the horrific losses endured by the red army.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2006)

Some of them were captured after the complicated Diesel-Electric transmition failed and his crew bailed out.

Check this.. at list 3 large calibre hits, none penetrated.


----------



## Henk (Feb 21, 2006)

Yes, none were lost deu to infantry, but still it was stuped to send it into battle with no defence against infantry.

Great pics CharlesBronson.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Feb 22, 2006)

You don't have to lose the vehicle to have infantry causing you trouble. They'd have been better with Jagdpanthers .


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

Yes, they would have, or Leopards for that matter. Problem was, they hadn't been made yet.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 22, 2006)

I think the SU-152 was the best unit present at Kursk. Don't get me wrong, the Jerries had some good equipment, but it often broke down or needed repairs. Plus, the big gun on the SU-152 is was known to blow turrets of enemy tanks completely off their rings, with an HE round! Even if the tank could not knock out an Elefant, it could probably knock it on its side with its HE shot.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

Maybe not blow a Ferd over? - but could push it into the ground?

1 encounter with ISU152's vs a Panther knocked the whole tank backward, the turret landing several metres away!!  

- Problem was, the explosion shattered the glass in the windows in the house above the SU, injuring crewmembers - ouch!


----------



## Erich (Feb 22, 2006)

hate to be a pain in the ass boys but you better list your sources when showing pics, none of these are originals within our data base as far as I am concerned. CB neither a 57mm or 76mm is going to do that to German armor, and it is doubtful that any of your pics are taken from Kursk anyway but from Soviet propaganda sources as I have seen them in other older works on battles in the Soviet Union from the 1960's-1970. Not trying to be an old bitch just being truthful so take it for what it is worth and do not freak out please


----------



## Udet (Feb 22, 2006)

Mr. Carlitos Bronson:

Did you read what I said in my last posting?

I know one Ferdinand was captured at Kursk -after the crew abandoned it-
Saw that particular monster so many times as a boy in Kubinka.

MacArther:

The SU-152 the best unit? You mean best vehicle seeing action there? If so, i have to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

First of all, battlefield facts: at Kursk German losses of tanks were more than moderate. So, it´d appear the role of the SU-152 and of any other soviet tank killer left a lot to be desired.

The AFV researchers I´ve met told that at Kursk, *the SU-152s knocked out only 1, repeat ONE, Ferdinand*. The impact did not even pierced the armor of the Ferdinand; it was not necessary perhaps, for the impact of the soviet heavy shell was more than enough to knock the enemy vehicle out of action.

It´s appear the soviet department for mythology affairs put it some 13 or 15 Ferdinands had been knocked out alone by their beloved SU-152s. Liars.

In fact, the SU-152 were tough nuts to crack, but were somewhat clumsy and had a very low rate of fire, also very little ammo could be carried inside. Roughly 20 shells.

Also, in the beginning the SU-152 lacked any defensive armament? Did it suffer at the hands of "assaulting German infantry"?

If a SU-152 clashes with a Ferdinand, both vehicles opening fire exactly at the same moment, the soviet crew will not have the pleasure of reloading their gun for the second shot before the Ferdinand -superior gun which will pierce the armor of the SU, turning the crew into beef patties and far superior optics- makes the SU-152 explode like a ripe tomato.

The SU-152 is in fact clearly inferior to the Ferdinand/Elefant. We know, hoever, there were far more SU-152s on the battlefield than Ferdinands.

Also MacArther, you have to double check your sources when affirming German equipment "broke down". That, I was also told, is another one of the myths soviet propaganda created.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 22, 2006)

Ok, I can understand that the SU 152 has limitations, but especially in the case of the Pather or Tiger (whichever had the interleaving road wheels) there was a VERY good chance for mechanical failure. This occured when dirt and debris got caught in the road wheels, and then froze over night, or even accummulated to a far too high degree. Also, I never claimed that the SU 152 knocked out droves of Elephants, so I don't see why you're trying to rebuttle me on that point.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

*Erich:*




> hate to be a pain in the ass boys but you better list your sources when showing pics, none of these are originals within our data base as far as I am concerned.



Yeah I thought so too, but it isn't hurting anyone? so why not leave off?



> CB neither a 57mm or 76mm is going to do that to German armor



They could destroy even Tigers (from the side), I know this for a fact.



> it is doubtful that any of your pics are taken from Kursk anyway but from Soviet propaganda sources as I have seen them in other older works



They could be, but I'm pretty sure these aren't.

If those are propaganda, then are all Allied or German pictures fact?


*Udet:*




> Saw that particular monster so many times as a boy in Kubinka.



You grew up in Russia? 8) 



> The AFV researchers I´ve met told that at Kursk, the SU-152s knocked out only 1, repeat ONE, Ferdinand.



I think it was more like 7-9, IIRC.



> It´s appear the soviet department for mythology affairs put it some 13 or 15 Ferdinands had been knocked out alone by their beloved SU-152s. Liars.



Yes, I think that's BS.



> In fact, the SU-152 were tough nuts to crack, but were somewhat clumsy and had a very low rate of fire, also very little ammo could be carried inside. Roughly 20 shells.



They weren't that tough, the gun was the best part. Kinda like a Hornisse in many ways...

A Ferd is gonna wreck an SU152 before the 152 can retort, due to both being lumbering beasties.



> Also, in the beginning the SU-152 lacked any defensive armament? Did it suffer at the hands of "assaulting German infantry"?



What's the best way to protect against infantry - other infantry!

'sides the SU152 did have a local defence weapon IIRC, or a 152mm HE shell!



> If a SU-152 clashes with a Ferdinand, both vehicles opening fire exactly at the same moment, the soviet crew will not have the pleasure of reloading their gun for the second shot before the Ferdinand -superior gun which will pierce the armor of the SU, turning the crew into beef patties and far superior optics- makes the SU-152 explode like a ripe tomato.



Yes, (and nice use of culinary language BTW  ) but:

The Soviets are gonna roughly aim due to poor training - maybe hit or not, even with the Ferd being such a big target. If there are lots of enemy tanks, the shot may hit one - kiling it.

The Ferd commander is going to take his time, get the SU firmly in his sights and fire at a good place. The 152 is probably dead by now, if not, the Ferd reloads and fires again - making sure.

If infantry approaches the Ferd, it has to run or be extremely cautious.

If I had the choice I'd take the Ferd, the crews were better too. 

If I was in a Ferd, I'd still be wary of the Zveraboi's, but make them priority targets.

I don't mean Zveraboi's are crap, quite the opposite, that's just my opinion.



> Also MacArther, you have to double check your sources when affirming German equipment "broke down". That, I was also told, is another one of the myths soviet propaganda created.



No, German equipment was about as reliable as a British Bus service (i.e. not very).


----------



## Erich (Feb 22, 2006)

evidently my statements regarding the internal explosions are not clear. the popping off the top of the deck would not be caused from a 76mm or 57mm round, they are internal blow outs or could of been even caused by a direct bomb hit. the explosives engaged by German crewmen when abandoning heavy armor of all sorts fill the bill exactly as shown. note the group of 4 Panzers in close proximityin the phot presented.

Soviet optics suck for a fact including the crudeness of tactics and internal equipment as you pointed out. in a fair off and long range duel the Germans have it hands down. The Su 152 was not a noted German panzer killer but more of heavy concrete pillbox buster. the vehicle was slower than a turd coming out, had a freind serve in the 1st Infantrie Div. in Ost Preussia` 45, they popped these slow beasts with panzerfuast from the rear and they really brewed up good according to him, besides getting stuck in the Preussian marshes something that is never told in modern day warfare history books. Ebenrode for one, that battle cost the Soviets 400 panzers to capture the area, and according to the Soviet propaganda books on the war in 1944-45 they call it a massive victory rolling over all opposition in October of 44. In reality they got their balls crunched pretty severly, did not matter what they used, T-34's Su's, or JS 1-'s or 2's


----------



## delcyros (Feb 22, 2006)

Hi all.
Can anyone provide a good link for the involved
tanks?
I am particularly interested in armor layout,
AP-shells (weight, AP-capdesign), ballistic datas for
the main guns (muzzle VO, striking velocity and angle of fall relative to distances).
With these datas I should be able to extrapolate each unit´s immune zone against each other in theory. This may stop the discussion wether a gun can penetrate the armor of a Ferdinand or not.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 22, 2006)

> Mr. Carlitos Bronson:
> 
> Did you read what I said in my last posting?
> 
> ...




¿Y quien dijo que no señor don Udet?  

---------

And Erich , sorry I have to desagree there is at list 2 examples of turret blown off for internal explotions due gunfire in the pics I ve posted.
And my source is not the russian propaganda but a more serius one.


----------



## Erich (Feb 22, 2006)

yes Wittmanns Tiger 1 hit by a 17 pounder at close range, seen it, done that.

what is your Soviet source if it is serious.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 22, 2006)

Wittman is a example , there are others.

Sources.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 22, 2006)

Some interesting "Lend and Lease" materiel present in this gigantic battle and used by the CCCP.

*M-3 Lee/Grant*

The russian learn to hate this tank, they call it "the grave of six brothers"...compare that with the nickname of "Bolt Bucket" assigned by the U.S soldiers in North Afrika, The Grant could be penetrated even by the 50 mm kwk used in the Pz III ausf M and the PAK 38.












*Churchill Mk-III/IV*, well armored , good trench and ditch crossing capabilities ( It was designed for that), but terribly slow and outgunned ( The 6 pounder cannot fire HE ammo until 1944) aniway the ruskies like it because it did not explode went hit and it cath fire very slowly allowing in the majority of the cases a safe bail out by his crew.












*M-3 Scout* car with Browning M2 .50BMG.







*Bren carrier* armed with a .....Boys rifle, amazing. even the russian had PTRS and PTRD wich were was far superior......They never say no at the gifts.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2006)

CB I have seen the 1st and 3rd reference and I was not impresssed, especially the 3rd with Soviet news agency pics from all through the war and not necessairly at Kursk.

have you tried true German sources as Geroge Nipes work on the Kursk?mius Battles and probably the best German source from Kommanduer Sylvester Stadler ~ W-SS Die Offensive gegen Kursk 1942, Munin Verlag.

I have the bibldbands of 1st, 2nd W-SS and nothing seems to appear that a small diametre hit could pop the deck and turret off a German tank. A larger round such as a 122mm obviously and alos at close range. soviet tanks on the other hand a 37mm tungsten round from a Mk 103 could pop a T-34's lid right off given a lucky hit at the turret base............oh well on it goes.

please site the sources of your photo content please even if they are personal. We need to start doing this, as I have got some personal mails to that effect from other research chaps the last weeks


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2006)

There is no Allied AT gun that could pop the turret off a Tiger or Panther. And the pictures showing the turrets laying besides the tank, shows the result of an internal explosion, not the kinetic energy of the round which caused it. (Its the same with Wittmann's Tiger)


----------



## Ball Turret Gunner (Feb 23, 2006)

Inspite of the photo's of destroyed Tigers shown, I still say the Tiger was the best vehicle at Kursk.


----------



## Udet (Feb 23, 2006)

Schwarzpanzer:

Yes, I grew up there.


I do not think SU-152s came close to destroy 7-9 Ferdinands at Kursk Schwarz. I say this because of the opinions of the people I had the chance of discussing Kursk with.

Right, you mentioned one point i have heard in the past: the hastily training received by most soviet crews during the entire war. Add to inferior optics -or the lack thereof- the fact the soviet guys manning such AFVs were trained real fast to be sent to the front and they are at disadvantage.

The sole problem, as I said, is the fact there were too few Ferdinands, while the SU-152s and other heavy soviet self-propelled artillery were produced in far bigger numbers.


Schwarz, I have not found any solid evidence which might indicate, much less prove, Wehrmacht equipment was "unreliable".

That perhaps one or two of the *13* -thirteen only- Ferdinands lost during the entire Kursk battle might have been lost due to mechanical problems, that does not imply the machines were "unreliable", do you agree?

Quite the contrary, and I digress, the numbers of the Ferdinand indicate we talk about one of the most fearsome tank killers ever made.

It would be like saying the soviets never lost any T-34s due to mechanical problems, you bet they lost a number due to this cause.

The soviets had their own trouble in this department. What about bad quality or poor welding work? After not too many hours of combat action -gun recoil force, not too mention getting hit by enemy shells- sections of the vehicles would crack as a consequence of welding problem. And this happened virtually throughout the entire war to the soviets.

So at Kursk the Ferdinands did not "break down", and the Tigers "did not break down". 

If I recall correctly, the "Panther Issue" as has been broadcasted by soviet mythology deserves special treatment. I do not have Nipe´s great book in this place, but I read it no less than 4 times and it has been found a very simple fact: THERE WERE NO PANTHERS IN PROKHOROVA, which was the fundamental tank action in the salient.

So the Panthers did not "break down" as suggested by the soviets.

Erich´s comments telling of more and more catastrophic losses of tanks in late 1944 pretty much show the soviet style of waging war. Rivers of blood at the disposal of soviet commanders to ensure victory.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2006)

What propaganda shots are shown of Ferd's popped are actually ones that blew a track because of mines or were abandoned. the beast were slow and could not be moved the original intake as an offensive weapon was changed over to the defence and what a lethal pile of metal the Fered was too with that long range 88 nothing could touch it at the time if well hidden.

As to the W-SS Korps at Prokh. there were not any Panthers with the W-SS during the Kursk engagement. Pics show Das Reich Panther D's during the battles for the Mius in August of 43 where they took on T-34's time and time again and destroyed them. Books showing W-SS panzer personell in Panthers at Kursk are quite incorrect. And it was during this almost forming up time with Das Reich that W-Ss crews found out the problems they were to face with the new machines, no hull mg for one and a crappy hard to open turret cupola. Optics were outstanding and remained so till wars end


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2006)

Erich said:


> CB I have seen the 1st and 3rd reference and I was not impresssed, especially the 3rd with Soviet news agency pics from all through the war and not necessairly at Kursk.
> 
> have you tried true German sources as Geroge Nipes work on the Kursk?mius Battles and probably the best German source from Kommanduer Sylvester Stadler ~ W-SS Die Offensive gegen Kursk 1942, Munin Verlag.
> 
> ...



First of all it was not my intention to impress anybody, the sources of the pics are the books I ve posted, those are scans.

And thanks for your data but honestly I dont think that I could find that book in my city or even Buenos Aires, I will try E mule.

I will not consider a 76mm hit from a ZIS-3 AT gun a "small diameter" hit specially when we talking about the Panzer III armor.

Now...off course some pics from the russian side are prepared like this next to a Ferdinand wich was blew up by his crew.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2006)

did I say you were trying to impress............ NO, I gave my personal opinion so do not be alarmed. CB you will have to order from Germany. A 50mm against a Pz III could pop it's top, but truthfully where are we going with all of this .............nowhere. Simply put the Soviet claims to actual German losses are nothing compared to what has been written in Soviet propagaanda books and taken as hard fact. I have a few old Kursk books I picked up in the 70's and they are going right into the bon-fore this spring.

give your sources please for the pics if you would, not just say they were taken from those books you listed. Please be specific. My intent is to do the same if I use others books, my data base is huge of fotos collected from over the many 40 years but ......... I run across an intersting net image from time to time that I haven;t seen before

Gruß


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2006)

> give your sources please for the pics if you would, not just say they were taken from those books you listed. Please be specific. My intent is to do the same if I use others books, my data base is huge of fotos collected from over the many 40 years but ......... I run across an intersting net image from time to time that I haven;t seen before




The books Erich, the books. You can dowload that from here. They are in PDF format readable with Adobe acrobat.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/literature2.htm

----------------


Not from Kursk but interesting video of a Panther shooting at KV-1, check how the turret is lifted in the air and large piece of metal is blew up for the internal explotion caused by the 7 kg Panzergranate 39.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 24, 2006)

*Erich:*



> the popping off the top of the deck would not be caused from a 76mm or 57mm round, they are internal blow outs



The round could have set the ammo and fuel in the tank off. It could also have been a self-destruct, bomb or 152mm shell.

I'm pretty sure Katyushas were used at Kursk IIRC?



> The Su 152 was not a noted German panzer killer but more of heavy concrete pillbox buster.



That's the KV-2 you're thinking about. Only ever fired HE shells, but could still easily deal with pre-'42 Panzers.

Kursk was nearly a Phyric victory. It's very sad, but Soviets could be replaced, Germans could not. Also at this point Hitler hadn't joined Stalin in sending 'his people' happily to certain death.

After Kursk, despite higher losses, the Soviets could continue attacks - the Germans could not.



> nothing could touch it at the time if well hidden.



It's hard to hide a priority target (same with Firefly).



> the Soviet claims to actual German losses are nothing compared to what has been written in Soviet propagaanda books and taken as hard fact.



Also the German claims of Soviet losses aren't 100% correct either, believe it or not.



> I have a few old Kursk books I picked up in the 70's and they are going right into the bon-fore this spring.



Don't do that! If you don't want them, perhaps I could have them?


*delcyros:*



> Can anyone provide a good link for the involved
> tanks?



http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/gkillr~1.htm



> With these datas I should be able to extrapolate each unit´s immune zone against each other in theory. This may stop the discussion wether a gun can penetrate the armor of a Ferdinand or not.



The data's on that link. I think everybody knows this, it seems to be a huge East vs West Propaganda-thon.


*CharlesBronson:*



> I have an nterest in after-action combat report. The Russian one on the Grant says "mediocre tank-destroyer".



It did OK in NA. 'till the Pak38 50mm L60 showed up (along with the 88 obviously).



> the ruskies like it because it did not explode went hit and it cath fire very slowly allowing in the majority of the cases a safe bail out by his crew.



My uncle's (MkVII) was hit in the engine compartment - when he was working on the engine!


*Soren:*



> There is no Allied AT gun that could pop the turret off a Tiger or Panther.



The Soviet guns 122mm 152mm definately could do it to a Panther. Don't know about anything else, though it's possible.


The ammo-brewing up arguement:

Soviet tanks(1), and those mainly used against 'soft' targets(2) generally brewed up best (or worst, depending).

This was because of:

(1) Better HE shell performance and hence bigger explosion.

(2) More HE shells, so again a bigger bang.

Tiger's weren't indestructible, talk about Soviet propaganda!


*Udet:*



> Add to inferior optics -or the lack thereof- the fact the soviet guys manning such AFVs were trained real fast to be sent to the front and they are at disadvantage.



But the Soviets have always been trained to overwhelm with volume of fire, rather than slow-firing accuracy. This tactic is devestating, but carries a horrible casualty penalty. The Soviets could afford to do this, the Germans could not. The Germans even tried this technique on at least one occasion - needless to say, it was a shambles.



> The sole problem, as I said, is the fact there were too few Ferdinands



At one point they were rushed into a village! Close combat is a foolish technique to apply to this vehicle.



> the SU-152s and other heavy soviet self-propelled artillery were produced in far bigger numbers.



That is of course a factor 'We've lost 20? - Plenty more where they came from'... etc



> Schwarz, I have not found any solid evidence which might indicate, much less prove, Wehrmacht equipment was "unreliable".



This was from German and Russian sources. I have one from Kursk on another thread, but that is more on poor Panther quality - not so much poor design. I have info on the Maybach's failings, if you want?



> That perhaps one or two of the 13 -thirteen only- Ferdinands lost during the entire Kursk battle might have been lost due to mechanical problems, that does not imply the machines were "unreliable", do you agree?



The Ferds were heavily re-engineered to be simple (StuG's). Their main problem's at kursk was; poor mobility (speed floatation), mobility kills, large target and bad usage IMHO.



> the numbers of the Ferdinand indicate we talk about one of the most fearsome tank killers ever made.



Oh yes!  A much feared enemy on the Battle of Berlin, as they didn't suffer from quality problems as some Panther/KonigsTiger's did.



> It would be like saying the soviets never lost any T-34s due to mechanical problems, you bet they lost a number due to this cause.



Yes, but there were a lot of them. e.g. 1/50th was about equal to total Tiger I production (1,000). 



> What about bad quality or poor welding work?



Strong enough, without being fancy (like the STEN).



> sections of the vehicles would crack as a consequence of welding problem.



Whilst the steel alloys were better than the Panzer's, the metalworking/finishing was usually far inferior (but the welding was OK).



> So at Kursk the Ferdinands did not "break down", and the Tigers "did not break down".



I honestly don't know, but if reports say they did - it seems reasonable to accept them, given the 'beasts' reputations?



> THERE WERE NO PANTHERS IN PROKHOROVA



That's because they broke down at the railhead IIRC.



> Rivers of blood at the disposal of soviet commanders to ensure victory.



I know and agree, but it still works. Sledgehammer vs Stiletto.


The air battles here were also very, very important. I think they need discussing more...


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2006)

too many quotes Schwarz..........

The Das Reich Panthers were not even close to the actions at Kursk and were still forming up.

an early quote, the Ferds could be well camo'd in buildings, sounds silly but it was true. In one case reported in a Russian village a single Ferd popped off 18 T-34's with the awarding of the RK to the Kommandeur of the German machine 

an early quote, yes I know full well about German armor cliams but it appears that the Svoviets over emphasized theirs with the awarding of way too many medals in the field, especially with the Soviet air forces.

you are quite correct the Air battles and ground attack performance of the Soviets/Luftwaffe should be discussed as it is an integral part of the Kursk atmosphere. Anyone can go back to the tank buster thread and read the translation work I presented on several Luftw. notables who pounded Soviet armor at the July 43 engagement, Bruno Meyer and his gruppen come to mind first, but the Ju 87G's also made a lasting impression on the Soviets


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2006)

> but the Ju 87G's also made a lasting impression on the Soviets


Yes they did indeed...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *CharlesBronson:*
> 
> 
> 
> > I have an nterest in after-action combat report. The Russian one on the Grant says "mediocre tank-destroyer".



Wrong quote...I never wrote that.  

Some of the T-34 regiments deployed at the Bulge.


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2006)

good T-34 profiles. 

CB go back and look at the hit on the KV -1, it appears the turret slidoff slightly on the deck but the top side or one of the protective side plates completely blew off the turret ? my opinion. Others ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2006)

I think is the top side, the Kv had only one turret hatch wich is the large hole (I think) that can be apreciated in the flying piece.


----------



## Henk (Feb 24, 2006)

Nice info and pics CB.

Henk


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2006)

CB you could be right, and funny the explosion against the side of the KV-1 looks like a Panzerschreck 54 hit ~ 8.8cm


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2006)

Wich cannot be delibered by the KWK 42. Do you think that we got some "*wochenschau*" emsemble in here ?


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2006)

> The Soviet guns 122mm 152mm definately could do it to a Panther



No Schwarz, the Soviet 122mm and 152mm guns could not pop the turret off a Panther by sheer kinetic energy, so stop fantasizing about it, OK.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 25, 2006)

It has been 2-3 years but I recollect a thread on another forum about Kursk. In it, it was mentioned that quite a few of the Panthers lost was because they attempted to pass through a known mine field.

Anyways, went looking for the forum and came up with this link, http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4870&SearchTerms=Panther

The first Tigers (2 iirc) knocked out in North Africa were from British 6pdr AT guns(57mm).


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

*Erich:*

Sorry for the Quotes, I'll try and keep it to a minimum.  

The Panther's weren't there because they broke down. Some even self-destructed. What use is a tank if it can't even move under it's own power??

I now about the Ferd hidden behind/in houses.

Too many medals? Yeah, a load of Mutley wannabes? (asthmatic laugh  )

You want your soldiers to know you're proud of them and appreciate them though.

The air battles is, to me: 

1. Gaining Air superiority (fighters).

2. Medium and dive-bombers.

Both seemed equal here to me, though I'd have expected the Luftwaffe fighters to clean up?

Using Me109's instead of FW190's was downright stupid at low/medium altitudes.  


[quote"CharlesBronson"]Wrong quote...I never wrote that.[/quote]
But you did write that.  Ya little tinker you!  

You also wrote:



> I think SchwarzPanzer is amazing, 8) yes I do.



  


*Soren:*



> No Schwarz, the Soviet 122mm and 152mm guns could not pop the turret off a Panther by sheer kinetic energy, so stop fantasizing about it, OK.



Oh yes they could!  Stop fantasing that they couldn't!


*KraziKanuK:*

It was at Pont-du-Fahs (in Tunisia). Only 1 Tiger, but what a pathetic debut!  

- No, on second thoughts scratch that - as according to Soren they were invincible.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 26, 2006)

Pathetic debut? The Tiger achieved a 76:1 kill ratio in North Africa.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

Yeah, a pathetic debut on both fronts. Great kill ratio though, the crews were as responsible as the machine.

Enhanced survivability = crew can afford to slip up - crew become seasoned = enhanced survivability and so on...

You have to admit the debuts were balls-ups though D?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 26, 2006)

No I don't. The Tiger was killing machine and it was quickly recognised on all fronts, against all foes. The early showings of the Tiger destroyed hundreds of opponent vehicles for the loss of one or two Tigers, that's never poor for any vehicle. 

What I will admit is the actions of the Tiger were better in 1943 than they were in '42.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

What about the Leningrad debut? They got stuck in the mud, plinked one-by-one (by ZIS 76mm's) or captured. The element of surprise was lost. Same with NA.

You're right though, it is amazing how the Tiger built such a reputation for itself from these early fiasco's and with such little built. 8) Same with the PzIV and V really...

Still this venerability made them primary targets and celebrated kills...

And they were prone to breaking down and running out of fuel...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2006)

quote: "_It was at Pont-du-Fahs (in Tunisia). Only 1 Tiger, but what a pathetic debut!_"

Is was on the Robaa-Font du Fahs Rd. It was 2 Tigers. One was blown up and the other was taken back to GB. Several IVs were also destroyed.

One can read about this captured tank in *Tiger! The Tiger Tank: A British View* by HMSO, ISBN 0-11-29426-2


----------



## plan_D (Feb 26, 2006)

When the Tiger first appeared in Leningrad it wasn't a shambles. The Red Army was shocked beyond belief, the Tiger achieved amazing results. And the Soviet tanks and troops were smashed to pieces. Only two Tigers were destroyed or damaged, a few broke down but were recovered. And I believe even the damaged one was recovered. 

In North Africa the Tiger that is now at Bovington was captured when the Afrika Korps left, or surrendered, at the end of the North African campaign. Only three Tigers were destroyed in North Africa by enemy fire, all by the British. And they were all with heavy artillery save the ONE by the OQF 6pdr. Which is not a shambles, since the said Tiger took over 70 hits before it came to a halt. One Tiger in North Africa took over 150 hits from various arms and was not destroyed. 

Most Tigers were forced to halt after destroying tens upon tens of enemy tanks, and AFVs, the Allies forced them to chase by runnin' away and leading the Tigers on to the minefields in the African desert. 

The Tiger destroyed well in excess of 400 tanks while in North Africa for a loss of three destroyed themselves. That is not a fuckin' shambles, you tart. 

The second showing of the Tiger in the Leningrad area WAS a shambles, but only two Tigers were destroyed. They didn't get stuck, but the ground was marsh and the Tigers were used wrong. This was never done again ... and the Tiger destroyed thousands upon thousands of American, British, Canadian and Russian AFVs with very little loss to themselves. 

You came up against a Tiger in anything, at anytime during the war, no matter what you're in ... unless it's another Tiger or a King Tiger - you've fucked it ... face it.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2006)

Dug out the book.

The combat on the Robaa Rd, Jan 20 1943, was between the German tanks (2 VIs, 4 IIIs) and the 1 and 2 Troop A Bat 72A/Tk Regt RA.

All were put out of action. The 2cd Tiger was recovered by the Germans that night.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 26, 2006)

Some profiles of the AFV deployed by the germans.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 28, 2006)

Nice pics CB!  


I've checked up and there were indeed 2 Tigers!

There were also 9 PzIII's IV's.

If there were 4 PzIII's, then there were 5 PzIV's.

The 6pdrs extremely skillfull/lucky, as they were hidden and much closer (than 500yds) and shatter-gap would've set in.


*PlanD:*



> When the Tiger first appeared in Leningrad it wasn't a shambles. The Red Army was shocked beyond belief, the Tiger achieved amazing results. And the Soviet tanks and troops were smashed to pieces. Only two Tigers were destroyed or damaged, a few broke down but were recovered. And I believe even the damaged one was recovered.



Do you have the date for this incident?

I thought the 1st encounter on the Eastern Front was this:

http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/tiger.htm



> The first time Tiger saw action was on August 29th of 1942 and September 21st/22nd at Mga, southeast of Leningrad with 1st company of sPzAbt 502. The unsuccessful engagements ended in the new Tiger being captured by the Soviets, who then examined it and exhibited during the captured equipment exhibition in Moscow's Gorky Park in 1943. The failure of Tigers was attributed to mechanical problems as well as poor terrain conditions, totally unsuitable for heavy tanks.


 



> The Tiger destroyed well in excess of 400 tanks while in North Africa for a loss of three destroyed themselves. That is not a fu*kin' shambles, you tart.



No, I don't suppose it is - slut!  



> the ground was marsh and the Tigers were used wrong. This was never done again



Correct, but this mistake was repeated I'm sure.  



> You came up against a Tiger in anything, at anytime during the war, no matter what you're in ... unless it's another Tiger or a King Tiger - you've f*cked it ... face it.



Well there was the Firefly, Comet, Challenger, Centurion, Pershing, Super-Pershing, Jackson, Achilles, SU-100/122/85, T34/85, KV3/85, IS2M and of course the Panther, JagdPanther, Hornisse etc - but let us not go there, shall we?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 7, 2006)

SS Tigers advancing in the battle.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2006)

Churchilll Mk-IV destroyed, not even the 89mm (turret) or the 76 mm armor (hull) withstand the german AP ammo.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 8, 2006)

The question is, what calibur did it to the Churchill, and was it an anti-tank gun or a tank mounted weapon?


----------



## reddragon (Mar 9, 2006)

I wonder what would have happened if the attack had taken place earlier? I think it was a really stupid idea to give the Soviets so much time to fortify an obvious target. I know it takes time to prepare for an attack but I'm under the impression that this attack was delayed because Hitler wanted to try out the new Panther and waited until some were available to take part.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

The Kursk Offensive was not delayed because of the Panther. The Panther was ordered to be built starting in December 1942 to be ready by 12th May 1943. Production was late starting (January 1943) but the first Panther Ausf Ds arrived in April , were then recalled, and the issue came in May 1943 to the 51st and 52nd Panzerabteilungen. These were ready for the offensive in July, 1943. 

The Panther was ready for when it was ordered. I see no reason for a delay , as it seems the attack was planned for that time period anyway.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 9, 2006)

MacArther said:


> The question is, what calibur did it to the Churchill, and was it an anti-tank gun or a tank mounted weapon?



The mark III and IV carried a british 6 pounder (57 mm) teorically it can shoot both AP and HE ammo but the explosive shells were unavailable until 1944.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 13, 2006)

Ummm, I was asking if you knew what gun or guns were used to attack that particular Churchill. Was it a tank VS tank battle, or was it an anti-tank gun ambush? Also what calibur guns engaged the Chuchill, because some of the shots seemed to have done more damage than others?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 13, 2006)

Probably was hit several times with the 75mm Pak 40.

The larger holes seems to be caused by the 88mm , wich could be from a Flak 18 or the Tiger I main gun.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 13, 2006)

minimum striking velocity needed to achieve full penetration against
the Churchills vertical armor (A= turret; B= sides):
(under the following estimations: Plate quality=0.95 (aequivalent to 15% elongation and 260 Brinell hardeness in average, which is average for ww2 tank armour); no prior impacts, no longitudinal impact angle greater than 1 degree, no further additions to the designed armor layout, armor quality= in within normal acceptance limits)

7.5 cm PzGr. 39 (weight 6.8Kg) with AP-cap and windscreen
8.8 cm PzGr. 39 (weight 10.2 Kg) with AP-cap and windscreen

against the turret: 7.5 cm PzGr. 39: 1.666 ft/sec.(~500 m/sec.); 8.8 cm PzGr. 39: 1.560 ft./sec(~470 m/sec.).
against the sides: 7.5 cm PzGr. 39: 1.510 ft/sec.(~450 m/sec.); 8.8 cm PzGr. 39: 1.419 ft./sec(~430 m/sec.).

Computed via M79 APCLC (thanks Okun!). Shatter is not taken into consideration! The minimum striking velocitys are well in possibility and imply a long range for both guns to penetrate the Churchill MK IV at direct impact angles.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 14, 2006)

Hmmm, I would have thought that some of the smaller impacts had been made by 50mm L/60 anti-tank guns. The anti-tank gun model could perform better (according to my books, which have been known to be flawed) than the tank mounted model in terms of velocity and penetration of armor.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 14, 2006)

We can check it.

Using PzGr. 39 (weight 2.06 Kg, sectional density=1.05) with a muzzle velocity of 835 m/sec. (approx. 2770 ft./sec.) for a Pak 5,0 cm L60.

(same armor specifications as above)

minimum striking velocity against Churchill MK IV to achieve full penetration:
A(turret): 2157 ft./ sec. (~650 m/sec.) 
B(sides): 1996 ft./ sec. (~600 m/sec.)

Conclusion: At direct impact angles the PaK 50mm L60 using a PzGr.39 APCBC round will have a very reasonable chance to penetrate the Churchills side or turret armor. I don´t have yet a clue about the striking velocitys of this particular gun but I expect that penetrations up to and including 700 yrds under these circumastances are possible. Repeated hits may led to penetration at even further distances.
The armor penetrating abilities of a PzGr.40 at longer distances than ~800 yrds for this gun imply no penetration against either sides or turret of a Churchill MK-IV.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 14, 2006)

The Panzergranate 39 of the 50 mm L 60 pierce 89mm of homogeneous armor.....?  


Are you sure about that ?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 15, 2006)

absolutely sure. With the conditions given in mind (direct impact angles!) it will do, no doubt. There is no physical reason to deny that 5.0 cm PzGr.39 will penetrate 89 mm homogenious ww2 tank armor at close range at 650 m/sec striking velocity. And since a brand new 5.0 cm PaK L60 has a muzzle velocity of 835 m/sec we do even have a wider window for penetration. At zero range it would theoreticly be able to penetrate with 45 degrees obliquity (longitudinal impact angle= 45 degrees, striking velocity needed: 2.700 ft./sec.). Such ranges are not common except for fiercy street fights.
If You want to know more in detail, pm me and I will compile the necessary informatrions/computing programs needed for analyzis.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 15, 2006)

I was asking because sometimes ( and there is several reports) the Kwk of 50mmm failed to penetrate the T-34, wich had a 45mm angled armor....  and the sides of the KV-1 ( 75-90mm) I guess that must be a extreme close range.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2006)

Will perform an T-34 analyzis regarding PzGr.39 5.0 cm (Pak L60).
Just have to fix lags in my knowldege about soviet armor qualities...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 16, 2006)

Pushed for time, so very quickly:


Looking at it, I'd say the Church was destroyed by 88 75mm shots. I agree with *CB*.


*reddragon*, the Soviets were tipped-off anyway. I don't know if the Panthers delayed the offensive, but it's certainly possible. The main problem is the Panthers were rush jobs and scrimped on to boot.


I think you're calculations are correct *delcyros*.

*CB:*



> The Panzergranate 39 of the 50 mm L 60 pierce 89mm of homogeneous armor.....?
> 
> Are you sure about that ?



Definately.


*delcyros:*



> Such ranges are not common except for fiercy street fights.



The PaK38 was a pain, very easy to hide and manoever. In a bush or ditch for e.g.

A T34 was often right on top of one, then it was all over. Tankovy-Desant were always vital.


PlanD mentioned KV's and T34's being destroyed by the PaK38, I know this happened, but his info sounds very interesting.


Also be aware that penetration is not the only way to kill a tank.

The T34's armour was prone to spalling from deflected blows, also radios and ammo can hurt if they fall on you, not to mention shot trapping or mobility kills...


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2006)

That´s a good question.
T-34/76 vs 5.0 cm PzGr.39 APCBC round (2.06 Kg)
Since the turret design differs a lot I will check only frontal hull penetrations for now. I am still not sure wether the T-34 has 45 mm inclined by 50 or 60 degrees upper frontal armor. So I will take both inclinations, if I am wrong, please tell me so I can correct the datas.
Armor quality: Soviet armor over the whole ww2 was high Brinell hardened armor. It suffered from a comparably low elongation and therefor high britellness but on the other side the high hardened armor will cause more damage on projectiles and cause shatter to happen more often. In turn for this it´s ability to deflect projectiles is somehow lower compared to more ductile armors used by the british for example. Scaling and non penetrating damage is also more worrisome.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SOVIET ARMOR QUALITY OF MEDIUM THICKNESS PLATES VARIED HEAVILY.
Armor quality: 0.96; elongation: 12% 
minimum striking velocitys needed to achieve full penetration at 50 and 60 degrees obliquity and 0 degrees longitudinal impact angle:
against the upper hull(60 degrees inclined): 3.553 ft./sec. (~1070m/sec.)
against the upper hull(50 degrees inclined): 2.106 ft./sec. (~635 m/sec.) 
against the lower frontal hull (53 degrees inclined): 2.430 ft./sec. (730 m/sec.)

Conclusion: If the upper hull is inclined by 60 degrees, the PzGr.39 5.0cm round will by all possibilities FAIL to penetrate the upper frontal hull even at point blanc range. It has a low chance (L60 model) at very close range to penetrate the lower frontal hull (ranges in within 150 yrds). But only at direct impact angles and in case of a Pak (lower height of fire compared to tank KwK, therefore a lower impact obliquity). The older L48 model has a chance to do so in case of a brand new gun with low gunwear and point blanc range.
Repeated hits may cause the armor to crack or horizontaly weakening, allowing penetration of the 5.0 cm gun with a higher degree of reliability.
The AP-caps of 5.0 cm PzGr39 will ALWAYS suffer shatter. The projectile body has a reasonable chance to suffer nose shatter as well.
I cunclude that it is very difficult with single hits to penetrate the T-34 frontal armor. Esspecially if longitudinal impact angles are greater than 10 degrees (which very often is the case if a PaK hasn´t the luxury to aim head on vice versa against a T-34 from a hidden position...).

However, what about the T-34´s sides? A 5.0 cm gun may also engage under more favourable conditions the sides. The upper sides are 40mm at 40 degrees inclined that would imply a 42 degrees impact obliquity at direct impact angles for a PaK and a somehow lower (39-36 degrees, depending on range) for KwK mounted guns. minimum striking velocity for full penetration:
upper side hull: 1.548 ft./sec. for PaK and 1.473 ft sec. for a 38 degrees obliquity KwK fired 5.0 cm PzGr.39 round. If we asume 1.500 ft. sec. (450 m/sec.) as average, the T-34´s sides are vulnarable to 5.0 cm fire from close to medium range, allowing a wide window for different longitudinal impact angles and easy penetration.
The lower side hull may be even easier to penetrate if the direct line of fire wouldn´t be obstructed by the wheels and drive parts. Since I don´t know all their details I will not perform a calculation for the lower side hull.
The T-34´s rear armor has a 42 degrees inclined 45 mm plate which may be penetrated by a 5.0 cm APCBC round with a minimum striking velocity of 1.667 ft./sec. (~500 m/sec.) This is still in within the abilities of a PaK 38 at close range and with a wide window for possible longitudinal impact angles...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 16, 2006)

Good research Delcyros, only a detail, at the time of Kursk most of the tanks were T-34 M1943 with the frontal armor increased at 60mm in a slightly less sloped plate.



> Conclusion: If the upper hull is inclined by 60 degrees, the PzGr.39 5.0cm round will by all possibilities FAIL to penetrate the upper frontal hull even at point blanc range. It has a low chance (L60 model) at very close range to penetrate the lower frontal hull (ranges in within 150 yrds). But only at direct impact angles and in case of a Pak (lower height of fire compared to tank KwK, therefore a lower impact obliquity).



Huhumm...that was I being said.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2006)

You are right. It seems that the maths confirm the combat reports, indeed.
Can You tell me to what inclination the T-34M 60mm frontal plate was and where (upper or lower frontal)? I could recalculate but I already expect a nearly total frontal immunity at most circumastances (except underbelly exposed or so) against 5.0 cm PzGr.39.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 16, 2006)

Well.. not much diference 57-58 degrees.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2006)

With these datas (60 mm at 58 degrees) the T-34M upper frontal armor enjois complete immunity against a 5.0 cm PzGr.39 fired from a L60 gun (muzzle velocity: 835 m/Sec.): It would require 3.821 ft./sec. (~1150 m/sec.) minimum striking velocity for full penetration but this is far beyond capabilities for a PaK 38...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 16, 2006)

Nice data Delcyros , I like your fast calculation  ...now we got to teach that to "Schwarzpanzer"  .

I will search the specs for the 5cm panzergranate 40 hartkern.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2006)

APCR ammo is more difficult to compute. I would need the exact diameter of the round with Aluminium mantlet PLUS the exact weight and diameter for the rigid tungsten core to perform a reliable computation.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 16, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> now we got to teach that to "Schwarzpanzer"



Cheeky, very cheeky!  


The T34's hull could even shirk off the Tiger's rounds.

The early T34's and apparently some T34/85's had 60 degrees of frontal armour sloped @ 60 degrees.

For the early ones, the quality was very impressive also.

I had no idea that the Kursk T34's had applique, though I suspected it and heard rumours (that I politely dismissed).

- You learn something everyday here!

The Pak's can shoot upwards into the T34's hull, the PzIII can fire down on the glacis of the T34, this could also be from a hull-down position...



> The lower side hull may be even easier to penetrate if the direct line of fire wouldn´t be obstructed by the wheels and drive parts.



This was a good feature of the Hetzer and Panther/Tiger variants.

The T34 wasn't so protective this way, I reckon a side hull hit is a definate kill.


The turret of the T34 was weak, German gunners knew this and aimed accordingly.

Also the T34's generally had the bow MG's protecive armour mantlet left off and this area was a weakness anyway.

Also, unlike Panther G+ German sloped armour, the Soviets had a hatch in the glacis plate. On the T34, this was huge, besides getting hit there, it weakened the plate.

The T34 also had a tempting shot-trap area.

Some courageous PzIV crew members even killed a T34 with a 75mm L24, by hitting it on the engine slots!!

Also (Otto Carius IIRC) killed KV's with his Pz38(t)'s diddy little cannon by firing down the barrels, even making a habit of it!

It also has to be said that APCR seemed to be the most commonly used round for the PaK38, though this had horrendous consequences later...

Also be aware that a T34 charging headlong effectively increases the striking velocity of the projectile.

Also, when moving away from the LoF, the protection is increased.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 17, 2006)

> Cheeky, very cheeky!



Sorry but I had to tell that.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 9, 2007)

I would go Panther as it had speed, could manoeuver and fairly decent armour for that time. Especially backed up by a Tiger 1...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 10, 2007)

Well, the Panther in Kursk did not performed as espected. .

--------------


The Ferdinand "612" used by the 654 th heavy Tankhunter batallion.












"Tank hunter Ferdinad/ Elefant Part 1" Tadeuz Melleman -AJ press


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2007)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Cheeky, very cheeky!
> Also be aware that a T34 charging headlong effectively increases the striking velocity of the projectile.



And penetration by an extra 2 millimeters if you're lucky - not much.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 14, 2007)

Amazing, I suppose it is something to do with the idea that a bullet leaving the gun travels at its own speed plus that of the gun it is fired from, when fired from a moving vehicle, at the front... At least that is my understanding of the physics involved...


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2007)

The question on the thread is The Best AFV in the Kursk Bulge. With the limitation being at Kursk timewise, the Panther and the Tiger are in my mind ruled out as they were too unreliable and the bugs hadn't been worked out. If its unreliable then it cannot be good in combat.
This leaves the rest on the list and the best of the rest would be the PzIV G.

If we were talking 1944 then it would be between the Panther and the Tiger, but not in 1943.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2007)

The Tiger didn't suffer many problems with reliability in 1943, and it was by far the best tank of the Kursk battle - eventhough there were hardly any there.

The Panther, although formidable when in action, often failed even to reach where the action was taking place, suffering from serious reliability issues.

The Pz.IV Ausf.G did well during Kursk, but number for number not as well as the Tiger.


----------



## Erich (Jan 15, 2007)

different thought ......... Hs 129 ♪


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 15, 2007)

AFV..?, The Henschel was armored, but not so much.


----------



## Erich (Jan 15, 2007)

CB that was my thought, an armored bathtub for the pilot, more manuverable than a panzer and fully loaded with a 3cm Mk 103 to take even the JS II out if need be ......... like I said a different idea .. . . .......... ~

rippin it up !


----------



## 7457587635857467 (Mar 19, 2013)

Well, I can not argue that it was the "best", but the Ferdinand was definitely the most successful tank destroyer of this time period, and probably in the whole WW2.
In total only 90 Ferdianands destroyed some 800 soviet AFV's, at a cost of only 13 own losses by sPzJagAbt 656 and a few more unknown losses by sPzJagAbt 653 (of which most were disabled by mines or 
mechanical breakdown rather than by enemy fire). The Ferdinand's were almost immortal to any Soviet gun. 
Almost no Soviet tank or anti tank gun was capable of penetrating its armor at medium to long range, except only a very few anti tank guns such as the ZIS-3, SU-76 SPG and of course the 152mm gun of the SU-152. 
But regular Russian tanks such as T34 or KV1 had no effective gun to penetrate even the side or rear armor, so it's obvious that none Ferdinand was ever destroyed by a T34 or KV1 tank. 
Without any doubt, one or another was knocked out by SU-152's, as this was the only effective weapon to counter it at medium to long range. 
Some Russian soruces however try to exaggerate the numbers of Ferdinand killed by SU-152, which is mostly ridiculous far fetched propaganda.

The Tiger was a less successful tank killer in relation to kills per losses, however it was still more successfull overall because there were more Tigers deployed, which means they had a greater impact overall. Like the Ferdinand, it had the best allround protection and survivability on the battlefield, which allowed it survive many hits from Sovoet tank guns and score numerous kills, before getting destroyed or disabled by enemy fire. It was nearly immortal from the front, only the side hull armor could be penetrated by T34 and KV if they came close as 100 meters. But only rarely got Russian tanks the chance to get this close to a Tiger on open terrain. Again, the only effective weapons to counter the Tiger were ZIS-3, SU-76, SU-122 and SU-152.

The Panter was also a good tank killer overall, but only in relation to its own numbers. A single Panther alone however wasn't that effective because it lacked the good allround protection of the Tiger. 
Having very vulnerable side and rear armor, it didn't have this superb survivabilty that the Tiger and Ferdinand had. Most Panthers were easilly destroyed by flank hits even at long range. 
Even the T34 and KV1 could already penetrate its weak side armor at over a kilometer. Which is why there are at least 10 Tiger aces credited with over 100 tank kills, but not a single Panther ace credited with 100 tank kills.
(the highest scoring Panther ace achieved "only" 60 tank kills).

KV-1 was only effective against early German Panzers like Mark II and III, and only at close to medium range. But against even a Panzer IV F2 it was already inferior. 
Not even to mention the bad accuracy of its tiny gun. It was maybe a fearsome beast back in 1941/42 but in 1943 it wasn't that good anymore.
Although there were a few instances where KV1 crews achived some impressive victories in 1942, but they fought only against light German tanks with automatic machine guns. Not that impressive, is it? 

The StuG's were good tank killers too, but again only in respect to their numbers. A single StuG alone isn't that impressive, 
Although It did have a very good front armor that made it invulnerable against early T34 and KV1 guns. Since it's the most produced German AFV in WW2, it claims the most tank kills out of any AFV in WW2. 

T34-76 shouldn't be listed in a poll of "best tank killers" in my opinion, it simply doesn't fit its role. Not enough crew training, no hatch for the commander, no radio, bad gun sights, 
bad turret sights, vulnerable to any German Panzer higher than Mark III. Heck, in most cases, even the inferior Panzer III L had more victories over the T34-76, simply due to better crew training, better gun sights, and superior tactics in general.
Its only adventage was its numbers, and that's what it was good for.


----------



## davebender (Mar 19, 2013)

Ferdinand was the most capable AT gun. Only 89 present at Kursk.
July to October 1943. Credited with killing 502 Soviet tanks and 100 other vehicles.
50 surviving Ferdinands returned for factory overhaul during October 1943.

Most capable all around tank was undoubtedly the Tiger I. Firepower, armor and mobility. The Tiger had it all in a single expensive package.

IMO StuG III SP assault gun deserves more respect then it normally gets. Firepower, armor and mobility were excellent and it cost 1/3rd the price of Tiger I. Relatively light weight also made it easy to transport.

Sd.Kfz.251 was the best APC.

Sd.Kfz.250 was probably the best all around recon vehicle.

July 1943 Soviets were still using same equipment as June 1941 so it's no surprise their vehicles don't rate highly. A year later things would be different. 1944 T-34 tank received a badly needed firepower increase and KV1 replaced with Stalin series tanks.


----------



## 7457587635857467 (Mar 20, 2013)

@davebender

You are missing some facts there. The *sPzJagAbt 656* destroyed 502 vehicles alone, but you are forgetting about the *sPzJagAbt 653*, which again terminated another 320 vehicles, 
making it a total of *800* vehicles destructed by all Ferdinands. 

By the way, saying it was un-effective because of the lack of a machine gun, is unjustified, because it was a tank destroyer afterall and it got its job better done than any other TD in the WW2. 
To say it was "vulnerable" to infantry is kind of redundant, because any AFV was just as vulenrable to infantry anyway. 
How many Tigers and Panthers were destroyed by infantry with piats, bazookas, RPG's etc, and yet they DID have machien guns? Having a machine gun, doesn't make you somehow invulnerable. 
How could anybody even think the Russians would swarm german tanks with hordes of infantry? Are you people out of your mind?
That has got to be the dumbest argument I ever heard of. It's not like the Russians were so desperate they used Kamikaze tactics to kill german armor.... 
I don't think the Russians even knew that Ferdinands didn't have a machine gun. Do you really think the Russian generals gave the soldiers the order to climb on any German tank they were close to?
Russian infantry hid in trenches, in devensive position. They wouldn't just run straight off towards German armor, as if their lifes had no value. That's outrageous. 
Also don't forget that Ferdinands operated far away from enemy lines. 
Remember, these were sniper tanks, they stayed at large distance to snipe russian tanks from long range. Russian infantry wouldn't even get the chance to get close to them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2013)

7457587635857467 said:


> Well, I can not argue that it was the "best", but the Ferdinand was definitely the most successful tank destroyer of this time period, and probably in the whole WW2.
> In total only 90 Ferdianands destroyed some 800 soviet AFV's, at a cost of only 13 own losses by sPzJagAbt 656 and a few more unknown losses by sPzJagAbt 653 (of which most were disabled by mines or
> mechanical breakdown rather than by enemy fire). The Ferdinand's were almost immortal to any Soviet gun.
> Almost no Soviet tank or anti tank gun was capable of penetrating its armor at medium to long range, except only a very few anti tank guns such as the ZIS-3, SU-76 SPG and of course the 152mm gun of the SU-152.
> ...



The poll is not about the "best tank killer", but about the best tank or the best tank killer, or, as stated in the title, about "The best AFV in the Kursk bulge 1943". If the tank cannot fight and move couple of hundreds of kilometers in one day, just how good is that tank? We need to remember that outcome of Kursk battle was, for Germans, about advance, cutting off the Soviet units in the bulge and destroy what's in the resulting cauldron. It was NOT about leisurely sniping out unfortunate T-34s.
Neither three heavy German 'animals' were not participate well in the 'keil und kessel' battle in 1943, Panther being the worst of them back then. Then we have Pz-III and -IV, two reliable workhorses. Unfortunately for Germans, Soviet artillery from long 45mm up to 152mm howitzers was more than capable for harm those. And the amount of entrenched Soviet artillery was unbelievable. My favourite German AFV, the StuG-III, was excellent on defense, but not so much on offense. 
German problem was that they were trying to out-slug the Soviets, neglecting the fact that all of their previous victories were the outcome of successful out-maneuvering the adversary. Not only vs. Soviets, but against any adversary in 20th century.
Contrary to German best, the T-34s have had no problems to participate in hot pursuit after the battle. Soviets knew just too well that tanks were targets of many anti tank means, so they tried to churn out as many of useful tanks, in order to win battles. They were not bothered by one-on-one showdowns, but were also developing ever better tanks that would be also reliable and 'producible'.
BTW, the 76mm, be it in AFV or towed form, was a loosing ticket vs. Tiger. One needs 57mm ZiS-2, 76mm AA, 85mm AA or something bigger to kill it. Best would be the 122mm cannon, plenty of those during Kursk were around. Also, the quality of the crew has nothing to do with tank's quality.


----------



## davebender (Mar 20, 2013)

> Neither three heavy German 'animals' were not participate well in the 'keil und kessel' battle in 1943


Soviets had superior numbers and plenty of time to dig in yet the casualty count still favored Germany by a wide margin. German army was still advancing and winning at Kursk when Hitler halted the offensive and transferred some of the best units to Italy. 

How can anyone claim German armor or German army in general did not perform well?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2013)

There is no doubt that Germans were advancing, their advance in northern sector being halted couple of days before than it was halted in southern sector. The point was that Soviets have had numerous reserves to comit into battle, while the Germans were short in that. Plus, the Soviets have had launched Operation Kutuzov, just north on the northern part of the bulge, BEFORE Hitler canceled the Citadelle. Germans have struggled to forestall that advance, at the end they extracted a high toll at Soviet tanks there, but loosing the area between Orel and Bryansk.

Nobody claims that German armor or German army in general did not perform well.


----------



## stug3 (Mar 21, 2013)

I cant believe the OP has the Panzer III but didnt include the Stug III in the poll, unless thats what *Panzer ausf. G* is supposed to represent.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2013)

StuG-IIIG, what an AFV.


----------

