# German AFV Pictures.



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Here are some pictures of German Armoured Fighting Vehicles.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2005)

Very nice! 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

Here's some pictures of the Panzerkampfwagen I. I will go through each _tank_ then on to the other AFVs. I will provide some basic information with each set of pictures. 

Pz. Kpwf I Ausf A : 

Crew: 2
Weight: 5.4 tons
Speed: 37 km/h
Range: 145 km
Armament: 2*7.92mm MG13

Armour: 13/6mm (Max/Min)

This was the first tank in the Wehrmacht. First ordered in 1933 without a turret, it was merely the superstructure. The first 15 were designated Pz. Kpwf I Ausf A ohne Aufbau (without turret). This was to give the designers the feel of tanks, without breaking the Versailles Treaty. It was obselete by 1939 but was kept in frontline service until 1941. The excellent tactics of the Wehrmacht keeping it upfront until then. The last Pz. Kpfw I was the Ausf F which, of seven, were delivered to the 1st Panzer Division. It had a remarkable maximum armour of 80mm but still only had 2*7.92mm MG34 for armament. Only three were reported operational on the 1st July 1943. The last Pz. Kpwf I to roll of the production line was in December 1942. It mainly served as an internal security machine or scout vehicle, beyond 1940. 

{Note: All pictures are of Pz. Kpfw I but not all of the Ausf A} 

[/i]


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Very nice. 8) I think I might try and learn a bit more about tanks.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Well, this thread can kick start you. I'll do the Pz. Kpwf II next but not right now.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

Panzerkampfwagen II Ausf c, A, B und C{Note: I'm excluding all SPG based on the tank chassis}:

Crew: 3
Weight: 8.9 tons
Speed: 40 (km/h)
Range: 200 (km)
Armament: 1*2cm KwK30 L/55 1* 7.92mm MG34

Armour: 16/5mm(Max/Min)

Order to supplement the Pz. Kpwf I by providing automatice high-explosive and armour-piercing rounds. Ordered in July 1934 it was not long before the first design was out but the development took three 'marks' to become what was then built upon. That is why the first three designations are lower case instead of the usual upper case letters showing the mark. The Ausf a was actually split into three development stages a/1, a/2 and a/3. It being changed to a/2 only after 10 had been built. When first introduced these tanks were platoon commander tanks in normal platoons, and would equip full tank vs. tank platoons. They were the Wehrmachts main battle tank in Poland but were relegated to recce/exploitation role in the Western campaign and thereafter. The Pz. Kpfw II Ausf F was the last to role off the production line in December 1942, by then the Pz. Kpfw II equipped recce platoons of Panzer companies but were starting to be withdrawn to secondary duties.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

Pz. Kpfw 35{t} 

Crew: 4
Weight: 10.5 tons
Speed: 35 (km/hr)
Range: 190 (km)
Armament: 1*3.7cm KwK34{t} L/40 1*7.92mm MG37 {t}

Armour: 25/8 (Max/Min)

The Pz. Kpfw 35(t) was the main battle tank of the Czech Army preceding Germanys annexation. It was an advanced design for 1939 with more than enough punch and protection to hold it's own against any other nation's armour. It was unreliable and complex though and although this was partly solved in German service it kept the bad reputation. 

Out of all those captured only half were ready for service for the invasion of Poland, these served with 1st Light Division. Those produced under German occupation of Czechoslovakia were given to 6th Panzer Division which served in France 1940 with North Group in Russia 1941, with the Pz. 35(t).


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2005)

A few static displays from Duxford land warfare museum
_All images are from my personel collection and my be used in the public domain by anyone_


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

Nice pics 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

They were Pz. Kpfw IV pre-F/2. Pz. Kpfw VI Ausf E 'Tiger'. StuGIII late-mark. Hetzer. 

Nice pics. Although, I think the Tiger is wrong! The Liebestandarte symbol is on the wrong side.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 25, 2005)

Some Factory shots of the Pz 1F, heavily armoured, but lightly armed.
Weird one.  











50 mm side armor ( thicker than Panther) and accesories.






Interior pics.











You could find more here:

http://ampsnz.hobbyvista.com/realafvs/WWII/German/Tank/Pz1f/pz1f1.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2005)

Nice pics! 8)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 30, 2005)

Italian panzers 8) :

PZ III ausf N:











Pz IV.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

Awesome. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2005)

That's why Germany lost the war. They gave a good piece of equipment to the Italians.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2005)

Great pics here, and yeah CC I also have to learn more about them.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 1, 2005)

Nice pD! Great pics


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 1, 2005)

Anothers panzers , this time Stug IIIG also owned by the Republica Socialista Italiana, the north Italy alliance wich continue with the germans fighting after september 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2005)

I am going to have to read up more on Wittman. He was one hell of a tanker.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 13, 2005)

> That's why Germany lost the war. They gave a good piece of equipment to the Italians.



Is it just me that thinks they should have let Italy copy all designs?

- pre-43 that is!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

I would not have let them copy it because they would have misused and not won a damn thing with them like they did against the Greeks.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 15, 2005)

Some pictorial of the post-Normandy landings engagements:

*Villers Bocage*







On 13th June 1944, a week after D-day, following a drive from Beauvais under repeated air attack, 2nd Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 led by Michael Wittmann had 6 Tigers located in the area of Hill (Point) 213 ahove Villers Bocage. His orders were to stop the advance of the 22nd Armored Brigade of the British 7th Armored Division (the famous 'Desert Rats') from advancing through the township, outflanking the German line and gaining the road to Caen. Wittmann's company hidden behind a hedgerow spotted the enemy column, which passed him at a distance of 200 meters. At about 8:00am, Wittmann attacked the British column on the main road, while the rest of his company (4 Tigers as one brokedown) attacked the British forces around Hill 213. Soon after, Wittmann destroyed Sherman Firefly and Cromwell IV and headed south to attack the rest of the enemy transport column. After knocking out 8 half-tracks, 4 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns, Wittmann reached the crossroad with the road to Tilly-sur-Seulles. At the crossroad, he destroyed 3 Stuart tanks from recon unit and reached the outskirts of the town of Villers-Bocage. While in town, Wittmann destroyed 4 Cromwell IV tanks and single half-track and turns into Rue Pasteur. Following up the street, he knocked out Cromwell IV and Sherman OP tank, reaching the main street of Villers-Bocage. At the end of Rue Pasteur, Wittmann's Tiger was hit by Sherman Firefly from B Squadron and he decided to turn back as being too far forward without any infantry support and in a build-up area. He turned in the direction of Caen to join the rest of his company. On his way back, Wittmann's Tiger was attacked by another Cromwell IV hidden in a garden, the armour of the Tiger withstood the attack again and the british tank was destroyed as well. 

Back at the Tilly crossroad, British soldiers from 1st Rifle Brigade opened fire at Wittmann with their 6 pdr anti-tank gun, immobilizing his Tiger. Wittmann and his crew managed to escape on foot towards the Panzer Lehr positions 7km away near Orbois. The rest of his company at the Hill 213, destroyed the rest of the A Squadron of 4th County of London Yeomanry Regiment ("Sharpshooters") including 5 Cromwell IV and Sherman Firefly, while capturing 30 men. During this short engagement, Wittmann's company destroyed 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns. Wittmann's attack was followed by another one by Tigers of Hauptsturmfuehrer Rolf Moebius' 1st Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 and Panzerkampfwagen IV tanks from Panzer Lehr but was repulsed by anti-tank guns from 22nd Armored Brigade. Following day, British withdrew from the town leaving it to the Germans, who occupied it for next two months. The British drive on Villers Bocage and Caen was stopped cold by Wittmann's attack and following actions. 

*Place l'Hotel de Ville in Villers-Bocage. A destroyed Tiger. Beside it the wreck of a Panzer IV of the 2nd Battalion of the 130th Panzer Lehr Regiment.*






*Rear view of the first Tiger destroyed during the battle in the afternoon of 13 June 1944 in Villers-Bocage*






The Tiger destroyed on the crossroads of Rue Jeanne Bacon and Rue Emile Samson. It was hit by a shell from a 57 mm anti-tank gun at point blank range.






One of the two assault-guns of the 17th SS Panzer Battalion destroyed on 13 June1944.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

I thought the tanks at Hill 213 were PzIV's?  

Just thought I should point out that a 57mm is a 6-pdr or US M1 (1 the same).

Swch Oktjabrskij is an interesting point in Wittmans career:

http://www.geocities.com/panzerfrontuk/historyswchoktjabrskij.html

Wittman was killed in his Tiger by a Sherman Firefly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

British Firefly from the from 3rd Platoon, "A" Squadron, 33rd Armored Brigade of 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry to be exact.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 16, 2005)

> British Firefly from the from 3rd Platoon, "A" Squadron, 33rd Armored Brigade of 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry to be exact.



Exact indeed  

Another good pic, the Flammpanzer III in action.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 16, 2005)

Yikes! I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that. I'd rather be shot.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 17, 2005)

Excellent pictures, CB. I love the flame tank picture.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes very good pic and a good way to become BBQ!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 30, 2005)

Heavy camouflaged Panthers G in France during the last battles for Normandy.







Panther G from a SS panzer regiment in the withdrawn, the guy with the open hatch ( gunner) is checking for the allied fighters-bombers.







Panther G with zimmerit and a Pig, obviously the pet had an double use as food, hmmmm....pork ribs BBQ.  

I ve read somewhere that the pig is also a good luck animal in the german pop culture, not sure about that.







Knocked out Panther G.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2005)

Nice pics CB, the Flammpanzer pic is cool.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2005)

in CB's last post, second picture down, does it look like they've fitted a giant speaker to the turret to anyone else?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

Yes CB the pig is a good luck symbol here in Germany. The Gluckschwein as it is called.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 2, 2005)

Thaks for confirmate that Adler.



> in CB's last post, second picture down, does it look like they've fitted a giant speaker to the turret to anyone else?



I think that is only a box, the german placed speakers in half-tracks like the Sd.Kfz 251.

Flakpanzer Whirbelwind, by the way Adler what does Whirbelwind means..?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 2, 2005)

It does look kinda like a big speaker. 
Great pics.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2005)

well, you know how it is, cruising around, it's just not the same without a banging tune, an, what's that, is that a rear spoiler and some neon lights too


----------



## plan_D (Dec 3, 2005)

It's a spare road-wheel, you tart.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)




----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 4, 2005)

Panther assembly line.











The Maybach engine.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

1: A Jagdpanzer 38 "Hetzer" during show trials for Hitler in Germany.

2: A Pzkpfw VI "Tiger" under rather muddy conditions in Russia.

3: A Pzkpfw IV being repaired on the Eastern front.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 4, 2005)

Good pics guys


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

If you want to see some really interesting pictures of the Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer then try visiting this site: http://www.12hj.com/hetzer.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Flakpanzer Whirbelwind, by the way Adler what does Whirbelwind means..?



Wirbelwind means Whirlwind but it can also be another word for Wirbelsturm which means Tornado or Cyclone. I am sure the latter 2 is what they meant by the name rather than Whirlwind.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 5, 2005)

I don't know, Adler, with the movement of the Wirbelwind - the odds are it does actually mean Whirlwind. I've always understood it as meaning Whirlwind anyway.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> CharlesBronson said:
> 
> 
> > Flakpanzer Whirbelwind, by the way Adler what does Whirbelwind means..?
> ...




Fine...Thanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I don't know, Adler, with the movement of the Wirbelwind - the odds are it does actually mean Whirlwind. I've always understood it as meaning Whirlwind anyway.



Whirlwind is the literal translation of it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

1: Japanese Officers trying out the Tiger. Must have been quite an eyeopening experience for them, compared to driving their own Type 97's. (I can just imagine their faces when they first saw the tank  )  

2: Pzkpfw IV Ausf.H


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

I was actually thinking the same thing.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

The Tiger Ausf.B during its testing phase.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Those are nice pics.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 5, 2005)

Nice pics Soren.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

They're certainly some of the most interesting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Ill agree with that.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 5, 2005)

neat stuff!


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

More interesting pictures of the Tiger Ausf.B. You can actually see them opening fire on some of these pictures.

Tiger Ausf.B's on the firing range. During these practise firings, crews would on average manage to hit a 2.5x2.5m target at 2km distance with 85% of the rounds fired. (It was a different deal in actual combat of-cause)


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 5, 2005)

Nice pics Soren


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

I was reading a military report about the Battle of the Bulge and it was talking about the German tanks v. the American tanks. Quite interesting report. Unfortunatly one of the Officers here took it home with him today, so I can not post it.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 6, 2005)

Shame would have been interesting to see. I for one would of liked to have read it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

It was actually a binder with many reports, that is used for training for the Command on what not to do and what to do. Interesting that this stuff is still studied by Tacticians today.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 6, 2005)

Very nice pics of tjhe Tiger II Soren.  

This elements were used for measure the muzzle velocity of the shells.


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was reading a military report about the Battle of the Bulge and it was talking about the German tanks v. the American tanks. Quite interesting report. Unfortunatly one of the Officers here took it home with him today, so I can not post it.



Can't you ask him if you can borrow it for a while ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2005)

When I see him again. I was on 24 hour duty when he took it. He is using it for some Staff class. I think it is funny since we are a Aviation unit not a Armour unit. When I see him, I will ask him for it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2005)

Great, looking forward to it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Okay I checked with him, and he is going to bring it to work on Monday and I can get it from him then.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 10, 2005)

Here are some I have found. Not all are AFV's but I will post them here anyway.


















Panzer III in Africa




Panzer IV in Russia




Stug and Crew




Panzer IV's in Africa




Panther




Panzer III in Russia




Stug in Athens




Panther




Stug


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 10, 2005)

Some more:

Demag sdkfz10/5 20mm aa gun




Panzers in Russia




Panzer III's being Repaired




Panzer IV in Africa




Panzer 38t




Panzer 4 on guard at toulon harbour.




Panzers in Russia




Panzer IV's on the Polish Border




Tiger




Tiger




Puma





These are only a sample of the images from that site, it can be found at http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/ww2incolor.

Tiger - knocked out




Panther opens fire on the enemy





More images can be found here: http://coppermine.galacnet.com/ww2forums/index.php.

Both sites have some good stuff, I would recommend taking the time to look at them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2005)

blimey, how'd that tiger manage that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Nice pics up there, I like them all especially the combat sequences.

I would think the Tiger got knocked over by a Tank Wrecker or something.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2005)

Good stuff Gnomey!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 11, 2005)

As Adler said, the odds are the Tiger was knocked over like that after the battle. If it had been left, it would have been blocking the road.


----------



## Soren (Dec 12, 2005)

Nice pics Gnomey.

Although its a Pzkpfw.IV opening fire on that last picture, not a Panther  



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would think the Tiger got knocked over by a Tank Wrecker or something.



Yes, thats exactly what happened.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 12, 2005)

Soren said:


> Nice pics Gnomey.
> 
> Although its a Pzkpfw.IV opening fire on that last picture, not a Panther
> 
> ...


I'm only saying what it says on the site but now that I look at it closely I see your are right Soren, well spotted.


----------



## Soren (Dec 12, 2005)

No problem Gnomey, with all those pics posted at once, its bound to happen  

I really like the picture of the Tiger with no muzzle-brake, keep'em coming.


----------



## Erich (Dec 12, 2005)

Tiger knocked out ? ................ or abandoned during the retreat ? this was a common practice when tracks could not be brought up to the front from Normandie onward and as already been said any German vehicle was bulldozed however it could be off the side of the road, with the vehicles in some cases remaining at that location for many months, even after the war and finally hauled off and scraped. there are literally hundreds of p[ics of abandoned and trashed German MT's and fueled out GErman panzers litering the roads in France

food for thought gents


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 12, 2005)

More:

Panzer IV and troops in Russia during the winter of 1941-42





Panzer IV Close-up





Panzers and troops





Panzer IVD and Commander





Close up of a Panzer IVD





Panzer Engine Replacing





Armored Column (Russia?)





SPG on Panzer III chassis (Bison?)





Panzer III in Russia





Panther - Engine getting Replaced





Marder





Knocked out/Abandoned German Armour (looks abandoned to me)


----------



## Erich (Dec 12, 2005)

last pic is a nice one Gnomey. note on the short barreled 7.5 halftrack the storage compartments rifled through and the funny position of the Panther. Most likely out of fuel and the crews took off


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2005)

Like the pics.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2005)

Nice pics 8)

That last one is at Kotzing, Bavaria, and taken nomore than maybe an half'n'hour after they were disabled, great pic.

Some other pictures from the scene:


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2005)

Erich said:


> Tiger knocked out ? ................ or abandoned during the retreat ? this was a common practice when tracks could not be brought up to the front from Normandie onward and as already been said any German vehicle was bulldozed however it could be off the side of the road, with the vehicles in some cases remaining at that location for many months, even after the war and finally hauled off and scraped. there are literally hundreds of p[ics of abandoned and trashed German MT's and fueled out GErman panzers litering the roads in France
> 
> food for thought gents



Absolutely, here's another pic showing a Panther having undergone the same treatment:


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 13, 2005)

Nice pics Soren.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 13, 2005)

maybe it's just hiding, laying an ambust along the road, we'd expect it to be in the road but you can clearly see it's trying to hide behind a small tree


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> maybe it's just hiding, laying an ambust along the road, we'd expect it to be in the road but you can clearly see it's trying to hide behind a small tree



Oh yes of-cause, I see, and that big hole in the side the upper hull must be there for better access in and out of the tank, how genius!


----------



## Erich (Dec 14, 2005)

notice also the other Panther in the background pushed off the side of the road ..


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2005)

Erich said:


> notice also the other Panther in the background pushed off the side of the road ..



Yes thats right, they were probably both victim to allied air attacks. 

Some pictures of the very deadly Jagdpanther, notice the rounds on the side of the JP in the first picture, both are AP rounds:


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 15, 2005)

Nice pics there Soren. A very deadly beast.


----------



## Erich (Dec 15, 2005)

Soren the Tiger and that Panther were abondoned and pushed off the side of the road by heavy Allied mechs, not popped by Allied jabo's


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2005)

Erich said:


> Soren the Tiger and that Panther were abondoned and pushed off the side of the road by heavy Allied mechs, not popped by Allied jabo's



Yes, have I said any different ? 

Those two Panther's up there were probably first knocked out by allied fighter bombers, and afterwards cleared from the road by allied bulldozer's. 

I don't think they've been abandoned, since the large hole in one of the Panthers upper hull seems to indicate its been under attack.


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2005)

The last of the pictures from the Tiger Ausf.B's testing phase:


----------



## Erich (Dec 16, 2005)

I must be blind I see schurzen ripped off the left side of the Panther and then tossed against the bank, the farthest Panther has been pushed into the building, there is no apparent reason to believe they have been under air attack, but most likely if done could of received AT hits. problem is we have only the rear of these two Panzers to view. This is all atypical of Normandie and the Ardenne. Abandoned to whatever cuases and then thrust out of the way to unplug traffic systems


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2005)

I seriously doubt this kind of damage could've been caused by an AP round, however it looks alot like its been hit by a rocket. 

A whole section of armor has been ripped off, that kind of damage can only be caused by explosives.


----------



## Erich (Dec 16, 2005)

it doesn't appear to be that much damage though as one rocket would do much. the barrel cleaning rod carrier is just sitting there and as I said without a before and after pic it is hard to tell, obviously some damage to the left track also not seeing a larger pic and I mean a panorama had it been a rocket attack there would be more physical damage to the landscape but we are limited due to the photo


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2005)

Erich said:


> it doesn't appear to be that much damage though as one rocket would do much. the barrel cleaning rod carrier is just sitting there and as I said without a before and after pic it is hard to tell, obviously some damage to the left track also not seeing a larger pic and I mean a panorama had it been a rocket attack there would be more physical damage to the landscape but we are limited due to the photo



I agree its hard to tell exactly what happened, but my best guess is that its been hit by a rocket on the upper hull. And the fact that we can't see any damage to the landscape is most likely simply because the tank has been moved from the place where it was hit. 

However hitting the tank on the upper hull wouldn't necessarily leave any scars on the landscape, just scatter debris everywhere.

I think its very likely that a small rocket could've ripped off that piece of armor, looks consistant with other photo's of Pz's victim to airattacks I've seen.


----------



## Erich (Dec 16, 2005)

ok lets think further on this about rocket attacks. most likely becuase of its weight it would be dead on the road and simply pushed to one side-the right for ease of difficulty. One rocket agasint the panther then is a good shot but since rockets are fired in slavoes from Typhoons ?, then there would of been mulitple explosions in the area and because of the viewpoint we have from this photo we cannot ascertain just whatelse may have been hit or damaged, including the surroundings scenery. the road itslef and the grounds around the Panther would have been plowed up pretty good


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Agreed I do not see that having been hit by a salvo of rockets from an allied JABO. By the way the picture was taken it is very hard to tell what may have hit it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2005)

Considdering the height of the tank, the other rockets fired most likely hit the bank of the right side of the road, leaving no scars on the road itself. 

The earth does seem abit plowed behind that first Panther..

Another possibility is that any craters in the road were leveled by the Allies, as supply trucks and such would otherwise have difficulties crossing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Possibly however I doubt it. I believe it was knocked out by something on the ground and then later was plowed over onto its side to make room for either A. Retreating German forces or B. Advancing Allied Forces.


----------



## Erich (Dec 16, 2005)

it does appear too that the Panther in the foreground may have been pilfered by treasure seekers as well after the hit and before being pushed off the road in a very weird canted position. I am looking at what appears to be camo or shelter poncho or ? plus look at the engine plugs popped off.

another note is the left side of the turret, hard to tell if the marking going vertically on the turret side is from flame/smoke or is it camo ? the photo does not reveal enough info


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2005)

Well we can safely say it wasn't taken out by an AP round, as the damage caused bares no relation to that at all. But they might have been ambushed by Allied infantry, who placed explosives on the tanks to knock them out.

I'd say its fifty fifty, either they were knocked out by air, or they were taken out by Allied infantry. Those two scenario's were the most often appearing in the Normandy region.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Im for Allied Infantry.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 18, 2005)

I'm going to be boring and show this!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Not boring, good pics.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not boring, good pics.


Yep, good pics pD.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2006)

Weirdy looking Pz IV.

http://tecnicamilitar.forum.ijijiji.com/tema-126-tecnicamilitar.html


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 28, 2007)

Interesting picture of German Tanks in transport. Thank-you.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 6, 2007)

2 Sd.Kfz 9 Famo towing disabled Tiger 1 of the S.Pz.Abt 503..


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 10, 2007)

Good recovery photo that one. Didn't think a 2 Sd.Kfz 9 Famo would be able to tow a tiger along, although it looks like there is two famos towing the tiger. It is hard to tell whether the front halftrack is linked to the famo from the photo...


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2007)

Two could easily pull it, however it would atleast take four if the Tiger got bugged down.


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2007)

A pzkpfw. IV Ausf.G with wide winter tracks on the eastern front:


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

Nice pic....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 11, 2007)

> It is hard to tell whether the front halftrack is linked to the famo from the photo...




It does is no way that a single Famo couls pull a Tiger.



> Two could easily pull it, however it would atleast take four if the Tiger got bugged down.




Right and sometimes they cannot that s why the bergepanther was developed.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

Tiger Links

Tiger I Information Center - Links

Tiger Tank Battalions during WWII - Page 1

LemaireSoft's Encyclopedia of the Tanks of World War II: German tanks

German King Tiger tank - development history and photos


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

Interesting photo. Would that Pzkpfw. IV Ausf G have been prone to losing its tracks on any obstacles? It looks like an obstacle could hook in between the track and the driving wheels easily.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

This is a link to Christian Ankerstjerne pages

If memory serves, he is trying to document EVERY Tiger ever produced..

Germany's World War II vehicles

To my knowledge their is no German AFV that he is not familiar with..

He is more than willing to discuss German Tanks -ad infinitum

Concept of Panzerworld
My purpose of Panzerworld is to provide accurate and detailed information about the German Panzertruppe of World War II. There are many websites which gives the same basic technical details, with little or no additional information. Likewise, most websites, using books which have been outdated for decades, have so many errors, that using them for any kind of reference would be rediculous. This gives the Internet a bad name, which is unfortunate, as it is a great way to share information.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

Looks good, will check that out later that site. Has some good photos from what I have seen.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

This is one of a couple Forum threads about Falaise..

Axis History Forum :: The battle of Mont Ormel and Das Reich's counterattack

I will find the one..which trys to document as many of the losses piece by piece, so it seems

I will find photos of a few Whitman's Abt 503 King Tigers Bn


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

Cool, more sites with interesting photos to look at. Thanks for the links.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

HERE IT IT THE MOST INCREDIABLE COLLECTION OF BATTLEFIELD PHOTOS THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE


imho

*Warning includes photos of dead human beings*


Axis History Forum :: Photos of vehicles in the Falaise gap


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 11, 2007)

I know that site but haven't checked it in a while. Thanks.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

you are welcome


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 12, 2007)

On another note, the Allies really didn't have anything in service that could go against the German Tiger in a one on one battle and stand even a remote chance of surviving. The M26 Pershing could but it was hardly available in numbers and I think only one of them actually saw combat...


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

Heh..

Well, the 14 inch guns on the battleship Texas got at least one of them..

Someplace there are photos of one on its back, prone, near Caen.

joking


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> On another note, the Allies really didn't have anything in service that could go against the German Tiger in a one on one battle and stand even a remote chance of surviving. The M26 Pershing could but it was hardly available in numbers and I think only one of them actually saw combat...



Typhoons and Thunderbolts as well as artillery...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2007)

Only one M26E4 "Super Pershing" saw service in World War II with the 3rd Armoured Division. At Dessau it destroyed a King Tiger and one Panther in two days.

More than one Pershing took to the fight.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 12, 2007)

Pershing destroying Panther in the city of Koln.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y_


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 14, 2007)

Ok, but it wasn't in huge numbers on the battlefield...


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 16, 2007)

Panzer IVs and Vs


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 16, 2007)

Sturmtiger and Jagdtiger, Scary to Shermans lol: Im a poet and i didn't know it )


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm aware of Typhoons and Thunderbolts and artillery but I was meaning in a one-on-one tank slug-fest. There was no common Allied tank in Europe that could go against a Tiger and have a reasonable hope of surviving that I am aware of... Okay, I only knew of the one having seen combat, but there were others.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

May I share this rather well known picture with you gentlemen? One of a destroyed Sd.Kfz 250/1 in Berlin, knocked out in the attempted breakout which unfortunately failed. It is said to be from the SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs Abteilung 11, also know as Schweden zug which had many Swedish volunteers. The dead man is said to be Unterscharführer Ragnar Johansson from Stockholm. Here is a better version of the picture. The halftrack was knocked out on Friedrichstrasse the night between 1-2 may 1945 




Great thread again folks. Especially like those camouflaged tanks, good for dioramas....keep 'em coming.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 22, 2007)

By the way what game were those screenshots taken in? By the way, any idea what knocked out that Sd.Kfz 250/1 because it looks pretty shredded at the top although the front looks perfect... Actually no it doesn't it looks like whatever hit it hit it on the left hand side front if you were behind it facing it.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 23, 2007)

The half track photo is very famous. There is a rear view where you see more casualties and one of them is a nurse.

Swedish Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht in WWII


"guess you seen the SdKfz 250/1 at page 265 in "Berlin now ant then" used in the same brakeout - there is another photo of that vehicle from behind showing a dead nurse sitting in the open door. The photo is in the book "Ragnarök" page 187 written by the Swedish Waffen-SS volunteer Erik Wallin. The chessboard seen in the photos confirms that it is the same vehicle.
Wallin writes some about how the 250 were shot up close to the S-Bahnstation bridge at Friedrichstrasse and that everyone inside were killed at once exept for the commander H-G Persson and the driver Ragnar Johansson. However Johansson were killed by a hand grenade as he left the 250 and is the soldier seen lying to the left in the photo on page 265."

from:
Axis WWII Discussion Group


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 24, 2007)

The screenshots where taken from Company of Heros, one of the best RTS games ever, in my humble opinon


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 24, 2007)

Heres some more:


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 30, 2007)

Okay, certainly looks the part. Interesting game idea.


----------



## stug3 (Jan 12, 2013)

Tiger tank in Tunisia.


----------



## davebender (Jan 12, 2013)

The inexpensive Sd.Kfz.250/9 was probably the most important German recon vehicle during the second half of WWII. IMO it was ideal for that role.

Sd. Kfz. 250/09


----------



## parsifal (Jan 12, 2013)

Tigers actually did not do well in the offensive role, even on a 1 for 1 basis. They were far too slow, lacked mobility and were short legged. tiger Is were first used offensively south of leningrad, and were more or less cut to pieces. not sure when the tiger IIs were first used, but when offered them to lead his assault, peiper rejected them in favour of Panthers. He was right to do that as the Tigers were found to be an overall liability in the battle. most were lost or abandoned, having achived virtually nothing of any value, whereas the Panthers came close to pulling off a bit of an upset. Panther was a far better all round tank and far closer to the modern day concept of "Main Battle Tank". Tigers were more akin to the Heavy Tank concept, which soldiered on into the fifties, but was found to be an obsolete concept. They were found to be actually vulnerable because of their lack of mobility and too inflexible because they were really not able to adapt to the offensive role. 

Where tigers excelled, was in the defensive role, acting as fire support vehicles, and mobile pill boxes. In this role, they absorbed an inordinate amount of allied resources to contain. But mobile pill boxes dont win battles. 

Tigers make pretty pictures for computer games, and thats about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2013)

I agree with that assessment parsifal. The Panther was a superb tank. Not that I think the Tiger was not superb, but that it was used wrong.


----------



## davebender (Jan 12, 2013)

> Not that I think the Tiger was not superb, but that it was used wrong.


It's my understanding the Tiger was originally intended as a limited production vehicle for use against fortifications. 32 ton VK3001 was to replace Panzer III and Panzer IV as the first German MBT. 

Speer changed the program when he took over during the spring of 1942. Production order for Sd.Kfz.165 10.5cm SP howitzer was cancelled and the chassis were used to build Panzer IVG. Tiger tank production was increased beyond original intent as it could defeat Soviet heavy tanks such as KV series.


----------



## DonL (Jan 12, 2013)

@ Dave



> It's my understanding the Tiger was originally intended as a limited production vehicle for use against fortifications. 32 ton VK3001 was to replace Panzer III and Panzer IV as the first German MBT.
> 
> Speer changed the program when he took over during the spring of 1942. Production order for Sd.Kfz.165 10.5cm SP howitzer was cancelled and the chassis were used to build Panzer IVG. Tiger tank production was increased beyond original intent as it could defeat Soviet heavy tanks such as KV series.



I have told you once that this claims are very wrong!
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/tanks-europe-1944-45-a-33460.html

To repeat them, make them not better!
Speer had nothing to do with the introduction of the PanzerIV F2, this was decided summer/autum 1941, as the T34 and KV were a bad surprise at Barbarossa and german tanks in *production* needed as fast as possible much more firepower and the PanzerIV was the only tank in production, which had the room for this firepower upgrade.!

The german's heavy tank project was in development since 1937. Look at the development historie of the VK 3601, the direct forerunner.
The construction of the TigerI was beginning spring 1941!

@ parsifal

I don't fully agree with your summary.
After the kindergarden diseases were sorted out and especially the HL 230 P45 became more reliable the TigerI had very good cross country characteristics and was *not* slow wether on the streets or cross country.

Anyway the rest of your analyse is very correct, because the Tiger I was to short legged, the complexity of the maintenance was much too high and overcharged every german logistic, especially at the Russian Campaign and the production costs and manpower was much too high compared to the Panther.

The Panther was the much better tank for mass production, logistics, maintenance and all tactical circumstances, here I fully agree.

But in summary if we look at all other heavy tank projects and introduced heavy tanks from all other nations, the TigerI had more advantages then flaws compare to other nations heavy tank projects and introduced heavy tanks.
Even the IS2 was not all around better then a Tiger I from a battleground analyse and the Tiger I could stand it's "man" on the battleground till wars end.

In summary only a Panther in mass production would be the better alternative, here I fully agree.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 12, 2013)

The best tank overall for the germans was the panther, but it was still limited in its ability to be produced. The best all round tank of the war was the T-34. Doesnt mean that in battle that the panther did not usually beat it. However, a T-34 has been estimated to have cost somewhere between $10000 and $30000 to produce, the Panther in 1943 was around $150000, reducing to around $120000 as production glitches were overcome and the design somewhat simplified. Its dangerous to do this, and i am not trying to be super accurate here, but which would you prefer....1 Panther or 8 T-34s. its that simple.

Everybody produced heavy tanks 9or at leasty tanks heavier than their standard "breakthrough" tanks) , and everybody ditched them in the finish for lighter, more mobile less specialised types. The Soviets used their IS tanks to develop the IS10 series. These soldiered on into the 50s, ending up as dug in pillboxes along the chinese border. The British produced their Comets and developed these eventually into Centurion Tanks, and ditched the "tortoise" prototypes as impractical. The M-47 was a development of the M-46 Patton II tank, itself a development of the Pershing heavy Tank. Pershing was never really a "Heavy tank though", more an underpowered large medium. The Americans basically tried to solve that by mating a larger engine to a new designed turret. But as I said, Pershings/Patton IIs were never heavy Tank. A pershing had an all up combat weight of 92000 lb, compared to the tigers 153000 lbs. 

Its significant I think what the Germans were planning to do in their 1945 rationalization program. The "type" Panzer Div was reduced to an establishment of just 54 tanks, with cycle borne Infantry components. It was planned to finally phase out the MkIVs, with the sole type for the TDs being Panther IIs. Speer (with thye agreement of Guderian) planned to phase out of production both the Tigers, and to maintain production of Jagdpanzers, centred around the Panther hull. im not sure about what was to happen with STUG III production.

German plans were quite arguably unrealistic, but if the overall war situation had kept the allies out of germany in 1945, it would have been intersting to see how they would have restructured their mobile formations. Of course ther is always the Hitler factor, who was besotted with size in his AFVs. Im not considering that....what would the professional soldiers and the production guys have wanted.....


----------



## davebender (Jan 12, 2013)

What is your source for these prices?


----------



## DonL (Jan 12, 2013)

> The best tank overall for the germans was the panther, but it was still limited in its ability to be produced. The best all round tank of the war was the T-34. Doesnt mean that in battle that the panther did not usually beat it. However, a T-34 has been estimated to have cost somewhere between $10000 and $30000 to produce, the Panther in 1943 was around $150000, reducing to around $120000 as production glitches were overcome and the design somewhat simplified. Its dangerous to do this, and i am not trying to be super accurate here, but which would you prefer....1 Panther or 8 T-34s. its that simple.



I have my doubts of this numbers, very heavy doubts.
From all logic and technical knowledge I have, I don't think that it is possible to get more then two T34-85 for one Panther and that's quite optimistic, if I look at the engine and the alloys of the T34-85. I have no prove or primary source for this, but if I look of the technical requirements of the T34-85 and Sherman compare to the Panther, I don't think that the Panther is that heavily over engineered, espicialy from the alloy's and the engine. To me it looks more then 2 x T34-85 or 2 x Sherman for one Panther and then I would always choose the Panther, because it is built to come back and not do die in it's first fight.



> Everybody produced heavy tanks 9or at leasty tanks heavier than their standard "breakthrough" tanks) , and everybody ditched them in the finish for lighter, more mobile less specialised types. The Soviets used their IS tanks to develop the IS10 series. These soldiered on into the 50s, ending up as dug in pillboxes along the chinese border. The British produced their Comets and developed these eventually into Centurion Tanks, and ditched the "tortoise" prototypes as impractical. The M-47 was a development of the M-46 Patton II tank, itself a development of the Pershing heavy Tank. Pershing was never really a "Heavy tank though", more an underpowered large medium. The Americans basically tried to solve that by mating a larger engine to a new designed turret. But as I said, Pershings/Patton IIs were never heavy Tank. A pershing had an all up combat weight of 92000 lb, compared to the tigers 153000 lbs.



You forget the T29, T32, T34 series has heavy tank project. They USA had very heavy issues with this beasts, which were solved at the Tiger I from ther germans, from a technical viewpoint.



> Its significant I think what the Germans were planning to do in their 1945 rationalization program. The "type" Panzer Div was reduced to an establishment of just 54 tanks, with cycle borne Infantry components. It was planned to finally phase out the MkIVs, with the sole type for the TDs being Panther IIs. Speer (with thye agreement of Guderian) planned to phase out of production both the Tigers, and to maintain production of Jagdpanzers, centred around the Panther hull. im not sure about what was to happen with STUG III production.



I totaly disagree!
This has only to do with the shortcommings of material, alloys, manpower and soldiers, but not with which was optimal.
It was decided through the circumstances at 1944/45 and the overall shortcommings, that has nothing to do, what would the Wehrmacht choose if they had the free choice, so to me and my opinion it is totaly *not* significant.

Here I fully disagree.

Edit:


> Panther in 1943 was around $150000, reducing to around $120000



RM but not $, very far from that!


----------



## Denniss (Jan 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> The inexpensive Sd.Kfz.250/9 was probably the most important German recon vehicle during the second half of WWII. IMO it was ideal for that role


Not really that ideal because it wasn't as silent as a 231 or 234 but it had better cross-country abilities than the 222.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2013)

> I have my doubts of this numbers, very heavy doubts.
> From all logic and technical knowledge I have, I don't think that it is possible to get more then two T34-85 for one Panther and that's quite optimistic, if I look at the engine and the alloys of the T34-85. I have no prove or primary source for this, but if I look of the technical requirements of the T34-85 and Sherman compare to the Panther, I don't think that the Panther is that heavily over engineered, espicialy from the alloy's and the engine. To me it looks more then 2 x T34-85 or 2 x Sherman for one Panther and then I would always choose the Panther, because it is built to come back and not do die in it's first fight.



Therer are a number of sources youcould have a look at, a reasonable (and small cost) is John Forzcyks Panther vs T-34 1943. He quotes that the panther cost RM129K (exclusive of turret and communications), and extrapolates that this would equate to 51000 USD. On average a panther required 55000 man hours to build.

By comparison, during its peak production year of 1944, a T-34 cost R135K or roughly 13000USD. I do not know if that cost includes everything. It required a little over 3000 man hours to build a T-34. 

However these comparisons need to be treated with a ghreat deal of caution. 

The concept of ‘cheap’ or ‘expensive’ has no meaning in a command economy. The reason being that the pricing mechanism is controlled by the government. If Moscow (or Berlin) wanted a weapon to cost x amount of roubles (or RM) it would cost x amount. Command decisions were made at the top and did not take into consideration free market concepts like return on investment, opportunity cost etc etc

This makes it problematic to directly compare weapon systems by looking at the official prices. In general trying to compare the costs of weapon systems built in different countries under a command economy is very hard and prone to errors. Even using other indicators such as man-hours and input of raw materials can be misleading. Just the same, it is clear that a panther tank was far more expensive, whichever way you want to cut it, than a t-34. thats reflected in therespective production runs. 

Just to give an example the ‘cheap’ T-34 had an aluminum engine. The Germans with more industrial assets than the SU and significantly higher aluminum production reached the conclusion that they could not provide their own tanks with an aluminum engine. It was simply too costly for them. This shows the different capabilities and priorities that countries have.

A better way is to compare prices of products in the same economy. This shows that the T-34 was much cheaper than the KV-1 and IS-2 tanks. 

Also production costs and man-hours went down during the war. In 1941 8.000 man hours were needed to produce one T-34, this was reduced to 3.700 in 1943. Price in rubles went from 430.000 in 1940 to 136.000 in 1944.



> You forget the T29, T32, T34 series has heavy tank project. They USA had very heavy issues with this beasts, which were solved at the Tiger I from ther germans, from a technical viewpoint.



I assume you are referring to the Soviet tanks of these descriptions. T-34 indeed started the war as a "heavy tank", but it was actually designed to fulfil both roles of breakthrough and heavy support tank. It had the range, mobility firepower and protection (compromises all of them) to undertake the functions of "main Battle tanks" in the context of their time. Tigers were found unable to do that. Panthers and Mk IVs could do the job as well. 




> I totaly disagree!
> This has only to do with the shortcommings of material, alloys, manpower and soldiers, but not with which was optimal.
> It was decided through the circumstances at 1944/45 and the overall shortcommings, that has nothing to do, what would the Wehrmacht choose if they had the free choice, so to me and my opinion it is totaly *not* significant


.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, in adversity, much is revealed. In their dire hour of crisis, why didnt the Germans choose to produce Tigers and phase out Panthers? Answer is because the panther was far more cost effective. Its production costs were falling (Forzcyk says that in 1942 the average manhours to build each Tiger was well over 300000). What the german high command decision shows, and this IS significant, is that the panther was their best bet at survival......



> RM but not $, very far from that!




Facts are, neither of us can achieve a meanigful comparable figure of the cost, because of the regime that tis tank was built for. we do know that the quoted figures for 1944 (RM129K) does not include armament. We also know that the average build time was 55000 man hours. we also know that Germany had an inherently bigger economy than the USSR. Whilst the Germans suffered under multiple threats and bombing, the USSR suffered by the loss of fully 35% of their industrial base due to enemy occupation. There is strong circumatantial evidence that the cost per unit for a panther may well have been 8-10 times that of a T-34.

There are a number of reasons that might explain this. The Germans could not resist making constant detail changes that greatly affected production. one example I can think of is the 50 or so Panthers that were fitted with IR night Fighting gear. That must have absolutely disrupted at least one production line. Bombing would also have affected efficiency. The bombing of the MAN plant in August basically halved production for 5 months. The small size of the factories, the crisis in the german transport system, the inherent coruption of the system, the insistence on using newly developed technologies, would all undoubetdly affect and force up the unit cost.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2013)

The US T29, T32, T34 series were like "stretched" M-26s. Used the same road wheels but with 7 or 8 instead of 6. Probably wider, I am not looking at a book at the moment. Used the 12cylinder version of the Ford V-8, at least to start.

It can get confusing as the US ordnance dept used the "T" designation for prototypes/development vehicles and for a while would use the same number/designation for different items just like the "M" numbers (M2 carbine, M2 machine gun, M2 tank), you could have T2 light tank, T 2 heavy tank, T 2 armored car, etc. They finally wised up and used one number for one item. 

The Russian T-34 did not start out as a "heavy tank", that was the KV's job and the KV preceded the T-34 into production. The Russians had three "classes" of tank that overlapped at times (late 30s1940/41) the lights---T-37/37/38-T40s, T60s, T70s. The "maneuver" tanks the BT series, and the heavies, T-32 and T-35 multi turret tanks and the T-100 and SMK prototypes. The T-26 series was sort of a light slow maneuver tank and the the T-28 was sort of a light-heavy or heavy maneuver tank. 2/3 the weigh t of the T-35 with the same engine. The T-34 was to replace the BT series AND the T-28. From their experience in the Spanish Civil war the Russians wanted armor protection from at least 37mm AT guns and 75mm HE shells. The KVs were the heavy break though tanks. 

Post war heavy tanks were NOT break through tanks. They were often intended to sit in back of the mediums in over-watch positions and act as long range snipers to take out targets that the mediums (battle tanks) could not deal with. This was when the British were using the 20pdr and the US the same 90mm gun they used in WW II. With the coming of the 105mm L7 gun (and ADPS to the US) the need for the 120mm armed heavy tanks evaporated.


----------



## davebender (Jan 13, 2013)

> panther required 55,000 man hours to build.
> 3,000 man hours to build a T-34.
> 
> However these comparisons need to be treated with a ghreat deal of caution.


I should hope so since it doesn't pass the common sense test. 

Panther tank was designed for low cost mass production and probably required no more man hours then a T-34. Any price difference would be due to cost of 10 tons more steel plus superior optics and communications equipment.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2013)

Both sides need a little common sense. The T-34 used 10 road wheels per side (duals) The Panther used 16 per side. 3 more suspension sets per side. The Panther used a much more complicated transmission/steering gear set up. 7 synchromesh Forward gears compared to 4 or 5 unsynchromesh and the steering had crossshafts that would route power from the inboard (slower) track to the out board (faster) track I believe, could be wrong on that but in any case each gear in the transmission gave a different turning radius. T-34 used clutch and break like a Bren carrier. De-clutch inner track and use brake to slew the vehicle. 

The difference between the tanks was much more than _JUST_ 10 tons of steel a few telescopes and a radio. 

Larger parts may also require more time to machine, like the turret ring.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2013)

> The Russian T-34 did not start out as a "heavy tank", that was the KV's job and the KV preceded the T-34 into production. The Russians had three "classes" of tank that overlapped at times (late 30s1940/41) the lights---T-37/37/38-T40s, T60s, T70s. The "maneuver" tanks the BT series, and the heavies, T-32 and T-35 multi turret tanks and the T-100 and SMK prototypes. The T-26 series was sort of a light slow maneuver tank and the the T-28 was sort of a light-heavy or heavy maneuver tank. 2/3 the weigh t of the T-35 with the same engine. The T-34 was to replace the BT series AND the T-28. From their experience in the Spanish Civil war the Russians wanted armor protection from at least 37mm AT guns and 75mm HE shells. The KVs were the heavy break though tanks.
> 
> Post war heavy tanks were NOT break through tanks. They were often intended to sit in back of the mediums in over-watch positions and act as long range snipers to take out targets that the mediums (battle tanks) could not deal with. This was when the British were using the 20pdr and the US the same 90mm gun they used in WW II. With the coming of the 105mm L7 gun (and ADPS to the US) the need for the 120mm armed heavy tanks evaporated.



I acknowledge and accept that the T-34 was designed as the breakthrough tank , however the fact that it was also designed to be able to withstand 37mm fire (and in fact was really resistant to 50mm ATG fire as well) gave it characteristics of also being a "heavy" or assault tank. That plus the provision of the 76mm main armament. 

The KV tanks were indeed intended to be the "Heavy" component of the Soviet prewar tank park. However the KV was not intended to be "Heavy" in the sense that we now apply the term (ie as a fire support vehicle) . That was essentially a concept pioneered by the Germans, borne out of the development of the Heavy Tiger Tanks. KV Tanks were never meant to "hang back" in the fire support role. They and the t-34 had exactly the same main armament (and range finding and radio gear)....if they were a true Heavy (as in support) tank, they would have been fitted with an 85mm gun, had more advanced optics fitted, and be provided with better comms compared to the breakthrough vehicles, from the start. Instead, their role was really as "assault leaders", to undertake the main frontal assault whilst the lighter, more agile mediums and lights enveloped and flanked the enmy formations. Soviet doctrine however was shown to be faulty, and their formations simply not up to the task at the time of the initial assault (and indeed, Soviet Tank Formations remained very inexperienced for at least 18months after the initial invasion). 

However it did not take the Soviets too long to realize that the T-34 could undertake both roles.....it was sufficiently well armed and armoured to provide fire support, but it was also agile enough to take on the the breakthrough role. And it was even cheap enough to undertake the recon role normally assigned to light tanks as well.

Quite rapidly, the Germans responded to the T-34, by building heavier tanks and ordinance able to defeat the T-34. The Soviets did not respond in kind. Their later war tank development was essentially improvements of the existing tank park.....systems like the T-34/85, KV-85 and IS-2 were all developments of the same existing designs. The Soviets were smart enough to know that in a war like the EF, in the end, its was numbers that counted more than technical excellence.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> I should hope so since it doesn't pass the common sense test.
> 
> Panther tank was designed for low cost mass production and probably required no more man hours then a T-34. Any price difference would be due to cost of 10 tons more steel plus superior optics and communications equipment.



That was the original brief, but it was somewhat lost in the delivery. DB offering was more akin to that concept (the VK3001). Hitler rejected that in May 1942 in favour of the MAN submission (the VK3002). It was an altogether more compelex design, albeit also a more superior fighting vehicle as well. But Germany almost unknowlingly had embarked for the quality over quantity stream, which condemned her forces for the remainder of the war to being heavily outnumbered. I believe that was a major factor in ensuring their defeat. Rommel certainly thought so. By following the pathway of building terchnically exceelent, but exeedingly expensive and hard to produce designs, the germans failed to take into account the industrial limits they were working under by the latter part of 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I acknowledge and accept that the T-34 was designed as the breakthrough tank , however the fact that it was also designed to be able to withstand 37mm fire (and in fact was really resistant to 50mm ATG fire as well) gave it characteristics of also being a "heavy" or assault tank. That plus the provision of the 76mm main armament.
> 
> The KV tanks were indeed intended to be the "Heavy" component of the Soviet prewar tank park. However the KV was not intended to be "Heavy" in the sense that we now apply the term (ie as a fire support vehicle) . That was essentially a concept pioneered by the Germans, borne out of the development of the Heavy Tiger Tanks. KV Tanks were never meant to "hang back" in the fire support role. They and the t-34 had exactly the same main armament (and range finding and radio gear)....if they were a true Heavy (as in support) tank, they would have been fitted with an 85mm gun, had more advanced optics fitted, and be provided with better comms compared to the breakthrough vehicles, from the start. Instead, their role was really as "assault leaders", to undertake the main frontal assault whilst the lighter, more agile mediums and lights enveloped and flanked the enmy formations. Soviet doctrine however was shown to be faulty, and their formations simply not up to the task at the time of the initial assault (and indeed, Soviet Tank Formations remained very inexperienced for at least 18months after the initial invasion).
> 
> ...



Yes, Pre WW II everybody's Heavy tanks were "Breakthrough" Tanks. Designed to open a hole in defenses like WW I or what they thought updated WW I defenses would be. The provision of all around fire by numbers of machine guns shows this. 

Part of the faulty soviet doctrine was the lack of radios, While the T-34 had room and provisions for a radio something like 1 in 10 of the early ones actually had a radio. This would play havoc with a coordinated attack even with a well trained force (non-purged). The Russians also benefited from the war starting when they had a 500hp 28 ton and a 500/600hp 43 ton tank in production. Good as the MK IV was a 265/300hp 16-20 ton tank was never going to be able to be upgraded to match. 

It's use for recon was not only because it was cheap but because the light tanks were often relative failures. The T-60 series were slower than a T-34, shorter ranged and had higher ground pressure, in some cases they had to be towed by T-34s. The T-70 was a bit better but kept in production only because the factory/s didn't have the machinery to handle heavier vehicles. They were displaced by the SU-76 on the production line. 

The Soviets went through at least 4 and possibly 5 different 76mm tank guns from the early 30s through the end of WW II. There was a 16.5 cal length gun used on the early T-28 and T-35 tanks. Low velocity and replaced by 20.5 and 23.7 caliber guns before the 30.5 and 41.6 caliber length guns show up on the T-34s and KVs. Heavier German tanks forced the soviets to go to the 85mm and larger guns because the 76mm gun was no longer effective as an anti-tank gun. Fortunately for the Russians, their tanks were big enough to handle the larger weapons (although the KV needed a bit of help.)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2013)

Fine discussion, people 

The Soviets have had enough of excellent gun designs, and their tanks were indeed big enough to receive them. The 57mm, different 76mm cannons (developed around AAA shell, never produced in numbers), 85mm, 100 107mm, 122mm... Guess the good performance of the 1941 guns (76 mm) gave them a feeling of false security, only to be alarmed with emergence of stronger German armor in 1942/43. 
Some other things: the T-34 featured sponsoons, that enabled the decently sized gun/turret to be mounted in a modestly sized tank. KV was wide enough to mount anything from 76mm gun up to 152mm howitzer in it's turret. 
Another thing common to the Soviet tanks we the 'external mantlet', that kept the turret ring size low for the gun size. M4 also have had this. Unlike the most of the British tanks, where the internal mantlet was one of things preventing the Comet to receive 17pdr, or Cromwell to receive the 77mm.
It's beyond me why the Germans did not mounted Tiger's cannon on the Panther, 50% increased HE shell to deal with non-AFV targets, like AT other guns (100000+ of the ZiS-3 were produced alone, in 3 years), infantry, pillboxes etc. AT performance was in the ballpark vs. 7,5L70.

added: the Panther also used 'external mantlet' mounting, enabling for a powerful cannon in a modestly-sized turret


----------



## stug3 (Feb 14, 2013)

Panzer Kampfwagen VI (Tiger)







Panzer Kampfwagen III






Towed 88mm Flak Gun


----------



## Denniss (Feb 14, 2013)

Your Panzer IV is a III


----------



## stug3 (Feb 14, 2013)

Denniss said:


> Your Panzer IV is a III



corrected


----------



## Denniss (Feb 14, 2013)

stug3 said:


> corrected


So did the Bundesarchiv as they had it wrong as well. Noticed by Wikipedia users when Bundesarchiv uploaded several thousand images to Wikimedia Commons.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 16, 2013)

Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G in Russia.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 19, 2013)

German troops on the move in Tunisia 1943.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 24, 2013)

A knocked-out German PzKpfw III tank, with the body of one of its crew lying on the hull, February 1943.






Captured German SdKfz 7 artillery tractor in the Western desert, 22 February 1943.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 26, 2013)

A photograph showing the southwest end of the train station along with motorcycles, halftrack, Kubelwagen, and a captured U.S. halftack in German service. In the background are the sheds and boxcar visible in other photographs.






Another view of the British wounded and German soldiers at the northeast end of the station. A Kubelwagen ambulance has arrived and one stretcher has been loaded. The name of the station, Sidi Nsir, is visible on the station sign.






A PzKpfw. III Ausf. N belonging to sPzAbt. 501 parked at the southwest end of the Sidi Nsir station.






A German halftrack tows an antitank gun through a gap in the British wire. The halftrack has just passed through the intersection and is moving toward the Sidi Nsir station. The road to the left goes to Tebourba while the road to Beja is barely visible in the background behind the halftrack.






German light flak setup in the road intersection. On the left, behind the 20-mm flak, is the road to Tebourba. The road and railroad to Beja is visible in the background with traffic moving in both directions.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Feb 26, 2013)

Great pictures! Thanks for posting!


----------



## DonL (Mar 2, 2013)

> Therer are a number of sources youcould have a look at, a reasonable (and small cost) is John Forzcyks Panther vs T-34 1943. He quotes that the panther cost RM129K (exclusive of turret and communications), and extrapolates that this would equate to 51000 USD. On average a panther required 55000 man hours to build.
> 
> By comparison, during its peak production year of 1944, a T-34 cost R135K or roughly 13000USD. I do not know if that cost includes everything. It required a little over 3000 man hours to build a T-34.
> 
> ...



Finaly I have got back my sources!

Your claims are totaly wrong parsifal.
On average a panther required *2000* man hours to build, at the MAN factory.

55 hours armoured hull
38 hours turret
485 hours chassis fitting
150 hours turret fitting
85 hours final assembly.

The remaining ours were for production the individual parts.
So your claim about 55000 hours is totaly wrong and realy a myth.

Source: http://www.amazon.de/dp/3613031655/?tag=dcglabs-20
Panzer V Panther und seine Abarten; Walter J. Spielberger / Page 244


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2013)

Its not a myth, its just a completely different set of data. it gets down to which source is correct. Its entirely possible that both sources are correct but are referring to different time periods of the respective production runs. . I have no real idea. Obviously you have a lot of faith in your source. 

At the end of the day, all we can say is that for a two year production run, the Germans managed to produce about 6500 Panthers, whilst in that same period, about 40000 T-34s were produced. There might be any number of reasons to explain that, but superior Soviet industrial indexes is not one of them. The Soviet economy was, in theory, significantly smaller than the German, using the accepted and available Industrial indexes of the day (generally steel production and other similar crude indicators). Most scholars agree that the overall Soviet economy was markedly smaller than the Germans, yet they managed to outproduce them in just about every category. 

Also, these figures align to Steinbecks, but Steinbeck points out they are based on a memo emanating from MAN dated August 1944, at a time that Panther production had pretty much overcome a lot of production bottlenecks and was churning out Panthers very efficiently. You will get vastly different numbers at other times of the war, particularly at times when there were some sort of botlenecks in the supply chain (for example during the first half of 1944, after the Augsburg raids) . Thats the salient point of my post if you read it.....prices and times and materials are essentially not comparable between each country or even at different times of the production run, or for different types. Things change, systems are different, other issues, all of which make this virtually impossible to quantify and virtually impossible to compare.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2013)

Maybe something is lost in translation: 2000 working hours != 20000 man hours?


----------



## Denniss (Mar 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Maybe something is lost in translation: 2000 working hours != 20000 man hours?


Yes, that's it. It's impossible for one man to assemble a Panther in 85 hours.


----------



## DonL (Mar 5, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Its not a myth, its just a completely different set of data. it gets down to which source is correct. Its entirely possible that both sources are correct but are referring to different time periods of the respective production runs. . I have no real idea. Obviously you have a lot of faith in your source.
> 
> At the end of the day, all we can say is that for a two year production run, the Germans managed to produce about 6500 Panthers, whilst in that same period, about 40000 T-34s were produced. There might be any number of reasons to explain that, but superior Soviet industrial indexes is not one of them. The Soviet economy was, in theory, significantly smaller than the German, using the accepted and available Industrial indexes of the day (generally steel production and other similar crude indicators). Most scholars agree that the overall Soviet economy was markedly smaller than the Germans, yet they managed to outproduce them in just about every category.
> 
> Also, these figures align to Steinbecks, but Steinbeck points out they are based on a memo emanating from MAN dated August 1944, at a time that Panther production had pretty much overcome a lot of production bottlenecks and was churning out Panthers very efficiently. You will get vastly different numbers at other times of the war, particularly at times when there were some sort of botlenecks in the supply chain (for example during the first half of 1944, after the Augsburg raids) . Thats the salient point of my post if you read it.....prices and times and materials are essentially not comparable between each country or even at different times of the production run, or for different types. Things change, systems are different, other issues, all of which make this virtually impossible to quantify and virtually impossible to compare.



Your implication was, that you get 8 T34-85 for 1 Panther.
To me this totaly overestimated, my persomal opinion is 2 T34-85 for one Panther from working hours, material and production time.
Also germany producing at that time PIV and TigerI and TigerII tanks and was massiv under bomber attack.

Also from my understanding of UDSSR economy WWII from Glantz and other Authors, there are very serious shortcomings in favour of tank production.
The UDSSR had serious shortcomings in production of tractors and general agricultural machines plus truck production, both could only be compensated through landlease. Without landlease the UDSSR would not be able to foot their troops and civil people at 1942/43/44.
Also without the landlease trucks, the Red Army would be much more immobile.

To me here are distinctions in the production in general and the output of tanks.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2013)

> Your implication was, that you get 8 T34-85 for 1 Panther.
> To me this totaly overestimated, my persomal opinion is 2 T34-85 for one Panther from working hours, material and production time.




As I prefaced in that post of mine, there is no way of cmaking such valid comparisons. I do acknowledge and respect your point of view in this. It would be wrong of me to try and claim that there is not at least some basis to support your position. but then there is also basis to support the claim that for every 1 German MkV, the Russians could produce 8 T-34s. 

Im kind of drawn back to analysing the total production runs for each of these tanks and then detreminng as a percentage of total AFV production what portion the t-34 represented of Soviet effort, and what proportion of German effort the Mk V represented

In 1943-5, the Soviets produced 68471 AFVs of all types. Of that total 41871 were T-34 derivatives. For the Germans, in 1943-5, they produced 34769 AFVs. Of these 6700 were Panthers or derivatives. T-34 as a proportion of overall tank production amounted to 61% of total effort, whilst for the Germans the Panther represented only 19.7% of total effort. 

Its intersting though, almost as many T-34ws were produced in that time than the entire German AFV program



> Also germany producing at that time PIV and TigerI and TigerII tanks and was massiv under bomber attack.



Point taken about the multiplicity of types, but in a sense this was part of the problem for germany. And whilst Germany was indeed being hammered by the bomber offensive and overal materials shortages, as you say, ther is absolutely no way that the Soviets had access to superior resources for domestic production. Fully 35% of their industrial capacity had been overrun, and a similar percentage of their population captured. Steel production, surely as good a crude measure as any, the Germans were producing at least three times that of the Russians. All the key economic indicators of the time showed the russians as massively outgunned by the German economy, and thats not including the potential that might have been derived from the occupied territories 



> Also from my understanding of UDSSR economy WWII from Glantz and other Authors, there are very serious shortcomings in favour of tank production.



Of course, something had to give, but in all the key indicators of military production the Soviets severely outperformed the Germans



> The UDSSR had serious shortcomings in production of tractors and general agricultural machines plus truck production, both could only be compensated through landlease. Without landlease the UDSSR would not be able to foot their troops and civil people at 1942/43/44.




You wont get any arguument from me that Lend Lease was critical to the Soviet war effort. Its a whole different debate however. ive read some accounts that estimate the overall contribution of Lend Lease to the russian capability to be somewhere between 14 and 20%, depending on what area of the economy you want to look at at.

I dont know about agricu;ltural tractors, but in terms of military soft skinned vehicles, the Sovietrs significantly outproduced the germans. They received about 400000 vehicles from Lend Lease (from memory), but produced 220000 according to Zetterling 1943-5. The Germans in that same period produced about 149000 vehicles. 



> Also without the landlease trucks, the Red Army would be much more immobile.



Um yep, and your point? If the germans had managed their economy better and those of the countries it overran, it easily had the potential to blow the Soviets out of the water,m b ut failed. 



> To me here are distinctions in the production in general and the output of tanks


.

I dont have any problem in pointing out that the Soviets had an overall weaker economy to the Germans. But trying to argue that the Soviets lagged in opther areas of production compared to the Germans does not stand up to even the most cursory of examinations.....The Germans went for rxotic, difficult to produce designs, the Russians always considered ease of production a factor....the Germnans completely mismanged their economy despite people like Speer and Milch (they could not get over the inherent corrution and innefficiency of the Nazi system) whilst the Soviets flogged their economy for all that they could. They knew what total war meant, the Germans apparently did not, until it was way too late.


----------



## stug3 (Mar 13, 2013)

Southern Russia, March 1942


----------



## stug3 (Mar 27, 2013)

The burnt remains of the radio-operator of a German PzKpfw IV tank is hoisted out of his compartment, March 1942.






Troops are shown the effects of anti-tank rounds on a knocked-out German PzKpfw IV tank,


----------



## vinnye (Mar 27, 2013)

Interestingly the rounds that did the damage are from the flank. Maybe they found out that even the lighter German tanks could take our smaller calibre AP shells on their frontal armour?


----------



## stug3 (Apr 14, 2013)

An American soldier advances cautiously at left with a submachine gun to cover any attempt of the German tank crew from escaping their tank following a duel with U.S. and British anti-tank units in Medjez al Bab area, Tunisia, on January 12, 1943.


----------



## stug3 (May 26, 2013)

Schützenpanzer in North Afrika






dont know what kind of truck this is


----------



## stug3 (May 27, 2013)

German infantry on a Panzer IV during fighting for the Kerch Peninsula, May 1942


----------



## Denniss (May 27, 2013)

Desert vehicle may be a Sd. Kfz. 10/4 halftrack SP AA


----------



## Airframes (May 28, 2013)

Yes, it's a Demag D.10/Flak 38/20.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2013)

good stuff guys...and i agree it looks like a Sd. Kfz. 10/4


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 3, 2013)

some real nice shots..


----------



## stug3 (Jun 11, 2013)

Panzer IV tanks from the Gross Deutschland Division, Russia 1942











field kitchen


----------



## stug3 (Jun 13, 2013)

Panzerkamphwagen III near Gazala, 1942


----------



## stug3 (Jun 18, 2013)

Panzer VI Tiger in Russia






Tiger towed by two Sd.Kfz. 9, Russia, 1943


----------



## stug3 (Jun 19, 2013)

Afrika Korps, 1942


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 20, 2013)

Cool stuff, more Tigers....


----------



## stug3 (Jun 20, 2013)

Rommel and Bayerlein survey the harbour at Tobruk, still crowded with bombed out ships that had accumulated in over a year’s fighting, June 1942







King George VI inspects a captured Tiger I in Tunis, June 1943.


----------



## stug3 (Jun 23, 2013)

Jagdpanzer Sd.Kfz.184 “Ferdinand” at Kummerstdorf proving ground, 1943






New Panzer V “Panthers”, 1943


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 24, 2013)

great shot of the Panthers...


----------



## stug3 (Jun 28, 2013)

Half track adapted to carry Nebelwerfer






Nebelwerfer in service on the Eastern Front, 1942






Pzkpw 3, Russia 1942






Kursk, June 1942


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2013)

I thought Kursk was July '43....was ther a lesser battle in the preceding June???


----------



## stug3 (Jul 5, 2013)

SS Panzergrenadiers with a Tiger I of the 2nd SS Panzergrenadier Division Das Reich during the Battle of Kursk, July 1943






Kursk


----------



## stug3 (Jul 8, 2013)

Waffen SS Tiger 1 in action at Kursk, July 1943.






Waffen SS Division “Das Reich” Panzer III crew during a stop in the Belgorod-Orel area during Operation Citadel.






The remote controlled Goliath ‘Sprengpanzer ‘ or exploding tank, seen here in Russia in the spring of 1944.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 12, 2013)

Panzer VI/Tiger I tanks in Orel (Oryol), Russia, mid-Jul 1943 






Abandoned Panthers at Prokhorovka 1943






Destroyed T-34s somewhere on the Eastern front 1942


----------



## parsifal (Jul 15, 2013)

not a good look for those t-34s....looks like they were surprised and ambushed


----------



## stug3 (Jul 20, 2013)

German Grenadiers on a ‘Sturmgeschütz’ assault gun.






Grenadiers support an attack by Tigers.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 21, 2013)

Tigers! ....


----------



## stug3 (Jul 24, 2013)

Russia 1942


----------



## stug3 (Jul 26, 2013)

From Neil McCallum: Journey with a Pistol: a diary of war

_Our only support was a three-inch mortar. It was brought up and from behind one of the houses it lobbed shells into the field. But its range was too great and we could not get the shells to fall close enough. The two-inch mortar was with us and it would have done the job, but the ammunition carriers were lost.

When the three-inch mortar had fired a few rounds the uncanny spell of detachedness was broken. We had introduced high explosive into the battle again. There was a tremendous crack from the field and an 88-millimetre shell broke open the side of a house.

From the sound of tracks and an engine it must have come from a Tiger tank. With only rifles we could not do anything to a Tiger tank. The three-inch mortar was now useless. Every time it fired it drew an immediate response from the Tiger tank.

The house in front of the mortar crumpled. The mortar was on a hard road and could not be dug in. It was ordered to cease fire and we waited in a fresh silence. But the mood had changed. This was no longer a happy, moon-lit village._


Tiger in Sicily, 1943


----------



## stug3 (Jul 31, 2013)

Stacks of tracks at a Panzer III assembly facility


----------



## Wayne Little (Aug 3, 2013)

Wow, that's an amazing number of tracks!


----------



## stug3 (Aug 9, 2013)

German armoured column advancing over the open steppe during the summer of 1942, covering huge distances without encountering significant opposition.











German Marder III anti tank gun in the south of Russia, summer 1942. 






Panzer III tanks in the open fields of the Russian south, August 1942. 






The German army still relied heavily on horse drawn transport for its supply columns.






They were now so far south they were on the borders of Asia.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 20, 2013)

Waffen SS Panzer Division ‘Das Reich’, SS-Gruppenführer Walter Kruger, at a parade in Russia in April 1943.






Reichsführer der SS Heinrich Himmler examines tanks of the Das Reich Division, including a captured T-34, near Kharkov, April 1943.






Men of the Das Reich division inspecting a new Tiger shortly after taking delivery of it in April 1943. 






A view of men from Das Reich during Unternehmen Zitadelle, July 1943.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 7, 2013)

German vehicles on the move in Russia in the late summer 1943.






A Tiger assists another stuck in muddy ground.






Russia 1943


----------



## stug3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Panzer IVs make a river crossing on an improvised bridge, 1943.






A Russian village burns during the German retreat, August 1943.






Russia, 1943






A ‘Raupenschlepper’ pulling an artillery piece on the Eastern front.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 16, 2013)

Panzer III of Army Group South 1942.







Burning KV1 near Voronezh


----------

