# Fall 1942: the best medium tank on field



## Vincenzo (Jul 9, 2014)

Your opinion on the best medium tank on operation in the fall 1942


list for remember 
Pz IV early variant with 75mm long
Pz III J/L
Crusader Mk III
M4/A1 probably also A2 (i think we all are agree that M4 was superior to M3)
T-34 Model 19411942


i've not listed the Churchill because i think it as heavy tank, i've not listed all the old medium with 40/47mm 50 MV weapons because they had trouble with the armour of the newer medium tanks


----------



## Mobius (Jul 9, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> Your opinion on the best medium tank on operation in the fall 1942


I'd vote for the PZIV G


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 9, 2014)

M4 is the best allround tank. Others beat it in various areas but as a complete package it had everything.


----------



## davebender (Jul 9, 2014)

I agree. The best all around combination of firepower, protection, mobility, optics, communications equipment, reliability and production cost. Furthermore the relatively low weight of only about 23 tons makes for relatively easy battlefield mobility. It can cross bridges and culverts for which heavier Sherman and T-34 would require additional engineering support.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 9, 2014)

Some can check if the Valentine with 6 pdr gun were available on front for the fall of 42?


----------



## davebender (Jul 9, 2014)

Tanks normally fire more HE then AP.

WWII era 75mm shells typically contain .5 to .7kg of HE filler. How much HE filler was in 6 pdr / 57mm HE shell? I'll hazard a guess it was far less. 

Any medium tank armed with main gun less then 75mm in size has a significant battlefield performance handicap. That includes the Valentine.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 9, 2014)

maybe you've missed we are talking of fall '42, for all the fall of 42 most common german medium had 50mm gun, in the western allies side the 75mm tank were more common bu were around 40% of the tanks available for the 2nd El Alamein battle
on what ammo fired a tank i think your statement is not true for all


----------



## Mobius (Jul 9, 2014)

In operation was the phrase used.
Fall 1942 lasts until Dec 20, 1942.

Now for a hard hitting tank there was the T-34/57. But there were only a handful of those.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 10, 2014)

Actually i've doubts that were some T-34-57 available in combat unit in fall '42, the were 50 deployed in fall '41 i've doubt that they are on front unit a year later


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2014)

It pretty much comes down to the Sherman and the MK IV long. Most of the early MK IV longs only had 50mm of frontal armor although by the fall of 1942 a few of the uparmoured ones were beginning to show up. This means that either tank can penetrate the other at most practical battle ranges. Slight advantage to the MK IV for sights and flatter trajectory. 

Sherman has the advantage of reliability. Have to drive the tanks several hundred miles before the battle starts? A higher percentage of Shermans will show up on the start line. 

For infantry support you need not only HE ammo for the main gun but MG ammo and the Sherman holds about twice as much. 

T-34 has some thing going for it and some things going against it, like the two man turret, lack of radios, lousy machineguns.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 10, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> Your opinion on the best medium tank on operation in the fall 1942
> 
> 
> list for remember
> ...



Best medium tank in the fall of 1942 was the Canadian RAM II.


----------



## Glider (Jul 11, 2014)

It is close but I would go for the T34. The two man turret and lack of radios are the biggest problems but at the end of the day the T34 will go more places, faster, with excellent protection and a small size are big advantages. I also like the diesel engine and radios could easily be fitted.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2014)

The problem with the G model of the Mark IV was that it was a relatively difficult tank to build, at least that was the verdict of the germans tasked to build it. Certianly appears to be the case based on its delivery rates. In the whole of 1942, the Germans delivered 994 MkIV chassis, of which just over 400 were G series. 

By comparison, T-34s were as cheap as chips to build, and the Soviets from the end of 1941 were churning them out like hot cakes. About 8000 T-34s were put together in 1942, despite the loss of the Stalingrad factory, which accounted for about 42% of T-34 output up that time. There wee significant QA issues arising, mostly from the newer outlets such as the Nizhniy Tagil plant in Siberia, which had begun to be organised in June 1941 and turned out its first tanks in December 1941

The staff and machinery from Factory No.183 reached Nizhniy Tagil in the middle of winter. The facilities remained primitive for some time – at first parts of the factory were unroofed, despite the low winter temperatures (as low at -40 degrees C at some times). Most of the original workforce had been lost, and much of the burden of production fell on children and women. There was barely enough food and virtually no medical care. 

Despite these terrible circumstances production at Nizhniy Tagil began in December 1941, when 25 T-34s were completed. Hardly surprisingly the quality of these tanks was not high, but as the factory became better established many of the problems were ironed out. 

Other more established factories with experienced workers in the factories turned out relatively high quality tanks with good reliability.

Unlike the Germans the Soviets decided to pass (largely) in the upgrade of the basic tanks, so when we are comparing T-34/76s of 1942, to MkIVGs of 1942, we are basically comparing a 1940 tank to a 1942 tank design. There are one or two minor exceptions to this, relating mostly to the pgrade of comunications, increased relaibility of the transmission, and the usage of a much better turret design from the middle of the year. These tanks were in production from June, were issued to the newly forming tank corps in August (after disatrous losses between May and September) and first saw serious action in November during the Stalingrad encirclement. here, Soviet losses were still heavy, but much less than previously.

The main changes that occured to the turret design related to the new hexagonal turret design, with enlarged internal dimensions. this tank arose from the short lived T-34M design. The turret had 77mm frontal armour (not including the glacis plate) and 52mm side armour. production was faciliated by the use of very simple castings with a rolled plate roof attached . only two of the 8 tank outlets switched to this new turret, the one Chelyabinsk and the one Uralmash, but these two factories accounted for nearly 50% of total output. In addition to beter space availability and improved layout, these turrets had improved ammo stowage and could carry more than 100 rounds, compared to the older turrets 70 odd. As mentioned above, a vastly improved 5 speed gearbox was introduced and long range fuel tanks (a trademeark of Soviet breakthrough operations that were to come) were introduced in 1942. Put simply, the T-34 was a much more well rounded design to the mkIV, which empahasised combat power, and suffered somewhat in terms of protection and mobility. However the german tank was vastly superior in terms of comms and optics, and quite a bit superior in terms of its armour penetration.

The main advantage of the Soviet tank was its dedication to produceability. The Soviets spent a lot of time making sure the tank was simple in extreme and austere iin fitout, whereas the germans gave virtually no regard to this issue. This was one of the main reasons the Soviets won the war. industrially they were much weakewr than Germany and on top of that by 1942 had lost 35% of their industrial potential to the enemy. They should have been on the ropes production wise, but instead they outproduced the germans by miles. ive read from more than one source, that the Soviets could put together a t-34 in under 5000 man hours, whereas a Panther took up more than 55000 hours. mark IVs were similar, but a little less than the panther. id rather have 11 T-34s over one dodgy Panther any day in 1943. Not sure of the man hours forer the MkIV, but say it was 25000 hours (an estimate based on its approximate unit cost) id still far prefer 5 or 6 T-34s for every one MkIV

Similar arguments arise for the Sherman incidentally. it was a readily produceable tamk, in which the mods undertaken were kept as few as possible. unquestionably as a battle tank the German tank reigned supreme, but it fell down badly in other areas, principally protection and produceability.....


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 11, 2014)

RCAFson said:


> Best medium tank in the fall of 1942 was the Canadian RAM II.



Are you aware that never go in operation?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 11, 2014)

On the Pz IV production it was not the standard medium tank in '42, the decision to use the Pz IV as standard medium was just take after the need to put a 75 long gun in the medium tank (in the Pz III was not possible).
it's true that the IV in '42 were 994 but the 1937-1941 production was in all 1015, take in the count that all Pz IV A-F production was 1306 this left 291 F built in 1942 so in '42 were built 703 IV G and the 200 F with 75 long


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2014)

The gun in the F1 was a lot less powerful than that n the F2. F2 was essentially a G with some slightly inferior characteristics, but nothing major. But some F2s were still fitted with the f1 gun, so its impossible to be completely definitive about its offensive capabilities. My source says 294 F2s were built, and 291 F1s all in 1942. By calculation that therefore means that just over 400 were later marks, logically that the G.

To be fair, most people rate the F2 as a G, which, if thats accepted, does raise the number of gs or g equivalents to just under 700

Mk IV production was not first ramped up because the Mk III could not accommodate a 75mm gun. There are subtypes of the Mk III that did just that, sometimes referred to as the MkIII/IV, and in 1943 (I think) some of the later versions of the MkIII were fitted with the old L24 gun for Infantry support. It was less promising than the MkIV, and MKIV production, specifically the f1s were immeiately ramped after the first encounters with the T-34 in June 1941. F1s were also found useful in countering some of the heavy British tanks in the desert


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2014)

The G seems to span the F2 and the H with early Gs having the L43 gun and 50mm armor and late Gs having both the L48 gun and the 80mm armor on the hull/superstructure front. This about tapped out the basic MK IV design as it pretty much froze at this point. A modified hull _could_ have been developed ( ala Jagdpanzer IV) but wasn't employed on turreted tanks. 

_As used in the field_ in the fall of 1942 sort of disregards potential of prototypes (or tanks used in training) or future developments. There is little doubt that an M4A3E8 is superior to a MK IVH or J after all 

The MK IVs with 50mm frontal armor can be knocked out by American 75mm or Russian 76mm guns at most practical battle ranges. American 75mm can go through 50mm or better sloped at 30 degrees, which the MK IV was not, at 1500yds. The slope factor should help turn proving ground performance into battle field performance, few tanks were a perfect 90 degrees to the tank firing at them. The 80mm armor bought around 1000yds of protection but darn few MK IVs _in the field_ had 80mm armor in the fall of 1942. 

As used in the field I would have to chose the Sherman as the _better_ T-34s don't really start showing up until 1943.


----------



## Mobius (Jul 11, 2014)

The PZ IVG I'm talking about is the earlier version with the 50+30 armor. 
I did a simulation of 3 vs 3 tanks at about 480m for T-34/76 M'43 and the 4G takes it 4 times to 1. Then vs the T-34/76e M'42 and the 4G wins only 1 times to 4. Then vs the T-34/57 M'41 and the 4G wins 4 to 0 with one tie.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2014)

Older book (subject to correction?) says that the L43 gun was fitted until March of 1943. The 50+30 armor started to be fitted 20th June 1942 but only about 16 tanks per month were fitted with from July to Nov of 1942, From Dec 1942 all (?) had it or perhaps 1/2 of production? Estimate that 700 out of 1687 "G"s had the extra protection and since production ran until June of 1943 the number of 50+30 armored tanks _in the field_ in _fall_ (even November) of 1942 is going to pretty small. Please allow several weeks for delivery to North Africa


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 11, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> Are you aware that never go in operation?



It went into operation but never saw combat. If the Cdn army had been committed to combat in 1942 the Ram II would have been their main tank, but the Cdn Army didn't go into action until July 1943, except for the Dieppe Raid, where the Churchill I tank was used as an assault tank.

However the Ram II had a very good gun and relatively thick sloped armour, with good mobility and it would have been a winner in 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2014)

Ram Tank







The Canadians did a really remarkable job building this but since it is, for all practical purposes, an M3 Grant or early M4 from the break in the hull front down and all the way to the back of the tank, I am not seeing what the big advantage over the Sherman is. 

Same engine, transmission, suspension/running gear. Driver swapped sides but that little turret instead of bow gun isn't a big deal. Side hatches were soon dropped from both Ram and Sherman. Basic difference in combat effectiveness is if you prefer the 75mm or the 6pdr. 
While the Ram may very well be a better tank than what the British had in 1942 since it is more or less a right hand drive Sherman a lot of what applies to one applies to the other.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 11, 2014)

the F2 can not had a 75/24 gun, the and F1 the F2 were used for differentiate the short gun and the long gun IV F.
my source Waffen Arsenal Special Band 33 page 29 and 33 report a production of 197 F2 and 437 F1 since april 1941, from march 1942 only F-2 were built. this in combination on numbers i posted in my earlier post give that the G built in '42 were around 700. 

The Pz III can not accomodate the 75 long as i already writed in my post 15. the combination III/IV were not used for tanks productions only for self propelled artillery. Oh yes Pz IV G were not common in the fall '42.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 11, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Ram Tank
> 
> View attachment 266862
> 
> ...



It had thicker hull armour than the Sherman (80mm versus 50mm IIRC) and the 6pdr was a somewhat better AT gun than the 75mm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2014)

Since the Shermans 75mm will penetrate most (all but about 100 or so MK IVGs with the added armor) German tanks at 1000yds or better in 1942 it is a little hard to see what advantage the 6pdr brings. Spring of 1943 with a larger percentage of up armored tanks yes,
6pdr doesn't have much for HE ( yes it was being produced in 1942) and 6pdr smoke shells don't exist. 

Without a good armor breakdown of the Ram it is hard to say, Granted it is a bit shorter than the Sherman but it weighs almost the same so having thicker armor over large areas does't seem likely. A few small areas can certainly be a bit thicker. But with that MG turret the front end is an amazing collection of shot traps. I could be wrong but I would tend to figure the three piece transmission housing/lower hull is pretty much the same as a Grant/Sherman.


----------



## davebender (Jul 11, 2014)

16 May 1942
Front armor increased to 80mm

June 1942.
Modified engine hatch to improve cooling.

Sep 1942.
Cold weather starting accessories become standard equipment.

Nov 1942.
Winter tracks introduced with ice cleats. To be employed only in cold weather (duh).

Panzer IVH was still a few months away with 10% lower production cost. However operational performance was little changed from Panzer IVG in production by December 1942.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 11, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Since the Shermans 75mm will penetrate most (all but about 100 or so MK IVGs with the added armor) German tanks at 1000yds or better in 1942 it is a little hard to see what advantage the 6pdr brings.


actually for WWII Gun vrs Armour Calculator the 6 pdr with AP supercharge round has inferior capability vs Pz IV F that the 75/40 with AP (and is possible that americans had already some APCBC)


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 11, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Since the Shermans 75mm will penetrate most (all but about 100 or so MK IVGs with the added armor) German tanks at 1000yds or better in 1942 it is a little hard to see what advantage the 6pdr brings. Spring of 1943 with a larger percentage of up armored tanks yes,
> 6pdr doesn't have much for HE ( yes it was being produced in 1942) and 6pdr smoke shells don't exist.
> 
> Without a good armor breakdown of the Ram it is hard to say, Granted it is a bit shorter than the Sherman but it weighs almost the same so having thicker armor over large areas does't seem likely. A few small areas can certainly be a bit thicker. But with that MG turret the front end is an amazing collection of shot traps. I could be wrong but I would tend to figure the three piece transmission housing/lower hull is pretty much the same as a Grant/Sherman.



Armour:
Ram II
Turret front 76mm sides 76mm

Hull front 87-76mm - 63mm sides

M4:

Turret: 76mm front, side 50mm

Hull: front 50mm, sides 38mm 

So the Ram is somewhat better armoured. The 6pdr is much more accurate than the 75mm, having a flatter trajectory due to a much higher MV. It probably has a higher RoF. Because of the better penetration of the 6pdr it will have a much better chance of penetrating armour at oblique angles and the net result is a much better kill probability per shot than a Sherman as well having a higher probability of surviving return AP hits. The majority of Rams produced had the MG turret deleted.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2014)

Something isn't passing the smell test. The Ram was _supposed_ to be about 1500lbs lighter than a M4A1 Sherman (cast hull) yet if you use the armor thickness you give on a 15 ft side 1 1/2 ft high (doubled) (area over the tracks?) and for hull front on top of transmission housing without changing the transmission housing and count the turret as 5 ft long and 2 feet high (doubled) the extra armor would weigh about 3000lbs. 

Now I can under stand the Canadian track being a bit lighter than US track and a few other bits an pieces being a bit lighter but using the same same engine, drive-line, transmission, suspension doesn't leave much room for change there. 

The thicknesses given may be true but something doesn't look right.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 11, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Something isn't passing the smell test. The Ram was _supposed_ to be about 1500lbs lighter than a M4A1 Sherman (cast hull) yet if you use the armor thickness you give on a 15 ft side 1 1/2 ft high (doubled) (area over the tracks?) and for hull front on top of transmission housing without changing the transmission housing and count the turret as 5 ft long and 2 feet high (doubled) the extra armor would weigh about 3000lbs.
> 
> Now I can under stand the Canadian track being a bit lighter than US track and a few other bits an pieces being a bit lighter but using the same same engine, drive-line, transmission, suspension doesn't leave much room for change there.
> 
> The thicknesses given may be true but something doesn't look right.



AIUI the Ram hull is lower than the Sherman, and the turret is also lower and smaller. The difference in turret dimensions alone would account for much of the weight difference.


----------



## davebender (Jul 11, 2014)

Perhaps. The devil is in the details.

Early model Sherman tanks had several significant chinks in the protection scheme which were fixed during 1944. Belton Cooper (Death Traps) covers the details.

T-34 typically had multiple chinks in armor due to poor production quality. These are covered in 1950 U.S. Army evaluation of T-34/85 captured in Korea.

Panzer IV chassis was so lightly constructed (i.e. 18 ton specification) that road wheels were vulnerable to AT rifles. Presumably they were also vulnerable to shrapnel from 105mm artillery fire.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 12, 2014)

Mobius said:


> The PZ IVG I'm talking about is the earlier version with the 50+30 armor.
> I did a simulation of 3 vs 3 tanks at about 480m for T-34/76 M'43 and the 4G takes it 4 times to 1. Then vs the T-34/76e M'42 and the 4G wins only 1 times to 4. Then vs the T-34/57 M'41 and the 4G wins 4 to 0 with one tie.



There are a couple of issues in relation to this.


firstly this is a combat match up at ideal ranges for the L48 weapon against the T-34. It would be interesting to see what happens at lesser and greater ranges, though I doubt at any range, the T-34 in a stand up fight would get the advantage. this was the MkIVs forte....winning firefights in non-mobile battles, or at best, where their mobility was not affected by poor weather or rough terrain. The problem is after the summer of 1942, this was a situation they seldom were given by the Soviets 

Secondly, and following on from the above, I don't think there can be a serious contention that the T-34 was better than the G (much less a H or panther) in a combat situation, In a gunfight the Mk IV will generally win, but gun power is simply not the only issue. its a big issue, but I would say not even the dominant issue. This was because of the nature of combat the Soviets preferred, and from Stalingrad on (with the exception of Kursk and one or two other incidents) they increasingly dictated the terms of battle on the Eastern Front) After Kursk, once the Russians had won the initiative, they seldom bothered to stop and duke it out with the few German tanks that might be there to oppose their break throughs. There were reasons why the Soviets referred to their T-34s as a Breakthrough tank, and the dominant type of battle when on the offensive as the breakthrough, or exploitation battle. Basically flatten, or suppress a section of the front with artillery and airpower, Use a mixed force of tanks and Infantry to smash a hole through that sector. Heavy losses likely at this point as the germans will be able to use their firepower advantages to full effect. but once the breach is made, bring up reserves to firstly restore the integrity of the assault forces, which now switch to holding open the breach, and secondly, a second reserve force....the breakthrough groups, to push as far and as deep as they can, exploiting the phenomenal mobility and endurance that were the hallmark of Russian mechanised formations. Soviet T-34s, with their long range fuel tanks were a centrpiece of those formations and operations.

Once the breakthrough phase was reached, and put into effect, German losses would begin to mount. The majority of German tank losses on the eastern front were not directly combat related. the majority were things like "ran out of fuel; abandoned" or "broke down - destroyed by crew" . In battle, the Soviets sustained losses of around 7:1 in favour of the Germans, but overall the loss ratio was much closer to 2:1 which is a very favourable result for a technically inferior force on the attack. Manpower wise the Germans lost more men on the eastern front 1944-5 than the Soviets, and that was because of the types of battles they were forced to fight. The best example of this type of warfare is perhaps the destruction of Army Group Centre 

So, if we look at the whole package, the question of which tank is supoerior become s much harder to determine. if we throw in unit costs, it becomes much more weighted in favour of the T-34.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2014)

RCAFson said:


> AIUI the Ram hull is lower than the Sherman, and the turret is also lower and smaller. The difference in turret dimensions alone would account for much of the weight difference.



Cross section of Sherman (welded hull)






Given the same engine, drive shaft and transmission how much lower can you make the tank?






It its tough scaling off of people in photographs (is the guy next to the tank 5'4" or 6'2" ?) but the Ram doesn't appear that much smaller. Some sources say it was 3 in shorter than early Shermans to the top _fixture_ on the turret roof (Periscope?)

Weights are for "combat" weights which may allow for some reduction in ammo weights. 

BTW, found this site on the Ram tank, nice pictures. Ram Tank


----------



## davebender (Jul 12, 2014)

Sherman chassis was rather small (length x width) for a 30 ton tank. That leaves no place to build but up.

Similar weight T-34 had a larger chassis. So did 23 ton Panzer IVG. That makes for a lower center of gravity which improves cross country performance, especially on hilly terrain.


----------



## Mobius (Jul 12, 2014)

parsifal said:


> There are a couple of issues in relation to this.
> its a big issue, but I would say not even the dominant issue. This was because of the nature of combat the Soviets preferred, and from Stalingrad on (with the exception of Kursk and one or two other incidents) they increasingly dictated the terms of battle on the Eastern Front) After Kursk, once the Russians had won the initiative, they seldom bothered to stop and duke it out with the few German tanks that might be there to oppose their break throughs. There were reasons why the Soviets referred to their T-34s as a Breakthrough tank, and the dominant type of battle when on the offensive as the breakthrough, or exploitation battle. Basically flatten, or suppress a section of the front with artillery and airpower, Use a mixed force of tanks and Infantry to smash a hole through that sector. Heavy losses likely at this point as the germans will be able to use their firepower advantages to full effect. but once the breach is made, bring up reserves to firstly restore the integrity of the assault forces, which now switch to holding open the breach, and secondly, a second reserve force....the breakthrough groups, to push as far and as deep as they can, exploiting the phenomenal mobility and endurance that were the hallmark of Russian mechanised formations. Soviet T-34s, with their long range fuel tanks were a centrpiece of those formations and operations.


And that centerpiece was checked by the Germans using tank firefighting groups to hold the Russian breakthroughs until their lines reformed. 
No one is going to compare tanks because one side won a war of attrition. If that then you could throw 'is the tank is better' because of Lend-Lease or the Japanese didn't attack Siberia. Because the war could of gone the other way.


----------



## Mobius (Jul 12, 2014)

parsifal said:


> There are a couple of issues in relation to this.
> its a big issue, but I would say not even the dominant issue. This was because of the nature of combat the Soviets preferred, and from Stalingrad on (with the exception of Kursk and one or two other incidents) they increasingly dictated the terms of battle on the Eastern Front) After Kursk, once the Russians had won the initiative, they seldom bothered to stop and duke it out with the few German tanks that might be there to oppose their break throughs. There were reasons why the Soviets referred to their T-34s as a Breakthrough tank, and the dominant type of battle when on the offensive as the breakthrough, or exploitation battle. Basically flatten, or suppress a section of the front with artillery and airpower, Use a mixed force of tanks and Infantry to smash a hole through that sector. Heavy losses likely at this point as the germans will be able to use their firepower advantages to full effect. but once the breach is made, bring up reserves to firstly restore the integrity of the assault forces, which now switch to holding open the breach, and secondly, a second reserve force....the breakthrough groups, to push as far and as deep as they can, exploiting the phenomenal mobility and endurance that were the hallmark of Russian mechanised formations. Soviet T-34s, with their long range fuel tanks were a centrpiece of those formations and operations.


And that centerpiece was checked by the Germans using tank firefighting groups to hold the Russian breakthroughs until their lines reformed. 
No one is going to compare tanks because one side won a war of attrition. If that then you could throw 'is the tank is better' because of Lend-Lease or the Japanese didn't attack Siberia. Because the war could of gone the other way.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2014)

If we are talking about the best tank then the Pz IVG would be the winner as one for one it was the best. However if we are talking about the PzIVF2 then I stick with the T34/76. The Sherman is a good tank but compared to the T34 its a lot bigger, doesn't have the same cross country performance, has a very inflammable engine and I prefer the sloped armour of the T34. The Sherman has advantages for sure but overall I stay with the T34.


----------



## Mobius (Jul 12, 2014)

Glider said:


> If we are talking about the best tank then the Pz IVG would be the winner as one for one it was the best. However if we are talking about the PzIVF2 then I stick with the T34/76. The Sherman is a good tank but compared to the T34 its a lot bigger, doesn't have the same cross country performance, has a very inflammable engine and I prefer the sloped armour of the T34. The Sherman has advantages for sure but overall I stay with the T34.


You are right. I forgot the exploding fuel tanks of the T-34.
Archive Awareness : Gas Tanks, Fires, and Explosions


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2014)

A good piece but notice that *ALL *the examples of exploding T34 fuel tanks were when the tank was hit from the side and that a number of the countermeasures were easily put in place. A Sherman was almost guaranteed to explode whenever hit.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 13, 2014)

glider i don't understand because G is good and the F-2 no
the difference of early G and the F-2 were the name


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> glider i don't understand because G is good and the F-2 no
> the difference of early G and the F-2 were the name



Not in every case. A number of F2s were ditted with the older 75mm gun the same as that used by the F1 series. But for the L48 equipped version, probably no significant difference as you say


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2014)

Mobius said:


> And that centerpiece was checked by the Germans using tank firefighting groups to hold the Russian breakthroughs until their lines reformed.
> No one is going to compare tanks because one side won a war of attrition. If that then you could throw 'is the tank is better' because of Lend-Lease or the Japanese didn't attack Siberia. Because the war could of gone the other way.



seldom happened to any significant extent. After Kursk, not a single Soviet offensive was ever stopped, or even checked. the Germans were too exhausted to make any real difference to the outcomes of battles. the limiting factor was the breakdown in Soviet logistics. They would push as far as they could until the supply ran out, and then just wait for resupply to arrive. in the meantime, the Germans might launch a counterattack here or there, inflict losses on the now seriously immobilised spearheads of the Soviet formations, and then get encircled themselves. The Germans did well, in terms of the exchange rates,, but it a post war furphy that after Kursk they held any strategic capability to halt any major Soviet effort. 

Soviet losses were always staggering, but to put it into some perspective, total AFV losses for each side 1941-5 according to Krivosheev were as follows:
Total losses for tanks and SP were
Soviet 96,500 (AFV losses), over 40000 lost to May 1942
German 32,000 tank losses exceeding Soviet losses from August'44 to the end of the war
Axis 750
However elsewhere Krivosheev says that German losses were 42,700. To May 1942, they had lost (unreoverable losses) 1300 tanks (plus about 50 from the satellites), after that they lost either 30700 (plus about 700 from the allies) to the Soviet losses of 46000. thats an exchange rate of either about 1:1, or 4:3 in favour of the Axis. not that much to get excited about really is it. trouble is, I dont have detailed figure for the t-34 or the mkIV, but one should expect thgings to be in proportion. One source that I have states that nearly 8000 T-34s were lost to the end of 1942 

These figures incidentally are an echo of manpower losses as well. Soviet manpower losses for the war, excluding men massacred after surrendering, and losses in occupied areas, were about 13 million to the entire war (some have claimed losses in conventional operations as high as 20million, but Dupuy has fairly comprehensively debunked this claim) . They lost nearly 7 million men according to Nagorski, in 1941, and a further 2.6 million in 1942. Thats roughly 9.6 million in that first 18 months. After that, they lost 4 million men, give or take. german losses are always hotly disputed (not least because some accounts show casualties as including thoise mean that went home after beig wounded, and then returning....is that a casualty or not?), but according to the Quartermeisters quarterly strength returns, they lost 450000 in 1941, about 550000 in 1942, and about 3.3 million men on the eastern front for the rest of the war. That means that in 1941, the exchange rate was about 20:1, dropping to 4:1 in 1942, dropping to 4:3 for the remainder of the war. By June 1944, the germans were losing, to all causes, about twice as many men as the Russians.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2014)

Glider said:


> A good piece but notice that *ALL *the examples of exploding T34 fuel tanks were when the tank was hit from the side and that a number of the countermeasures were easily put in place. A Sherman was almost guaranteed to explode whenever hit.



The Shermans mostly caught fire due to the ammunition. later versions went to applique armor over the ammo racks and finally to wet storage of the ammo which greatly reduced the number of fires when hit. Strangely (or not) they didn't do much, if anything to the fuel storage. Please note the number of articles/stories claiming the Shermans suffered due to using aircraft engines and _high octane gas_. They used 80 octane. Granted that is higher than 73 but still???? It also shows that the authors didn't know what they were talking about because higher octane gas actually has a higher ignition temperature.


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2014)

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was thinking of the additional armour increasing the armour from 50mm to 80mm


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> The Shermans mostly caught fire due to the ammunition. later versions went to applique armor over the ammo racks and finally to wet storage of the ammo which greatly reduced the number of fires when hit. Strangely (or not) they didn't do much, if anything to the fuel storage. Please note the number of articles/stories claiming the Shermans suffered due to using aircraft engines and _high octane gas_. They used 80 octane. Granted that is higher than 73 but still???? It also shows that the authors didn't know what they were talking about because higher octane gas actually has a higher ignition temperature.



I doubt if it made much difference to the crew if it was the ammo or the fuel that blew up. Granted there were a lot of improvements as the war progressed but in 1942 its very much the original version.


----------



## Mobius (Jul 13, 2014)

parsifal said:


> German 32,000 tank losses exceeding Soviet losses from August'44 to the end of the war
> Axis 750
> However elsewhere Krivosheev says that German losses were 42,700. To May 1942, they had lost (unreoverable losses) 1300 tanks (plus about 50 from the satellites), after that they lost either 30700 (plus about 700 from the allies) to the Soviet losses of 46000. thats an exchange rate of either about 1:1, or 4:3 in favour of the Axis. not that much to get excited about really is it. trouble is, I dont have detailed figure for the t-34 or the mkIV, but one should expect thgings to be in proportion. One source that I have states that nearly 8000 T-34s were lost to the end of 1942


Not so fast there.
Aug '44 Soviets had ~13,500 AFVs Jan '45 ~ 16,200. Their production and Lend-Lease for that time was 18,256. Or a difference is a loss of 15,500 AFVs.
Aug '44 Germans on all fronts had 10,000 AFVs. Jan '45 there were 13,362. In 1944 they produced 18,956 total AFVs. So let's say half were produced Aug-Jan or 9400. The difference is loss of 6048. But that includes all fronts. Not just the East.
Even if all were lost in the East it is a 1:2.5 loss ratio.

(I have a computer program that tallies Soviet production tanks month by month but the one for German production is not done yet.)

Now if the Germans had a total of 10,000 AFV Aug '44 and produced 9400 the remainder of the year and 4406 in all of 1945 they would total 23,886 if none were lost. So they can't lose more than they had can they?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2014)

This is pretty typical of the sort of misreporting that is often used to 'prove" poor performance of Soviet equipment and/or personnel. in fact these numbers point to exceptional performance of both, though its not apparent at first glance. 

In many ways its similar to the sorts of stories lain at the feet of the panzerwaffe after Barbarossa. by the time the offensive ground to a halt at the end of November, the average AFV strength of the german Tank formations was down to about 10% of TOE starting strength. Does that mean that the Germans had lost around 4000 AFVs in that 6 months. not a chance. In fact, to the end of 1941 on the eastern front they had totally written off about 1300 tanks. 75% of German tanks returned to service after having been withdrawn from the available lists, and completely overhauled, many of them returning to Germany at the factories for this work to be done 

In exactly the same way, the Soviets by the end of September had just completed 4 months of gruelling offensive operations and were in need of urgent refit to most of their mechanised formations, the same as the Germans needed rest and refit in 1941. I dont know the exact percentages, but at Kursk, after they had won the battle, it was again that 75% figure that were salvaged repaired and returned to service. 75% seems like a pretty typical salvage rate when your side is attacking and holding the ground after the battle. . Soviet permanent write offs in that period June to September were in fact about 4000 tanks which is consistent with all of the above. For the entire year of 1944, they lost 12000 AFVs, with over 50000 needing repair 

For the germans, virtually every tank that broke down, or ran out of fuel as they retreated were permanently lost. As the Russians picked up the pace and the Germans front lines began to cave in enmasse, these losses snowballed. German tank losses in that same period were about 8000 from memory, most of these were permanent losses . In 1944, on the eastern front German losses were 12079. Some sources put the figure as low as 9006, some Russian sources claim as high as 16900 

There IS a LOT of dispute about all these figures, even amongst professional hiostorians. Steven Zaloga in his book gives the following loss figures for each of the protagonists:

From Steve Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" pg. 181:

Production
Year - Soviet - German

1941 - 6,274 - 3,256
1942 - 24,639 - 4,276
1943 - 19,959 - 5,966
1944 - 16,975 - 9,161
1945 - 4,384 - 1,098

Losses
Year - Soviet - German - Exchange Ratio

1941 - 20,500 - 2,758 - 7:1
1942 - 15,000 - 2,648 - 6:1
1943 - 22,400 - 6,362 - 4:1
1944 - 16,900 - 6,434 - 1.4:1
1945 - 8,700 - 7,382 - 1.2:1

Tanks in Inventory (1/Jan of each year)
Year - Soviet - German

1941 - 22,600 - 5,261
1942 - 7,700 - 4,896
1943 - 20,600 - 5,648
1944 - 21,100 - 5,266
1945 - 25,400 - 6,248

Confused? i know I am. But it gets worse. The "Achtung Panzer" website, a not particualarly even handed assesmnet, gives the following figures on soviet and German tank losses

German vs. Soviet AFV losses – 1941-45.


Period:	Ratio:	Period:	Ratio:
06/41-02/42	1:5.0	12/43-06/44	1:1.4
03/42-05/42	1:6.6	07/44	1:4.0
06/42-10/42	1:7.9	08/44	1:2.0
11/42-03/43	1:1.3	09/44	1:1.0
04/43-08/43	1:5.7	10/43-11/44	1:1.3
09/43-11/43	1:2.5	-	- 


Panzer Statistics

it just is not that simple, and not easy to pin down losses at all.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 13, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Not in every case. A number of F2s were ditted with the older 75mm gun the same as that used by the F1 series. But for the L48 equipped version, probably no significant difference as you say



This is false F2 is a F with the 75/43 gun with the 75/24 is a F1; the F-2 is the name for the tanks with 75/43 gun within the 7th production block of Pz IV, that was ordered as F with 75/24.
no F2 had L48 gun all F2 had L43 gun like the early G


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2014)

Glider said:


> I doubt if it made much difference to the crew if it was the ammo or the fuel that blew up. Granted there were a lot of improvements as the war progressed but in 1942 its very much the original version.



True for the crew but if it is the ammo storage causing the problem then the difference between a gas powered version and a diesel is rather moot. 

Criticize the Sherman for lousy ammo storage but claiming they made a mistake in not using a diesel from the start just continues the mis-information. 

AS for "The Sherman is a good tank but compared to the T34 its a lot bigger, doesn't have the same cross country performance, has a very inflammable engine and I prefer the sloped armour of the T34. The Sherman has advantages for sure but overall I stay with the T34."

Granted it is bigger but carries more ammo, both main gun and machine gun, it had a radio more often, it had a 5th crewman, all things that add bulk. Having a separate commander and gunner increases the rate of fire a bit and the rate of engagement a lot ( how many targets in a given period of time). Cross country performance becomes rather debatable as a lot depends on the actual cross country terrain and the actual amount of difference. In a number of cases the T-34 may be a lot better than the Sherman, in other cases the difference may be minor. In many cases the Sherman had better cross country performance than the MK IV so if both the Sherman and T-34 are better than the MK IV how much more of advantage over the Sherman is the T-34s performance? 

Sherman often does not get credit for the 56 degree slope on the front plate, granted the two hatches screw things up some but the difference between 56 and 60 degrees? later Shermans went to 47 degrees and got rid of the shot traps. Granted the sides are not sloped.


----------



## Mobius (Jul 13, 2014)

parsifal said:


> This is pretty typical of the sort of misreporting that is often used to 'prove" poor performance of Soviet equipment and/or personnel. in fact these numbers point to exceptional performance of both, though its not apparent at first glance.


I would say that is trying to have both sides of the argument. I.e. the T-34 was best because it was for winning a war of attrition and on the other side it was best because of it's exceptional performance compared to the other side.



parsifal said:


> 1944 - 16,900 - 6,434 - 1.4:1


 My math says that this is more like 2.6:1

Getting back to the numbers according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: Tank Industry Report
If this was to be believed then 10,073 of all sorts of German AFVs were produced second half of 1944. Add to this half the foreign production of 1944 i.e. 861. So now 10,000 + 10,073 + 861 + 4400 = 25,340. There are only 25,340 to lose by 4/1945.

As to Zaloga data I use it in my Russian Production program but some things don't add up so I have an alternative way of calculating. One thing I ran into with numbers provided is for example in 1943 in the 3-6 months before Kursk if you just tally all the Soviet tanks produced and then subtract those lost during the period the numbers available should be something like 3000-5000 more. Even if every tank was scrapped Jan 1943. So where are all those tanks when Kursk starts?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2014)

Mobius said:


> I would say that is trying to have both sides of the argument. I.e. the T-34 was best because it was for winning a war of attrition and on the other side it was best because of it's exceptional performance compared to the other side.



we are back where we started. I would not claim the t-34 was the best combat tank. it suffered far too many losses to make a valid claim in that regard. but as an overall package, it was the best. it had adequate gun power, adequate protection, excellent mobility and range, and it was as cheap as chips to build. In tank versus tank enagements the T-34 does terribly, but as part of an overall package it did extremely well. by rights the Sovietws were heavily outgunned in terms of raw industrial power and yet they outproduced the Germans in tanks and SP production 6:1 and at the end, because of that numbers advantage were destroying more german tanks than the germans were destroying of theirs. as you say, it was an attritional battle, but by rights the russians should have lost that battle. T-34 qualities contributed to that attritional victory because they were an alround package.

Cause of german losses is very revealing as to why i say the t-34 was a whole package and the mkIV was not. German losses in combat were only 1/7 of their total losses. Mostly they lost tanks to breakdowns or fuel shortages. Its always intersting that the germanophiles will trot out how during Kursk only 2 tiger tanks were lost, but then omit to say that by the end of the battle, only a handful of the starting total were still in German hands. the rest had all either broken down or ran out of fuel and had to be abandone. About 90% of the starting total were lost in this way. Thats attitional, sure, but without the qualities of the t-34, that would have been harder to achieve.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2014)

Admittedly Wiki, but worth mentioning at least

According to wiki, losses for the major bellgerent were as follows

Soviet Union: *83.540 tanks destroyed or dama*ged of all causes (5,200 heavy tanks, 44,900 medium tanks, 33,400 light tanks), including *63,229 irrecoverable losses*. Per type: - 1.235 IS - 3.755 KV - 41.971 T-34 - 370 T-28 - 7.124 BT tanks - 9.097 T-26 - 10.881 T-60/70 - 2.675 amphibian tank - 176 Churchill Mk-4 - 1.804 M-4A2 - 696 M3 Stuart - 783 Churchill MK-1/2/3/5/7 - 2.301 Churchill Mk-9/11 - 691 M3 Lee - 1.671 others.
13.011 SPGs destroyed or damaged of all causes (2,300 heavy SPGs, 2,100 medium SPGs, 8,600 light SPGs). Per type: - 507 SU-122 - 409 SU-152 - 672 ISU-122 - 734 ISU-152 - 1853 SU-85 - 381 SU-100 - 196 SU-57 - 6.452 SU-76 - 1.807 foreign SPGs.
36,700 Armoured car and half-track.

French: Around 6,000 tanks (~3,000 destroyed, ~3,000 captured by German)
UK : Around 20,000 tanks
USA: Around 20,000 tanks
Germany: Around *40,000 tanks and SPGs destroyed or captured *(~2,000 in North Africa, ~4,000 in Western Front and ~*34,000 *in Eastern Front)
Around 87,329 half-track trucks; 36,703 half-track tractors; 21,880 half-track armoured personnel carriers destroyed or captured.
226,300 Military cars and 97,470 Military motor-cycles destroyed or captured.
159,144 Anti-tank guns and Artillery destroyed or captured.
86,400 Mortars destroyed or captured.

From the above, the overall exchange rate 63229 to 34000. To this must be added the German allies, somewhere between 750 and 1000 tanks lost. Thats an overall exchange rate of about 1.82:1

Another article with an alt4ernative pov....
??????? ?????????? --[ ??????? ??????? ]-- Stolfi R. H. S. Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted

This is a link to a nother forum containing a very intersting article on Soviet tank and mechanised formations

Soviet Tank/Mech Corps In WWII


----------



## Mobius (Jul 14, 2014)

This did prompt me to finish my German production program. Though I've got numbers from different sources so I might be missing assault guns that are not StuGs. But the numbers I have is from 1/1940 to 4/1945 Germans and their allies produced 40,041 AFVs. I don't have losses yet.

So yes every tank Germany or their allies produced was destroyed or captured during WWII.


----------



## Juha (Jul 14, 2014)

Hello Parsifal
"783 Churchill MK-1/2/3/5/7 - 2.301 Churchill Mk-9/11" in Soviet losses? Typo meaning Valentines?


----------



## wiking85 (Jul 14, 2014)

parsifal said:


> From the above, the overall exchange rate 63229 to 34000. To this must be added the German allies, somewhere between 750 and 1000 tanks lost. Thats an overall exchange rate of about 1.82:1


How many were captured at the end of the war? That skews the stats pretty heavily.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2014)

wiking85 said:


> How many were captured at the end of the war? That skews the stats pretty heavily.



A lot less than were captured at the beginning of the war, which skews the result just as badly if not worse. And in any event, a tank that is surrendered is a tank that cannot escape. A tank that cannot escape because it runs out of fuel, or breaks down, or, indeed, attached to a force no longer effectively able to resist is still a loss. It ought not be ised as an excuse to try and explain away shortcomings. I certainly would not try to explain away soviet losses at the begiunning of the war in this way; they were legitimate losses and ought to be considered in the reckoning.....all 20000 of them. 

I dont have the complete figures, but at the time the last offensive on the Oder Niesse began, the Soviets could deploy about 17000 tanks in the East, Alexander Werth states in his book that the Russian Tanks outnumbered the germans 6:1 in those final battles. That gives Germans on the eastern front somewhere between 2500 and 3000 tanks. 1300 were deployed in front of Berlin, dug in, and immobile. (including 587 attached to AG Vistula). These were all completely lost before surrender. The main Soviet attacks before the battle of Berlin began came from the southwest, and in this area, approximately 1000 german tanks were lost. south of Berlin. Thats about 2300 out of the final 3000 or so. or 80%, and we dont even know the full extent of the losses. ive read somwhere the Germans lost somewhere around 200 tanks within Berlin itself. 

No doubt large numbers of AFVs sent to the rear for refit and/or repair were captured at the end of the war. Possibly also numbers of tanks in various stages of construction would have been captured. German tank production for 1945 was about 4000 in 1945, well down from the previous year, so possibly production was running at 1000 units per month if we assume 1 month to build a tank, then perhaps 1000 half completed tanks were captured. If we assume say 40% recovery rates, for the Germans, whoi were losing ground hand over fist, there were probably about 1200 tanks in the repair workshops. Virtually no intact tanks were captured, suggesting the Germans fought until they had lost everything.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2014)

Juha said:


> Hello Parsifal
> "783 Churchill MK-1/2/3/5/7 - 2.301 Churchill Mk-9/11" in Soviet losses? Typo meaning Valentines?



Id say so. Thats just a straight cut and paste from, Wiki, so, who knows?


----------



## Denniss (Jul 14, 2014)

471 Pz IVf were produced from April 41 to March 42, the tank initially known as F2 (later renamed to G) was a IV F fitted with the L/43 gun. The additional hull armor was slowly introduced into production with about 50% by autum 42 and almost 100% by december/january.
The L/48 gun was introduced in ~April 43.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2014)

For those with an interest in the final battle of the eastern front....the Battle of Seelowe Heights (16-23 April 1945....the battle of berlin was officially not a battle on the eastern front, though often reported as such) , the following gives the numbers involved


Soviet
1,000,000
3,059 tanks
16,934 guns and mortars


German
112,143
587 tanks
2,625 guns

Casualties and losses

Soviet 
Estimate based on archival data: 5,000-6,000 killed and missing out of ~20,000 total casualties

Other (German) estimates: 30,000-33,000 killed

German 
12,322 killed

Order Of Battle

Battle for Berlin: April – May 1945


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 17, 2014)

comparing guns (of tanks in my list)

5 cm KwK 39: HE shell 1,78 (0,165 filler) kg, APCBC shell 2,06 kg mv 835 m/s, thickness of (Homogeneus probably) armour perforated at 30° angle 500 meters 59mm, 1000 mtrs 47mm (source for the perforation data Panzer Truppen (1996)).

Ordnance QF 6-pounder Mk III: HE shell Not Available, AP shot 2,85 kg mv 853 m/s, APC shot 2,88 kg mv 853 m/s, thickness of MQ armour perforated at 30° Angle AP shot 500 yds 79mm, 1000 yds 66mm, APC shot 72 and 61 (penetration data from wwiiequipment.com).

7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43: HE shell 5,75 (0,66) kg, APCBC shell 6,8 kg mv 740 m/s, thickness of (Homogeneus probably) armour perforated at 30° angle 500 mtrs 91mm, 1000 mtrs 81mm (source for perforation data Panzer Truppen (1996)).

75mm Gun M3: HE shell 6,62 (0,67) kg, AP shot 6,3 kg mv 619 m/s, APC(BC) shell 6,63 kg mv 617 m/s, thickness of MQ armour perforated at 30° Angle AP shot 500 yds 76mm, 1000 yds 63mm, APC(BC) shell 70 and 63


76mm Tank Gun Mod.1940 F-34: HE shell (data for F-354 there were many others) 6,41 (0,9) kg, AP(BC) (data for BR-350B) 6,5 kg mv 655 m/s, thickness of armour (Homogeneus probably) perforated at 30° Angle AP(BC) shell 500 mtrs 69mm, 1000 mtrs 62mm (source for penetration data from Артиллерийское вооружение советских танков 1940—1945 (1999))

i remember that penetration data came from different national standard so are not directly comparable (i take data for M3 from a british source so this would be comparable with that of 6-pdr gun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 18, 2014)

My opinions on guns
F-34 had the larger HE capability, the 75s german and american are near the same, distantly third the KwK 39, NC the 6-pdr.
AT capability: first the KwK40, the 6-pdr&M3&F-34 are near, last the KwK 39.

adding MG info
all tanks except Crusader had two rifle caliber mg, coaxial and in the bow, the Crusader had only the coaxial
the Sherman had also a .50 on the top (usable only unbuttoned)


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 18, 2014)

Armour protection comparation
Pz III L (from onwar.com)
Armor Detail Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Superstructure [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Turret [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Mantlet [email protected]° 

Crusader III (from wwiiequipment.com, angle from onwar.com)
Armor Details Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
[email protected]°(upper nose)
20+13mm (lower nose)
Superstructure [email protected]° 14+14mm [email protected]° [email protected]°
[email protected]°(glacis) 
Turret [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°,0°,8°

Pz IV F2 (from onwar.com, added glacis)
Armor Detail Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
20mm (glacis)
Superstructure [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Turret [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Mantlet [email protected]° 

T-34-76 Model 1942 (from armour scheme&data on russian wikipedia)
Armor Detail Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
lower nose [email protected]°
Superstructure [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Turret [email protected]°&round [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Mantlet [email protected]° 

M4 Sherman early type (from afvdb.50megs.com)
Armor Detail Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°-90° [email protected]°(front) [email protected]°(rear)
Superstructure [email protected]° [email protected]°
Turret [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]° [email protected]°
Gun Shield [email protected] Rotor Shield [email protected] (the rotor shield not cover all the gun shield)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> adding MG info
> all tanks except Crusader had two rifle caliber mg, coaxial and in the bow, the Crusader had only the coaxial
> the Sherman had also a .50 on the top (usable only unbuttoned)



MG firepower is a lot more confusing. The bow gun was of rather limited use. Many tanks, like the Sherman, used a periscope to "aim" the gun. Aim is rather loose as the "gunner" merely observed the tracers through his normal viewing periscope which was not connected to the gun and had no aiming marks. Effective range was rather limited. Being closer to the ground there were more things that could get in the way, especially if the tank was 'hull down'. As the war went on the bow gun was seen as not worth the space it and more importantly, it's gunner, took up. 
The Russian MGs were fed by 60 round drums and had rather light barrels. 
The Brownings were feed by 200 round belts and had heavier barrels. 
The Besa was probably the best of the bunch, it had the heaviest barrel for sustained fire, it fired as the barrel was going forward for less recoil/vibration, it was feed by 225 round belts, some versions had a selectable rate of fire or were fixed at 800rpm. 
And again some tanks carried almost twice as much MG ammo as some other tanks. 

While the tanks did not engage so much in sustained fire MG operations like ground mounted medium mgs, the ground guns were generally rated at 200 rpm sustained fore ( not cycle rate) so even 2000 rounds for one gun might not last all that long in combat.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 18, 2014)

the bow mg stay there also in early 50s so i don't think was so useless in a WW2 operation
rifle caliber MG ammo load
Pz III L: 4950
Pz IV F2: 3192
Crusader III: 5000
T-34-76 M1942: 3150 (with radio 2394)
Sherman: 4750


----------



## parsifal (Jul 18, 2014)

t-34 CHARACTERISTICS

T-34/76 Armour distribution
Hull front 47 mm /60° (upper part)
45 mm (1.8")/60° (lower part),
Hull side 45 mm/41°(upper part),
Hull rear 40 mm,
Hull top 20 mm,
Hull bottom 15 mm;
T-34-85 Turret front 90 mm (3.54"),
T-34-76 Turret front 52-45mm mm (2-1.7"),
T-34-85 Turret side 75 mm/30°,
T-34-76 Turret side 52-45 mm/30°,
T-34-85 Turret rear 60-52 mm,
T-34-76 Turret rear 45 mm,
Turret top 16 mm (all)

Main armament
76.2 mm (3.00 in) F-34 tank gun
(T-34-85: 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun)

Secondary armament
2 × 7.62 mm (0.308 in) DT machine guns

Engine	
Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12 Diesel engine
500 hp (370 kW)
Power/weight	
17.5 hp/tonne
12.4 (MkIV by comparison)
Suspension	
Christie
Ground clearance	
0.4 m (16 in)
Operational range
300 (early)-460 km (T-34-43)
200 (Mk Iv by comparison) 


Discussion 

Armament

The F-34 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, equipped on the vast majority of T-34s produced through to the beginning of 1944, was able to penetrate any early German tank's armour at normal combat ranges (500m or less). When firing APCR shells, it could pierce 92 mm of armour at 500 m. The best German tanks of 1941, the Panzer III and Panzer IV, had no more than 50 or 60 mm frontal armour, generally poorly sloped and distributed. The F-34 also fired an adequate high explosive round.

The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7 were crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.This was made worse by the generally poor standard of crew training. T-34 performance was in summary adversely affected by the T-34's two-man turret, crew training, somewhat cramped layout, weak optics, and poor vision devices, according to contemporary the Germans reports. Soviet sources dont agree with that assessment. There was a lack of radios in the early versions that affected co-rdination of forces

T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.

The Germans noted that generally the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34.

When new German tanks types with thicker armour began appearing in late 1942, the T-34's 76.2 mm cannon was unable to deal with them effectively . As a result, the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85 model. This model, with its 85 mm (3.35 in) ZiS gun, provided greatly increased firepower compared to the previous T-34/76 gun. This tank also had significant improvement to the armouring scheme, indicating the basic soundess of the design and its considerable "stretching ability in the design. The 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger I tank between 200 and 500 m (220 and 550 yd), though in reverse the 88mm KWK could defeat the t-34 past 1000m . Against the frontal armour of the Panther, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd), meaning that even upgraded models of the T-34 usually had to flank a Panther to destroy it.

The greater length of the 85 mm gun barrel (4.645 meters) made it necessary for crews to be careful not to plough it into the ground on bumpy roads or in combat. A.K. Rodkin commented: "the tank could have dug the ground with it in the smallest ditch. If you fired it after that, the barrel would open up at the end like the petals of a flower." Standard practice when moving the T-34-85 cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret

Gunpower then started out as adequate, but was let down badly by other factors. The greatest advantages of the T-34 over its german counterparts and why it is a superior tank design overall, was in its range and overall mobility. The T-34 was powered by a Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12 Diesel engine of 500 hp (370 kW), giving a top speed of 53 km/h (33 mph). It used the coil-spring Christie suspension of the earlier BT-series tanks, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the heavy and ineffective convertible drive.

During the winter of 1941–42, the T-34 had a marked advantage over German tanks through its ability to move over deep mud or snow without bogging down. The Panzer IV, its closest German equivalent at that time, used an inferior leaf-spring suspension and narrow track that tended to sink in such conditions. This was a very significant advantage in conditions of mud or heavy snow, conditions that affected the Russian Front for more than half the yearly cycle.

Edit 
There is one, non battleground related area worthy of note. Whilst difficult to quantify, it seems pretty clear that the T-34 was much more cost effective than its opponents. Some sourcews claim that the average man hours per unit was 4000 for a T-34, whereas the Panther was about 55000 man hours. There are a LOT of caveats that need placed on that, bit the fact that the Soviet Union managed to out produce the Germans in just about every category of equipment suggests a serious systemic problem in the German procurement machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 23, 2014)

Mobility data all from onwar.com

Pz IV F2
Engine Make Model Maybach HL120TRM Track Links 99/track
Type Displacement V12, 11.7 liters Track Width 40 cm
Horsepower (max.) [email protected] Track Ground Contact 352 cm
Power/Weight Ratio 11.3 hp/tonne Ground Pressure 11.8 psi
Gearbox 6 forward, 1 reverse Ground Clearance (m) 0.4
Fuel Gasoline (Petrol) Turning Radius (m) 5.92
Range on/off road (km) 210/130 Gradient (degrees) 30°
Mileage (liters/100km) 250 on/350 off road Vertical Obstacle (m) 0.6
Fuel Capacity (liters) 470 (3 tanks) Fording (m) 1.0
Speed on/off road 40/16 km/h Trench Crossing (m) 2.2

Pz III L
Engine Make Model Maybach HL120TRM Track Links 99/track
Type Displacement V12, 11.9 liters Track Width 40 cm
Horsepower (max.) [email protected] Track Ground Contact 286 cm
Power/Weight Ratio 14.0 hp/tonne Ground Pressure 13.6 psi
Gearbox 6 forward, 1 reverse Ground Clearance (m) 0.4
Fuel Gasoline (Petrol) Turning Radius (m) 5.85
Range on/off road (km) 155/95 Gradient (degrees) 30°
Mileage (liters/100km) 182 on road Vertical Obstacle (m) 0.6
Fuel Capacity (liters) 320 Fording (m) 0.8
Speed on/off road 40/19 km/h Trench Crossing (m) 2.0

Crusader III
Engine Make Model Nuffield Liberty Mk. IV Track Links n.a.
Type Displacement V12, 27 liters Track Width n.a.
Horsepower (max.) [email protected] Track Ground Contact n.a.
Power/Weight Ratio 16.9 hp/tonne Ground Pressure 14.1 psi
Gearbox 4 forward, 1 reverse Ground Clearance (m) 0.41
Fuel Gasoline (Petrol) Turning Radius (m) n.a.
Range on/off road (km) 204 (with auxiliary tank) Gradient (degrees) 30°
Mileage (liters/100km) 312 on road Vertical Obstacle (m) 0.67
Fuel Capacity (liters) 500+136 (auxiliary) Fording (m) 0.99
Speed on/off road 43/24 km/h Trench Crossing (m) 2.59

T-34-76 M1942
Engine Make Model V-2-34 Track Links 72/track
Type Displacement V12, 38.9 liters Track Width 55.0 cm (22")
Horsepower (max.) [email protected] Track Ground Contact 372 cm (146")
Power/Weight Ratio 16.7 hp/tonne Ground Pressure 0.73 kg/cm2 (10.4 psi)
Gearbox 5 forward, 1 reverse Ground Clearance 0.4 m (1' 4")
Fuel Diesel Turning Radius 7.6 m (24' 11")
Range on/off road 280+/180+ km Gradient 35°
Mileage on road 150 l/100km Vertical Obstacle 0.8 m (4' 1")
Fuel Capacity 420 (+ 140 external) l Fording 1.3 m (4' 3")
Speed on/off road 55/40 km/h Trench Crossing 2.5 m (8' 2")

M4&A1 Sherman
ngine Make Model Continental R975 C1 Track Links 79/track
Type Displacement R9, 15.9 liters Track Width 42.1 cm
Horsepower (max.) [email protected] Track Ground Contact 373.4 cm
Power/Weight Ratio 13.2 hp/tonne Ground Pressure 13.7 psi
Gearbox 5 forward, 1 reverse Ground Clearance (m) 0.43
Fuel Gasoline (Petrol) Turning Radius (m) 18.9
Range on/off road (km) 193 Gradient (degrees) 31°
Mileage (liters/100km) 412 on road Vertical Obstacle (m) 0.61
Fuel Capacity (liters) 796 Fording (m) 1.0
Speed on/off road 34 km/h Trench Crossing (m) 2.3


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 23, 2014)

Good article on the RAM:

Canadian Ram Mk.II


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2014)

A words of caution on comparing power to weight ratios. Its a common failing to use or interchange the units of measuremenet and this can often skew the result one way or another.

The T-34 is 26.5 Long tons, and 29.2 short tons. A long ton is the Imperial unit of measurement and is 2240lbs, the short ton is 2000 lbs. both are 20cwt, but the imperial unit of measurre for a cwt is 112lbs, whereas the US unit of measure is 100lbs. 

On that basis the power to weight forthe T-34 can be reported as 17.1, if you want to downplay its advantages, or as high as 18.9, if you want to go the other way. Same deal with the german tanks. A Mark III is powered by a 296HP engine, and weighs 25.4 short tons, or 22.6 Long tons. if you want to ham up its power to weight, you use the Long tons figures and quote the engine as 300 HP. that gives you a figure of 14.7, as reported above. If you want to compare it to the 17.1 quoted for the T-34, you need to use the same units of measurement and use the lesser, more accurate power ratings for the MAN diesels. That gives you a power to weight of 11.6.

So if we are comparing new T-34 to new MkIII, and we want to use Long tons as the unit of weight measurement, the corrected figires are 17.1 to 11.6. If we want to use short tons, the corrected figures are 18.9 to 14.7.

Of course, this is not a particularly useful number either way. Most engines are at some point of wear and tear rather than new. that means they produce less power, and that means the power to weight for a t-34 is going to be 18.9 or less, and the Mk III 14.7 or less. Given the supply system basically broke down for the germans during the winter, that means their tanks in winter are a lot less mobile than even these figures would suggest.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2014)

Power to weight is a nice indicator but for tanks that are somewhat close other things come into play. Like the number of gears in the transmission, the actual gear ratios (nobody was driving cross country in high gear) and the torque of the engine. The Crusader had more torque than a Tiger tank (or darn close). 
Ease of shifting comes into too. Tanks that were hard to shift tended to be left in the lower gears or the driver only used a few gears. Some gears _might_ only be for special situations, a super low for hill climbing? or an 'overdrive' for highway cruising. 

Some tanks used 'crash boxes', no synchronized gears anywhere, others did use synchronizers, at least on the upper gears and some tanks used "pre-selector" transmissions. Driver moved a control to 'select' the next gear he wanted to use and when he depressed the clutch pedal an air cylinder moved the actuating rods to actual shift the transmission. 

Proving ground mobility with good drivers could vary considerably from "field" performance with even mediocre drivers let alone poor ones. 

Some British tanks (not Crusaders) with poor power to weight ratios and slow top road speeds actually had decent cross country performance and very good hill climbing due to a good (or lucky) choice of gear ratios. Low gear allowed them to pick their way up hill at a walking pace when other tanks simply stalled or moved too fast for conditions and ran into things. 

BTW I used to drive a few fire trucks with 5 speed crash box transmissions. Not tanks but we drove them as 4 speeds, ignoring 1st gear (which was actually marked LL {low low} on the shift pattern) Granted we were not being shot at but procedure if you missed the 2nd to 3rd shift (or any other but that was the most difficult shift) was to bring the vehicle to a halt and start over rather than try to cram the thing into gear while moving. Getting to the fire/medical 20 seconds late was preferable to wrecking the transmission and not getting there at all. 

Other crash boxes may have been different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2014)

the question to all that though is the MkIII and MkIV all that close to a t-34? I have my doubts


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 24, 2014)

Shortround6 i know power to weight is not all, and actually onwar give us many other informations not all but many


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Ease of shifting comes into too. Tanks that were hard to shift tended to be left in the lower gears or the driver only used a few gears. Some gears _might_ only be for special situations, a super low for hill climbing? or an 'overdrive' for highway cruising.
> 
> Some tanks used 'crash boxes', no synchronized gears anywhere, others did use synchronizers, at least on the upper gears and some tanks used "pre-selector" transmissions. Driver moved a control to 'select' the next gear he wanted to use and when he depressed the clutch pedal an air cylinder moved the actuating rods to actual shift the transmission.
> 
> ...



This reminds me of an earlier discussion here about ease of or complexity of operation of the P-38.
Particularly for a less experienced pilot, it was pretty daunting switching from cruising along to combat.
Many P-38's were lost while the pilots were busy working with all the controls.

I imagine the same goes for tanks.
During summers in high school I worked on a farm.
Some of the old tractors were very difficult to shift.
(Driving a modern stick /standard shift car does not qualify anyone to profess an understanding of working an unsynchronized transmission.)
As SR posted, if a shift was missed on some of those tractors, you had to stop and wait for the gears in the box to stop before shifting.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2014)

and the T-34 gearboxes in the early examples were diabolical. ive read it was standard issue to give a wooden mallet to the drivers of these early examples. There were times when the tank simply refused to go into gear and sometimes a god solid wallop would do the trick. I used to play a game called Panzerblitz, and as a special rule in the gamne, every time you put a T-34 into reverse, you had to make a breakdown roll....15% chance of the gearbox blowing a gasket...

Later versions of the T-34 had largely eliminated this problem. by later I mean from mid '42 on roughly


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2014)

KV drivers got the mallet also, same engine and transmission made worse by heavier tank. 

US Army publications give an 80 octane fuel requirement for the Sherman tank with both the radial engine or the V-8. 
The cast hull tanks don't hold as much ammo as the welded tanks. 

The radial engine came in two power ratings, R-975-C1 350hp/2400rpm and R-975-C4 400hp/2400rpm and the torque was either 840ft/lbs at 1800 rpm or 940ft/lbs at 1700rpm. 

I don't know when the 400hp version came into use but it was interchangeable with the 350hp engine.


----------

