# Best German Weapon of WWII



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

What do you think was the Germans Best weapon of WWII ?

(and is it ok to post this poll here ?)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

Heh! You're not a CoD fan are you Yeomanz?  

IMO, the best German weapon was the MG42. It was and is the finest light/medium machine gun ever produced, and was capable of an astonishing rate of fire of approx. 1200 rounds per minute.
It's still used today by the Bundeswehr, in slightly modified form, as the MG3.

The most innovative German weapon was unquestionably the MP44/Stg44, as it was the first true assault rifle and became the basis for the AK47.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Heh! You're not a CoD fan are you Yeomanz? :wink



appsalutely , Cod rocks ! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> What do you think was the Germans Best weapon of WWII ?
> 
> (and is it ok to post this poll here ?)



Steilhandgrenate! 

And yup its in the right place 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 28, 2004)

It's actually Stg.44, for Sturmgewehr.1944, which is basically "Assault Gun, 1944 Model."


Mp is an abbreviation of Maschinenpistole, which is basically Machine-Gun Pistol... (SMG nowadays)


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

I know i was just useiung its name from Cod


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

The German designers had originally designated the weapon 'MP44' for political reasons, to do with production priorities.
In short, Hitler himself didn't want his people to waste time developing some fancy new-fangled assault weapon that would require a retooling of production facilities, etc.
The designers, not wanting their new baby to go to waste, designated the project 'MP' so that it would seem as if they were developing a new machine pistol intead.
Once the potential of the weapon became clear to Hitler, all pretence was dropped, and it received the proper designation of 'Stg.44'.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 29, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Heh! You're not a CoD fan are you Yeomanz?
> 
> IMO, the best German weapon was the MG42. It was and is the finest light/medium machine gun ever produced, and was capable of an astonishing rate of fire of approx. 1200 rounds per minute.
> It's still used today by the Bundeswehr, in slightly modified form, as the MG3.
> ...



I agree, the MG42 was probably the best German weapon of the war. However, I think the 1200 rpm RoF was too high for infantry use. It made it hard to aim in most situations, and used up ammo too fast. Anything over 900 rpm is too fast, and 600-700 rpm is much more reasonable.

I don't believe the AK-47 has anything in common with the MP44 design wise. It may or may not have inspired it, but I think not. I saw an interview with Kalashnikov (sp?) and he explained the progression of designs that lead to the AK-47 and it made sense w/o reference to the MP44.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 29, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I don't believe the AK-47 has anything in common with the MP44 design wise. It may or may not have inspired it, but I think not.



Actually, it did.
While Kalashnikov's design was certainly innovative in it's own right, he used the Stg.44 as a starting point along with the existing Soviet SKS rifle, when he began his initial work on the design of the first AK rifle in 1946. Of course, he was able to improve much on the original design of the rifle's action, and the AK47 reflects this.

He by no means copied the design directly, but he was able to use it's principles as a basis for his work. In much the same way as the Israeli Galil was influenced by the Kalashnikov rifles. In that case, the similarities are much more obvious (the action of the Galil is essentially identical to that of the AK47), but it's been an age old practice in small-arms development to take an existing principle and improve upon the design.


I agree that the higher rate of fire of the MG42 was far too great for accurate aiming, but that wasn't exactly the intention.
The weapon had basically two selectable rates of fire: one of approx. 750rpm and the other of approx. 1200rpm. The latter was intended for "sweeping" actions, of limited endurance. Sustained fire at that rate quickly overheated the barrels, and in fact the weapon almost always came equipped with an extra barrel.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

Well, according to Kalashnikov he'd never seen the MP44 and had been working on the AK-47 without knowlege of it before the end of WWII. Watch for the interview, they show it on The History Channel pretty frequently.

Even firing at 750 rpm from an air cooled machine gun will overheat the barrels very quickly. Sustained rates of fire are probably 15-20% the cyclic RoF, perhaps less.
 
Yes the MG42 came with a spare barrel attached (though usually removed prior to actual combat) and was setup for quick field changes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 30, 2004)

I watched the History Channel quite frequently in the past.
I admit I haven't in quite awhile, but I think I've seen something along the lines of what you describe. 
Kalashnikov _was_ definitley brilliant, IMO.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> I watched the History Channel quite frequently in the past.
> I admit I haven't in quite awhile, but I think I've seen something along the lines of what you describe.
> Kalashnikov _was_ definitley brilliant, IMO.



Agreed. He got into military engineering by presenting a new tachometer design for tank engines which Stalin liked while recovering from battle injuries.

Watch for it comming up on THC, I think it's in the series "Tales of the Gun" but it might be in "Modern Marvels".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 30, 2004)

I'll watch out for it. Thanks.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 30, 2004)

'Didja hear about the Vodka he just released?


Yes, Kalashnikov, the designer of the most profilic gun in widespread use, released a Vodka bearing his name recently.

Why?


He didn't want his name only to be associated with something violent...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 30, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 30, 2004)

Here it is, then!

http://ak47-vodka.cdetc.com/

and here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/20/kalashnikov.vodka.reut/


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 30, 2004)

I like how the rifle appears on the label, with him!


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 30, 2004)

I would have to say in my opinion that the best German Weapon overall was the Bf109. I don't really know whether it is personnel weapons you are talking about or overall. It was the fighter/bomber that stayed in production for so long and was deadly in all its varients to Hurricanes and could stand up to Spitfires. I think personally though the German Anti-Tank Gun, whatever that was, was the most useful and therefore Best German Personnel weapon of WW2, judging by its usefulness in Bf1942. It rocks for taking out massed enemy infantry as well as tanks, jeeps and APCs. Only thing it isn't equipped to deal with is aircraft...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

The MG42 was an outstanding weapon unmatched in WWII, and is still pretty much the standard of design. The M60 and several other SAW type weapons are based upon it even today.

The Panzerfaust was a powerful weapon, but the US bazooka was its equal. Not as powerful, but better range and accuracy, and sufficient to take out most german tanks (except maybe the Tiger II) from any angle other than the front.

The Bf-109 was produced for political reasons more than its quality. By 1941 it was outclassed by the Spitfire and it continued to fall behind from there on. Only half as many 190's as 109's were made because Willie Messershmitt was tighter with the Nazi's than Kurt Tank, even though the FW was by far the superior plane. Had tank been given his choice in engines rather than having to make due with something Messershmitt didn't want, the 190 line might have been far better than it was. Many other designers simply didn't get contracts because of politics.

The 109 is the plane that lost the Battle of Britain. Had the German's had the A6M2 Zero instead, they may well have won. The 109 had no range, and that made it a looser for supporting any kind of serious offensive airwar.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 1, 2004)

I plumped for the Panzerfaust, because the concept behind it revolutionised the battlefield (IMHO).

I fully appreciate the impact of the Stg.44 and MG42 on the modern battlefied, but they were, ultimately, refinements of existing concepts. On the other hand, the panzerfaust and its predecessors were the first weapons to give the infantry section the power to destroy an MBT with one shot. This radically changed the battlefield relationship between tanks and infantry, insofar as it was now essential for tanks to be protected by infantry, so that enemy infantry could not destroy them. Also, the Panzerfaust represented a truly mass-produceable AT weapon. AT guns were big, and a battalion could only have a few. But a Panzerfaust/Bazooka/PIAT was cheap, portable, and could be issued in hundereds or even thousands to formations.

So, Panzerfaust gets my vote 8)


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 1, 2004)

I said the Panzerfaust because I see it as a true revolution in the battlefield.  It also led to the idea of Stingers, for personnel in the 1950s, which changed the relationship between troops and aircraft/helicopters significantly by giving troops an effective hand-held weapon that could lock-on to an aircraft's exhaust system and blow up the aircraft/helicopter. That is why aircraft are forced to fly high and fast over the battlefield unless they have modern heat suppression technology built in.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

HealzDevo said:


> I said the Panzerfaust because I see it as a true revolution in the battlefield. It also led to the idea of Stingers, for personnel in the 1950s, which changed the relationship between troops and aircraft/helicopters significantly by giving troops an effective hand-held weapon that could lock-on to an aircraft's exhaust system and blow up the aircraft/helicopter. That is why aircraft are forced to fly high and fast over the battlefield unless they have modern heat suppression technology built in.



I think crediting the Panzerfaust as being an "inspiration" for stingers is stretching things quite a bit. And besides, the Panzerfaust is really more like an RPG than a Bazooka, where the Stinger is more like a Bazooka than an RPG.

And besides, the USA invented the Bazooka, and this in turn inspired the Panzerfaust. The Bazooka was deployed to US and I think also to British units in early 1942, and Panzerfaust development began in summer 1942. It is extremely likely that German spies saw this weapon and reported on it, resulting in the Panzerfaust which Germany badly needed on the E. Front.

I also think the Bazooka was at least as good as the Panzerfaust. The M1 and M1A1 Bazooka's range of up to 300 yards (with 150 yard shots being common for anti-tank use) far exceeded the Panzerfaust 30's 30m effective range, and the much later Panzerfaust 100's 100m range. The Panzerfaust 150 barely made it to combat, and the M9 was still generally superior. The M1 and M9 bazook's both had 100 mm penetration, good enough to kill almost any German tank except for frontal attacks on a few of the heavies.

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm (see page 13 for bazooka history and info)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 2, 2004)

Yep the panzerfaust was a good weapon but you'd be pretty vunerable id say


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> Yep the panzerfaust was a good weapon but you'd be pretty vunerable id say



It was made for defense. You find a kid and tell him to hide until he sees an Allied vehicle and then sneak out and shoot at it.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 2, 2004)

Panzers, 10 votes because itz suberb effective agaist all targets when properly helped w/ infantrys


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> Panzers, 10 votes because itz suberb effective agaist all targets when properly helped w/ infantrys



You mean the Panzer tanks?

Russian tanks were better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Ill second that.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 3, 2004)

Depend what you mean by better. The German tanks were far superior as the engineering went, but it was this in itself which caused problems. If something broke (as it surely did) you needed specialist tools, parts, and skills to make running repairs. 

In the case of Russian tanks, a strategically placed whack from a sledgehammer would often do the trick! Also, Hitler took the view that since sloping armour was used on Russian tanks, to copy it would be saying that the Bolsheviks could produce something useful - completely potty? Quite. 

So the Tigers were forced to have flat angular armour everywhere, which added much more weight, and thus gobbled up more fuel, which leads on to the fact that German engines were petrol injection, rather than Diesel ones as was the case on the Russian tanks. It's much harder to start a petrol engine in extreme cold weather, and German tankers had to light fires under their vehicles to warm them enough to start! Again, the Russians had no such problems. 

But outside of all of those practical considerations, the German tanks were much more sophisticated bits of kit.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

I agree with that, but because the Russian tanks were so much more treliable and were churned out in greater numbers they managed o get the better of the German tanks. Although a hit from the gun of a German tank was bloody lethal....


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 3, 2004)

Yeah, there was even a place in the Urals called Chelyabinsk, which was dubbed 'Tankograd.' The whole city was given over to churning out T-34's, and anyone who could hold a monkey-wrench were helping to build them - old men, kids, you name it, working in appaling conditions.

Look at this link about it. 

http://www.vor.ru/English/Victory/vict_18.html

It's been written by the Russian World Service, which you can listen to on short wave radio. (49 -41 metre band SW) I recommend it, it's a really good little station.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Is it all in Russian?


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 3, 2004)

Not at all! They have an English language service. They love getting letters, so if you have any questions about Russian/Soviet military history, they're guaranteed to answer them for you on the radio!

http://www.vor.ru/world.html

You can write to any of the shows, but 'Moscow Mailbag' is the best one in my opinion. They reply to you personally by letter too, to tell you when your question is going to be broadcast.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> Depend what you mean by better. The German tanks were far superior as the engineering went, but it was this in itself which caused problems. If something broke (as it surely did) you needed specialist tools, parts, and skills to make running repairs.
> 
> In the case of Russian tanks, a strategically placed whack from a sledgehammer would often do the trick! Also, Hitler took the view that since sloping armour was used on Russian tanks, to copy it would be saying that the Bolsheviks could produce something useful - completely potty? Quite.
> 
> ...



German tanks had some superior engineering, particularly in the sights. But beyond that they had little advantage. The Tiger I was designed before the German experiance with sloped Russian armor. The Germans sure did apply the concept of sloping armor as soon as they saw it, as evidenced by the Panther and Tiger II designs.

While it is true some Russian tanks were built in such a hurry that they were flawed, most commonly the seams at a corner not fitting, this was hardly the norm. The T-34/85 is easily the superior tank when compared to the Panther in terms of reliability, mobility, and armor quality. It's gun was also about equal. And because they ran on diesel fuel, rather than gasoline, they were much more able to sustain a penatrating hit.

As German armor got thicker, it got softer. Armor quality on the Tiger and especially the Tiger II was poor, relying on sheer mass rather than quality to provide protection. Mass has to be moved, and these tanks were relatively immobile as a result. Russian thick armor on tanks like the JS-II was of much better quality than that on the Tigers.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> Not at all! They have an English language service. They love getting letters, so if you have any questions about Russian/Soviet military history, they're guaranteed to answer them for you on the radio!
> 
> http://www.vor.ru/world.html
> 
> You can write to any of the shows, but 'Moscow Mailbag' is the best one in my opinion. They reply to you personally by letter too, to tell you when your question is going to be broadcast.



Cool! 8) Ill look into that 8)


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 3, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As German armor got thicker, it got softer. Armor quality on the Tiger and especially the Tiger II was poor, relying on sheer mass rather than quality to provide protection. Mass has to be moved, and these tanks were relatively immobile as a result. Russian thick armor on tanks like the JS-II was of much better quality than that on the Tigers.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



The trouble is, the harder the armour, the more brittle it gets. The British who evaluated the T34 found the armour to be of a reasonably high quality (even with roughness of castings) and put it on par with some of the better German armour.

But while armour hardness is relevant, it is by no means the only important factor.

While high face hardness will help the armour defeat glancing impacts from soft-steel slugs, it also will tend to face-crack on heavy impact. Under these conditions, the strength and ductility of the metal behind the point of impact will determine whether the shock wave progressing through the metal thickness will break metal away from the inner face. 

So, whilst the 45 mm front armour of the T-34 gives it a protection equivalent of about 140 mm, making it immune to the Tigers 88 mm gun, this was often offset by the nasty tendency of the brittle Russian armour to collapse when hit by a large round.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> The trouble is, the harder the armour, the more brittle it gets. The British who evaluated the T34 found the armour to be of a reasonably high quality (even with roughness of castings) and put it on par with some of the better German armour.
> 
> But while armour hardness is relevant, it is by no means the only important factor.
> 
> ...



Russian armor was not really brittle (unless it was defective which some was). There is an ideal hardness. When tested, Tiger II armor was found to have a very high hardness on the face, up near a brinell of 700, but in just a few mm this dropped down to around 200. Most German late war armor lacked the face hardening. Russian armor was found to have a face hardness of something around 450 and was pretty consistantly 350-375 or so thereafter.

You are right, very hard armor tends to be brittle, but soft armor is also bad. When armor like on the Tiger II is hit, it does not need to be fully penetrated to kill the crew. Spalling (liqified steel) off the opposing face from the hit can easily do the job. The best armor is hard but not too hard on the face but is not soft underneath. Russian armor, especially near the end of WWII, was nearly ideal for the tech of the time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Russian armor was not really brittle (unless it was defective which some was). There is an ideal hardness. When tested, Tiger II armor was found to have a very high hardness on the face, up near a brinell of 700, but in just a few mm this dropped down to around 200. Most German late war armor lacked the face hardening. Russian armor was found to have a face hardness of something around 450 and was pretty consistantly 350-375 or so thereafter.
> 
> You are right, very hard armor tends to be brittle, but soft armor is also bad. When armor like on the Tiger II is hit, it does not need to be fully penetrated to kill the crew. Spalling (liqified steel) off the opposing face from the hit can easily do the job. The best armor is hard but not too hard on the face but is not soft underneath. Russian armor, especially near the end of WWII, was nearly ideal for the tech of the time.
> 
> ...



At the same time though, hard armour can be just as lethal. When an A.P round hits it, a few large chunks of armour pop inward to make a hole a bit bigger than the diameter of the projectile. These chunks may initially be moving fairly quickly, but having broken out at a relatively low force, they are probably barely even warm. Thus the damage they can do is minimal. The projectile itself, having lost little velocity, careers onwards. If it ricochets off the gun or a wall, it may spend all of its energy bouncing around tens or hundreds of times inside, with all the gory consequences.

For a given incoming round, the odds are very much higher that hard armour will result in a penetration. The reason that the results of a soft-armour penetration are so much more violent is that the armour died its own violent death trying to keep the projectile away from the crew. You're much, much more likely to end up dead behind hard armour than behind soft armour.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

That depends on a lot of qualities of the armor itself.

Very soft armor is not good, it spalls to much. Very hard armor is not good, it shatters too much. The best armor is relatively hard on the face (but not extremely so) and "firm" underneath. This gives the best chance of defeating the shell on the surface, and having it bounce away, but if that fails, minimizes the damage.

Modern armor is generally 500 brinnel, but of course materials are better all around. In WWII armor of 250-350 brinnel was about the best it got, depending on ductility and tensil strenght qualities. Impurities in the armor, and uniformity of carbon content, were huge hurdles for that time.

Probably the best armor of WWII was the US tempered armor plates, which had both relatively high hardness and good tensil strength, but these were limited to a maximum thickness of about 1 inch and had to be flat. Tempered armor plates were used in aircraft, and you sometimes see one or more of them attached to the front of a Sherman.

German WWII armor became soft because they had very limited supplies of tungston for machine tools. 375 brinnel is about the hardest that could be machined with a tungston bit, and without such a bit it really drops dramatically. There was a huge political battle within the German war machine as to whether the available tungston should be used for making armor, or as penetators to defeat enemy armor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 3, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> German WWII armor became soft because they had very limited supplies of tungston for machine tools. 375 brinnel is about the hardest that could be machined with a tungston bit, and without such a bit it really drops dramatically. There was a huge political battle within the German war machine as to whether the available tungston should be used for making armor, or as penetators to defeat enemy armor.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



This in itself leads on to an interesting bit of economic warfare. Portugal’s economic success hinged on its rich tungsten ore deposits. The Nazis were totally dependent on Portugal and Spain for its tungsten supplies. 

Germany’s machining industry used tungsten carbide almost exclusively, whereas the U.S. was still largely using inferior molybdenum tipped tools, primarily because of the cartel agreement held with Krupp's of Essen concerning carboloy or cemented tungsten carbide. Britain and the U.S. agreed that Germany’s minimum requirements for tungsten were 3,500 tons per year. 

Considering the quantity the Nazis required and the extraordinary means they went to aquire supplies of the ore, the Allies correctly guessed that for the Nazis, tungsten was a vital resource. It was equally important to the Allies, but the Allies were not solely dependent upon Portugal or Spain and could obtain tungsten from other sources. 

Thus, one of the Allied goals was to deprive Nazi Germany of as much tungsten ore as possible. In this end, the Allies bought as much tungsten as possible from Portugal. The competition for the ore was intense and by 1943, to Portugal’s benefit, the price of ore had increased 775 percent over pre-war rates.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

The Panzerfaust for impact on the battlefield, alone. No other weapon caused such a dramatic rethink in armoured conflict. It was not the fact that this RPG was the best because it wasn't, what made it have such a large impact was the fact that it was one shot, one kill then drop it and run off. Disposable weaponary, easily mass-produced and deadly. 

Soviet tank crews were forced to formulate ideas to cover every single part of the battlefield because German tank hunters could be anywhere. In Berlin, 1945, when the IS-2s started rolling down the German streets it was always one on the left covering the right, one on the right covering the left and one at the back covering both and ready to move up. Why? Because they knew that anyone could be in a building, cellar, under rubble anywhere with a Panzerfaust. Shoot it, and run off into the streets. 

The U.S Bazooka was a heavy piece of machinery, and often required two people to work it efficiently. When an enemy armoured column is rolling through the streets, you want to be fast and mobile to hit and not be hit the Panzerfaust gave you this ability. 

It's always hard when you only have one to choose because both the Mg-42 and Stg. 44 were brilliant pieces of weaponary and certainly they were revolutionary. 
I would like to point out though that some 500,000 Stg. 44s were used by the Eastern German Army after World War 2. The Russians would have certainly seen them...

On the tank issue, going back to basics, the T-34/85 was not as good as the Panther Ausf G. The sloped armour on the Panther gave it more frontal protection than the Tiger Is slab-sided armour. After the intial clutch problems were sorted on the Ausf A the Panther proved to be reliable, it was fast and mobile. The 6th Coldstream Guards captured a Panther Ausf G that had been abandoned in full working order in the Ardennes Offensive, nicknamed it Cuckoo. They remark on the Panthers ability to hold the road in icy conditions when their tanks (most likely Churchills) were slipping and sliding all over. 
The cannon on the Panther was superior to the T-34/85, the optics, the radio, the armour, the weapon on the Panther were all superior to that of the T-34/85. In fact, the comparable Russian tanks to the Panther would be the IS-1 and IS-2. The IS-2 could destroy the Panther at 1000m, the Panther could return the favour at 800m. Their armour was almost equal, the Panther was superior in equipment (Radio and optics) so had more tactical ability on top of more actual chance of striking the target. 
The Panzerkampfwagen V Ausf G 'Panther' was probably the best all round tank of World War 2 but was unfortunately over-shadowed by Germanys dying war and the constant madness in Hitler to build bigger and bigger tanks. 

Late in the war, everyone with a bit of sense realises that Germany was running low on...well...everything. This affected its tanks, of course, but it doesn't make the tank design any worse. 

On the King Tiger, not one single King Tiger was destroyed through a frontal penetration. There is absolutely no evidence that this could have been achieved, in battle conditions. The only pictures of a King Tiger destroyed in such a way are from months after the war, when Russians were testing weapons on a captured Tiger II. And we all know, that sat in a field with a A-19 122mm cannon being rolled up at optimum range isn't battle conditions. The King Tiger also had, in that nice shiney slanted turret, the most powerful tank cannon of the war the KwK43 L/71 and the presence of the Tiger Royal alone caused fear. 

Now, I'll leave it there. Feel free to state how unreliable and heavy the King Tiger was. Throw in a little bit about bridges, and the fact that most couldn't support it. And then, hopefully, state the malfunctions on the Panther Ausf A that caused it to set itself alight. And it's poor performance during Kursk with these malfunctions...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 22, 2004)

Well, only if you compare the 1943 T-34 to the late 1944 Panzer V Ausf. G.

Let's compare it to the 1944 T-34/85 okay? And of course keep in mind the Panther is a 45500 KG tank compared to the T-34/85's 32,000 kg, so it's not really the same class of tank.

Production quantity (WWII timeframe only) - Panther Ausf. G: 3126 T-34/85 (1944): 17680 (T-34 wins)
Main Gun - Panther Ausf. G: 75mm KwK 42 L/70 T-34/85 (1944): 85mm gun ZiS-S-53 (tie)
Traverse (360 deg) - Panther Ausf. G: Hydrolic 60 secs. T-34/85 (1944): Electric 21 secs (T-34 wins)
Sight - Panther Ausf. G: TZF12a T-34/85 (1944): TSh-16 MK-4 (tie)
Fuel type - Panther Ausf. G: gasoline T-34/85 (1944): diesel (T-34 wins)
Power/wt. ratio - 15.4 hp/ton T-34/85 (1944): 16.3 hp/ton (T-34 wins)
ground pressure - Panther Ausf. G: 12.8 psi T-34/85 (1944): 11.1 psi (T-34 wins) 
Turning radius - Panther Ausf. G: 10.0 m T-34/85 (1944): 7.6 m (T-34 wins)
Max. climbing gradient - Panther Ausf. G: 30 deg. T-34/85 (1944): 35 deg. (T-34 wins)
Fording depth - Panther Ausf. G: 1.9m T-34/85 (1944): 1.3m (Panther wins) 
Range (km, on/off road) - Panther Ausf. G: 250/100 T-34/85 (1944): 300+/180+ (T-34 wins)
Speed (kph, on/off road)- Panther Ausf. G: 55/30 T-34/85 (1944): 55/30 (tie)
Turret Armor (Front/Side/Rear/Top) -
----- Panther Ausf. G: [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]
----- T-34/85 (1944): [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] (close but I give this to the T-34, the sides and rear are far superior) 
Hull Armor (Front/Side/Rear/Bottom) -
----- Panther Ausf. G: [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected])
----- T-34/85 (1944): [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] (Panther wins)
Superstructure Armor (Front/Side/Rear/Top) -
----- Panther Ausf. G: [email protected]/[email protected]/(i don't have fig. for rear)/[email protected]
----- T-34/85 (1944): [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] (Panther wins)
Mantael - Panther Ausf. G: [email protected] T-34/85 (1944): [email protected] (Panther wins)

So, as I see it the Panther wins only in armor thickness in some catagories. But, Russian tank armor was better than German tank armor, having a brinnel value of around 350 as compared to German armor with a brinnel of only about 200 by this point in the war. Given this difference, it is not at all clear that the Panther really wins in the armor catagory. Furthermore, given it's 50% greater weight, the Panther has no where near 50% better armor protect even if the armor quality were equal.

In terms of mobility the T-34 wins almost every catagory. And, the value of running on diesel as opposed to gasoline is huge. Gasoline burns and explodes easily, diesel does not. This fact also allows the T-34 to safely carry external fuel tanks extending its combat range tremendously. And the much faster turret traverse speed is a huge advantage to the T-34.

As for radio equipment, the T-34/85 carried a variety of radios. But by late 1944 the RSB-1, RSB-FZT as well as the earlier 9RM and 94S sets were in use. However this is really not significant. By the beginning of 1945 over 40,000 radious had been provided to the Soviets by the USA, and large number also by the British (I don't have a figure). About 1/3rd of the Soviet tanks carried US/British radio sets. Futhermore the USA supplied the Soviet's with over 5 million radio tubes. The radio advantage the German's enjoyed earlier in the war was huge, but by the time of the Panther Ausf. G, Soviet radios were not that bad as compared to German radios, both had sets with about a 5-10 mile voice range in almost every tank.

As for the gun, the German 75mm KwK 40L/48 was superior against tanks as compared to the Soviet 85mm ZiS-S-53, but the 85 mm was superior against other targets (it fired a 50% larger round). Tanks are not really meant to fight other tanks, that is the job of tank destroyers. Also, the costly and complicated production of the Panther meant the T-34/85 vastly outnumbered them on the battle field.

As a general "tank", I think the T-34 was better than the Panther due to its superior range and mobility. For tank vs. tank combat, it is really not fair to compare the T-34/85 with the Panther Ausf. G given the huge difference in weights. As you stated, the JS-2 is the more legitimate comparision both in weight and numbers produced if you're looking at pure tank combat battling it out on open ground.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Excuse me that was a nice little comparison and completely bias in your favour. You mention the cannons and without giving the penertration capability you call it a tie. No, my friend. The Panthers 75mm was superior to that of the T-34s 85mm. 

The optical sights on the T-34/85 only had a range of 2km, the Panthers had a range of 5km. Panther wins. See, just by naming them doesn't mean you can pass it off as a tie. 

The armour on the Panther was just plain thicker and it had more armour protection. It was a superior tank, and by the way the T-34/85 was only upgraded once during World War 2 to the T-34/85-I so I can compare any T-34/85 with the Panther G and it be fair. 

The radio equipment is actually quite important. While Russian tank crews were seen doing flag signals on the battlefield, the Germans had excellent radio coverage which increased their tactical capability. Shame on you for trying to write it off as being unimportant. 

I am stating in tank on tank combat, the Panther is a better tank clear cut. The fact that Germany was dying doesn't make the Panther worse than the T-34 as it out-classed it, pure and simple. The losses to the T-34 by Panther alone show this. 

If we're negating the comparison because of weight, the Panzer IV Ausf H was a fair and even match for the T-34, of any variant.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 22, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Excuse me that was a nice little comparison and completely bias in your favour. You mention the cannons and without giving the penertration capability you call it a tie. No, my friend. The Panthers 75mm was superior to that of the T-34s 85mm.
> 
> The optical sights on the T-34/85 only had a range of 2km, the Panthers had a range of 5km. Panther wins. See, just by naming them doesn't mean you can pass it off as a tie.
> 
> ...



The penetration does not really matter that much, both tanks could kill the other at reasonable ranges (1000 meters). While the Panther's gun was superior against tanks, the T-34/85's gun was superior against all other targets. Neither could effectively hit and kill the other at significantly greater range than the other could, perhaps the Panther had a small advantage in this respect. On the otherhand, the T-34 could track a moving enemy tank better.

Losses to the T-34 by the Panther really do not show anything because in general the Soviets were on the offensive. This means the Panther's generally was hidden and had the first shot.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Of course the penertration and optics matter. The idea of tank warfare is to hit before being hit. The cannon gave the Panther the distinct advantage in this field, the most important field in tank warfare. 

And the T-34/85 could not destroy a Panther at 1000m. Try 600m with a lucky hit. 

On the optics note, 3km is a pretty damn big advantage actually. The Panther would strike down several T-34s before they were even in effective range, it's a well known fact and it happened all the time. 

And the German defence measures in Russia didn't have them hiding their tanks all the time actually. It was the idea of mobile reserve and mobile "Flexy" defence. With local counter-attacks at flanks, this meant that tanks were used in the open in more cases than not. And even with that, the Panther still accounted for many more T-34s than T-34s accounted for Panthers. 

And I forgot something there, the Panthers cannon could fire HE rounds which are required for taking out AT Artillery, so the Panthers cannon was just as good, most likely better at taking on other targets. In fact, a Russian AT cannon was more credit than a Soviet tank.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 22, 2004)

Well sure, since there were a lot more T-34's than Panthers to be killed (10:1?). And most of the T-34's killed were earlier T-34/76 and T-34/85 1943 model tanks.

Dead from the front the Panther did have an advantage, but from the side the T-34/85 (1944) was actually a little tougher.

After Kursk, where the German's got slaughtered, most of the "flanking attacks" were done with. The Germans often took up ambush positions, especially as the fighting moved into more and more rural terrain. Soviet doctrine was to push through by force of numbers, so of course they took higher losses. Stalin didn't care as long as the Germans were defeated.

If you look at the figures on the gun 85mm ZiS-S-53, it has sufficient penetration to kill a Panther from the front at 800 meters. The Panther's gun can kill the T-34/85 (1944) out to perhaps 1200 meters, so the Panther does have the advantage, but its not so huge as you are making it out to be. And again, the 85mm gun was more effective against infantry and other target types.

Again, the comparison is not fair if you are looking at equal numbers of tanks facing each other on open ground with no infantry support. For this you would need to compare it to the JS-2 (IS-2 as renamed after Stalin's death), which has better armor to the front, and totally outclasses the Panther armor to the sides. Either that or you have to consider the 6:1 numeric advantage of the T-34/85 (1944 model only) over the Panther Ausf. G.

The HE round from the 75mm Panther gun was smaller (2/3rds) that of the 85mm T-34 gun, so it was not equal in that respect.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 22, 2004)

Great discussion....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Great excuse for the immense loss of T-34. There were more, so more could be killed. There were more so they had a numbers advantage, that is why they won. 

And there was no vital difference between the T-34/85 and the T-34/85-I so both can be used in the comparison. In fact, it was only refinements in manufacture to make it cheaper and quicker to produce. 

You have proved your lack of knowledge on armoured warfare there. The Kursk conflict was not a slaughter for the Germans, they lost but were certainly not slaughtered. The Soviets lost much much more than the Germans during Kursk. And there were still counter-offensives all the way up to the defence of Berlin. Read Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian, then come back and say that the flanking attacks had been done with. 
More and more in the end of the war the Germans were using 'Flexy Defence' which used two lines of defence. A frontal one in full view of the Soviets that would fall back leaving only skeleton crew when the Russian artillery started. And the rear main defence which was fully equipped, and if tanks available, had blocks on each side of the attack. The line would 'give way' and these two blocks would close in around the attacker. 

The Soviets actually had some very sophisticated battle plans, in Deep Battle and Deep Operation. And were starting to come in, in 1943. There's another thing you'd do with reading up on. 

No, the Panther and T-34/85 were both medium tanks. Therefore both in the same weight catergory and a fair comparison. A comparison between IS-2 and Panther would be unfair but even then the Panther has a solid fighting chance against the IS-2 as it could destroy it at 600 - 800m and with better optics had a better chance of striking the target. 

The Panther could destroy the T-34/85 at 2000m, actually. Which gives it a much longer period to be shooting at the T-34 until the T-34 is capable of striking the Panther. 

If you're going to bring in lack of infantry, why don't we just throw in aircraft numbers, artillery and supporting tank hunter battalions into this? Where do you want it? Poland 1944? And your constant mention of the IS-2 brings me to mention the Tiger which was plainly a better tank than the IS-2 in one on one combat, and it had been in service 2 years more. 

The IS-2 wasn't renamed after Stalins death. IS means Ioseph Stalin for Joseph Stalin. It's the same thing, ask any Russian. 

In 1943 - 44 0.4% of Soviet armour was knocked out by 75mm cannons at 1600-1800 metres. And you're sat there thinking 0.4% is nothing, but it is to take into account the numbers of Soviet tanks lost and how many there were. And to say the regular tank combat takes place at 400 - 600 metres when the penertration of the Panthers KwK is optimum. Even then there's 3.6 percent lost at 1200-1400, 7 percent lost at 800-1000 metres. This just proves that a lot of Soviet armour was being destroyed by Panthers (and other 75mm armed German tanks, Pz. IV) before the Soviet tanks were even in range!

And the total production ratio for ALL tank production was 3:1 in Soviets favour. And for destruction 4.4:1 in Germanys favour...7:1 in 1941, and 6:1 in 1942. 

Funny how 69% of T-34 losses in the First Belorussian Front, Oder-Berlin, 1945 were lost to 75mm cannons...

The T-34/85s frontal equalled to 90mm with 50mm slanted at 60 degrees...and then we've got the Panther at 80mm slanted at 55 degrees, do the math and it's quite obvious the Panther is much-much stronger at the front. And then the sides are 50mm at 30 degrees, with the T-34 equalling 60mm flat...

All T-34 variants are as follows, T-34 Model 1940, T-34 Model 1941, T-34 Model 1942, T-34/76E, T-34/76F, T-34/85, T-34/85-I. So, stop going on about the Model 1944 T-34/85 because it wasn't a big improvement on the previous /85. 

And by mentioning that infantry should be involved you've negated the HE round argument...but even then, the HE capability on the Panther was more than enough to dispose of Russian anti-tank crews and infantry.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 22, 2004)

I agree, Les. I think I have learned more about tanks on this thread than anywhere else. Though my tank knowledge was pretty lean before this. Thanks guys!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> And there was no vital difference between the T-34/85 and the T-34/85-I so both can be used in the comparison. In fact, it was only refinements in manufacture to make it cheaper and quicker to produce.
> 
> In 1943 - 44 0.4% of Soviet armour was knocked out by 75mm cannons at 1600-1800 metres. And you're sat there thinking 0.4% is nothing, but it is to take into account the numbers of Soviet tanks lost and how many there were. And to say the regular tank combat takes place at 400 - 600 metres when the penertration of the Panthers KwK is optimum. Even then there's 3.6 percent lost at 1200-1400, 7 percent lost at 800-1000 metres. This just proves that a lot of Soviet armour was being destroyed by Panthers (and other 75mm armed German tanks, Pz. IV) before the Soviet tanks were even in range!
> 
> ...



The 1943 T-34/85 had many faults over the 1944 model. First off, the gun was improved in the 1944 model as were the sights. Secondly, and much more significantly, the quality of production was very much improved. 1943 models were known to have gaps in the armor at the corners of as much as 3 inches, filled with putty to keep out the cold. This was not the case in the 1944 models.

Most of the tanks taken out by 75mm cannon that you refer to were taken out by field pieces, not tank mounted cannon. The great majority of tank on tank kills were scored at ranges under 1000 meters, as even your own figures indicate. Within this range either tank could kill the other.



plan_D said:


> No, the Panther and T-34/85 were both medium tanks. Therefore both in the same weight catergory and a fair comparison. A comparison between IS-2 and Panther would be unfair but even then the Panther has a solid fighting chance against the IS-2 as it could destroy it at 600 - 800m and with better optics had a better chance of striking the target.



How do you figure?

Panther Ausf. G: 100,310 lbs
IS-2: 101,000 lbs
T-34/85 (1944): 70,000 lbs

How do you claim they were "in the same weight catagory and a fair comparison"? The Panther weighs 30,000 lbs more, a 42% advantage over the T-34/85. The IS-2 on the other hand, has a wooping 0.6% weight advantage over the Panther - virtually meaningless.

Clearly the Panther is in the "heavy" class, and it is fair to compare it to the IS-2 not the T-34.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

Fair??? Hhhmmmmm... Dont remember anything about fair when regarding classifications.... Its usually about a units role rather than how much they weigh....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

The T-34/85-I had a lengthened barrel and improved construction for cheaper and quicker production. The failures in Russian armour were present right up until the end of the war, even in the IS-2. If you're so determined to have me compare the T-34/85-I with the Panther Ausf G, fine. The Panther still beats it hands down. 

This all started when you said the T-34/85 could match the Panther. I think you've come to realise your mistake and are trying to say the comparison is unfair, frankly war is unfair. 

I don't believe I stated that the majority would have been destroyed by tank mounted 75mm cannon but I can assure you at least 30% would have been by tanks. That's either the Pz. IV or Panther. 
And yes, it's a well known fact that the average combat ranges for armour conflict is 400 - 600m. This does not mean you write off the fact that the Panther is shooting, with a good chance of hitting, at 2000m at still be able to destroy the T-34. Where the T-34 has to reach 600 - 700m to be completely effective. 

Classification of the Panther was medium. Classification of the T-34/85 was medium. They are both medium tanks in classification, no matter their weight. If overall weight being higher gives it an advantage and we can't compare them because of it no one can compare the King Tiger to anything because it out-weighed every tank in World War 2.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The T-34/85-I had a lengthened barrel and improved construction for cheaper and quicker production. The failures in Russian armour were present right up until the end of the war, even in the IS-2. If you're so determined to have me compare the T-34/85-I with the Panther Ausf G, fine. The Panther still beats it hands down.
> 
> This all started when you said the T-34/85 could match the Panther. I think you've come to realise your mistake and are trying to say the comparison is unfair, frankly war is unfair.
> 
> ...



That is nomenclature. The Russians used a different definition of "Medium Tank" than did the Germans, so using each side's internal classification to classify these tanks as being "the same class" is totally bogus. You have to use the same standard of measure for anything you compare. 

You are missing the point. I still think the T-34 was the better "tank". It was cheaper and easier to build so there were a lot more of them. It was more manuverable, could climb a steeper grade, was better in mud and snow, very much better range, and could cross bridges the Panther could not. It was not superior in the "tank destroyer" role, but so what, it was a "tank" not a "tank destroyer". A tanks purpose is to support infantry and exploit breakthroughs, and the T-34 did this better than the Panther.

As for the King Tiger, it was just another one of Germany's "super weapons" that helped the Allies win the war. Relatively useless in real combat conditions, but very expensive to develop and build. Nice cash in the pockets of the right Nazi's, which was its real reason for existance.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

If we cannot compare these two tanks for their weights, then the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H was comparable to the T-34. It was better than the T-34/76 marks and was an even match for the T-34/85. 

The Panther was better than the T-34 at the tank role. The point of a tank is to make enact the breakthrough, it is not to support the infantry at all. The infantry supports the tank, that is the idea of a Panzer (Armoured) Division everything is in support of the tank for if the tank supports others it loses the mobility. The German High Command thought like you in 1939, with Pz. IV Ausf A designed to take on emplacements and Pz. III designed to take on tanks. They realised a tank must be able to deal with everything. 
A tank must be able to deal with infantry, tanks and enemy emplacements. The Panther was better at dealing with enemy tanks and emplacements and more than good enough to deal with infantry. It could cross almost all bridges with ease, and was better at fording rivers than T-34s. The Panther was able to traverse rough terrain, mud or snow. 

It wasn't really that complicated, all that stopped its production reaching higher numbers was the diversion of resources to other tanks. 

Yes, we all know the King Tiger was a waste. Although it was the most powerful tank in combat, of World War 2.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

It is situational. When defending, the tanks are there to support the infantry. When on offense, it is the other way around. Tanks that outran their infantry support were usually dead tanks on either side. It's too easy for infantry to destroy tanks that don't have infantry support. The early Blitzkrieg tactics that worked so well on unprepared enemies in 1939-41 stopped working so well in 1942 and beyond.

The Panzer IV was not a match for the T-34, even the T-34/76. It lacks sloped armor and it is outweighted by 25%. The armor was much weaker, it was slow by comparison, and it had less range. And being gasoline powered, it was more vulnerable. It turned a tighter circle but was inferior in every other mobility aspect, and had a higher ground pressure rating (it would get stuck in the mud or snow more easily). It had a superior gun (F2 model and beyond), but in every other respect the T-34 was clearly better.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

On the defence armour is used as a counter-strike unit. The infantry hold like a shield, the tank strikes like a sword. The idea of armour leaving its infantry behind was a problem solved with the formation of mobile armoured divisions with everything, from support units, to artillery, to infantry running on the internal combustion engine and keeping up with the armours advance. 
The Germans blitzkrieg tactics were used well throughout the war. The basic idea of conflict with armour was still used up until the final days. The whole concept of a fully intergrated armour division was the idea of Guderian. 

I think you'll find that the Panzer IV was a perfect match for the T-34. It was reliable, more durable than the T-34, fast, manuverable had a more powerful cannon and in fact, combat records show it's superiority. 
The cannon is one of the most important things on a tank. The fact that the armour on the Pz. IV was weak does not make it a poor tank. It could destroy the T-34 before the T-34 was in range to destroy it. The same principal applies to most of the German JagdPanzers, not until the JagdPanther were their tank destroyers heavily armoured. Take the Hornisse for example, weak armour (10mm at 37 degrees) but an extremely powerful long range cannon which knocked out the enemy armour before they could hit it. The same applies to the Pz. IV against the T-34, the Pz. IV was more likely to hit and destroy the T-34 before the T-34 could strike back.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

Off road speed on the Panzer IV was half that of the T-34. Range was just over half that of the T-34.

German counterattacks were generally not successful after Stalingrad. They were consistantly driven back on all fronts.

The great great majority of tank vs. tank kills on all sides occured at less than 1000 meters. The longer range was an advantage on defense, not much use on offense.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

I never said it was faster than the T-34. Nor did I say it matched the range. It was an even match for the T-34 in combat. 

Are you talking grand scale counter-attacks or local counter-attacks like those witnessed at the hands of the XLVIII Panzer Corps 1943-1944. And, of course, the Kharkov counter-offensive in 1943 which set the stage for Kursk a few weeks later. 

A range advantage counts on both offensive and defensive in armoured warfare. That is why self-propelled guns were designed above from infantry support, they gave direct LONG-RANGE artillery support against enemy emplacements and tanks. The same applies for the tank itself, if you can destroy the enemy before they can hit you be it defence or offence, you've got an advantage.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

And seeing how in the latter stages of the ETO with the Germans being on the defensive, long range capabilities are all the more so important, dont u think RG????


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I never said it was faster than the T-34. Nor did I say it matched the range. It was an even match for the T-34 in combat.
> 
> Are you talking grand scale counter-attacks or local counter-attacks like those witnessed at the hands of the XLVIII Panzer Corps 1943-1944. And, of course, the Kharkov counter-offensive in 1943 which set the stage for Kursk a few weeks later.
> 
> A range advantage counts on both offensive and defensive in armoured warfare. That is why self-propelled guns were designed above from infantry support, they gave direct LONG-RANGE artillery support against enemy emplacements and tanks. The same applies for the tank itself, if you can destroy the enemy before they can hit you be it defence or offence, you've got an advantage.



On offense you are not likely to spot the enemy before being spotted, except in rair circumstances (an open plain or desert). Until the defender moves or opens fire, the attacker is not likely to be firing at long range. Even when combat commences, the odds are the defenders are going to try hard to make sure there are no available firing vantage points that exceed their range.

Artillery is generally an indirect fire weapon right?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> And seeing how in the latter stages of the ETO with the Germans being on the defensive, long range capabilities are all the more so important, dont u think RG????



Actually, the German's did best against the Allied tanks early on after the D-Day invasion, when they were able to hide in the hedgrows and await Shermans approaching down roads and pick them off. The Panzer IV was actually prefered by tank crews over the Panther or Tiger for this combat, as its low profile allowed it to hide better. This was where the German's killed off loads of Shermans and the early (pre wet-stowage) Sherman got the "ronson" reputation.

Once the Allies broke out of the hedgerow combat, the Sherman's did much better, being able to use their mobility advantages. Also improved Shermans with wet-stowage ammo compartments, thicker armor, add on armor, and the 76mm HV gun improved Allied results.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

artillery can be used in a number of fashons..............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 24, 2004)

I think you have been reading too many clear cut situations, my friend. Read many small scale armour battles, especially on the Eastern front, and you will find out that German range advantage was significant in many of their offensive actions. 
It was not always as easy as hiding your tanks and waiting for the enemy which you seem to think it is. 

Artillery can be used in many different roles, as lanc as correctly stated. The Self-propelled guns were actually designed to lay down direct fire on enemy positions spotted by the assault troops. One such instance was on the Vistula in 1944 when the Russians had left behind their truck-borne artillery due to the rapid advance and laid direct support via by the Su-152s with them...this action took out many German AT guns and tanks while keeping many a German soldier on the deck. All this was directed by the Russian troops attacking the German positions themselves. Range was an advantage for the offence!

The Tiger was a mere 30cm taller than the Pz. IV. The German tank crews all had their own personal preference on tank, only the elite were handed the Tiger though. 
After the Normandy campaign, the Sherman was still in trouble when meeting Panthers and Tigers. Their mobility did not save them in the many open fields of NW Europe. The 'tactic' was to swamp a single Panther with at least 15 Shermans, for any chance of success. 

The Sherman Firefly proved to be a brilliant improvement, capable of battling the Tiger and Panther on nearing equal terms - in firepower.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2004)

in a film i saw, can't remeber which one, it wasn't tBoTB, two hits from a tiger didn't take out a sherman but one shot from the sherman to the tiger took it out


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> in a film i saw, can't remeber which one, it wasn't tBoTB, two hits from a tiger didn't take out a sherman but one shot from the sherman to the tiger took it out



If so it was an accident. The Shermans early versions were shit and the later versions while better, were never real competition with the German tanks. The Shermans were designed/intended to support ground troops against hard points, tank killing was for mobile antitank wepons basicaly an artillery piece on a tank base. 

 The Shermans were Never intended to go tank to tank - but it happened.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

You'll probably find the Sherman was intended to go tank-on-tank when it was designed in 1942. When it was designed the best the Germans had was the Panzer IV Ausf F/2 which the Sherman could match. 

The Sherman wasn't intended to support infantry. This is always wrong when concerning tanks, especially those as mobile as the Sherman, that they are designed to support infantry. That is wrong, the Sherman (as with all British classified Cruiser tanks) were designed to entact deep breakthroughs and fast advances. With the British finally getting the idea about armoured divisions in N. Africa 1942 and passing the information to the Americans - both countries realised that tanks were supposed to be able to take on everything and everything supported the tank, not the other way around. That is why everything from infantry to artillery ran on the internal combustion engine, to keep up with the tank. 

You're right though about the mobile AT platforms, the Tank Destroyers. Tank Destroyer companies (consisting, in US Armoured, of M10s, M36s and M18s - generally) were attached to armoured advances and were tasked with hunting enemy tanks to clear the way for the cruiser Shermans. 

The Pershing was actually delayed because the US Ordance Department stated that a tank as good as that with a 90mm cannon will influence tank crews to hunt enemy tanks, and that's a job of the tank destroyer...silly-silly people.

I would like to make an addition to the last post, a German counter-offensive around the Polish village of Borowe in Jan. 1945. Elements of 2nd Byelorussian Front were counter-attacked by Panzergrenadier Div. 'Grossdeutschland' and took the village under intense fire from ISU-152s of the 390th Guards Independant Artillery Regiment. This is long-range direct fire on the defensive, also reminding you all that the Germans were conducting counter-offensives all the way up 'til the fall of Berlin. A local counter-offensive is all part of the grand defence.

On the offensive, 1st Ukrainian Front's break-out from Sandomierz Bridgehead over the river Vistula. Marshal Konev used ISU equipped regiments to increase the initial artillery barrage and when the assault troops moved forward, poor visibility disallowed any air support or close artillery support. So, the only direct fire was given by the ISU-152 and ISU-122s advancing with the assualting infantry.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 5, 2005)

There is only one theatre of war the Sherman did really well in late in WW2 and that is the Pacific, where the Japanese tanks were laughable. I know Japan is an islands nation, but did they really think that such laughable tanks would get them anywhere. In Bf1942: Forgotten Hope, it takes the Japanese tanks about 6 shots to get you half-way from a small distance, and yet it only takes the Sherman 3. If this is indicative of how good Japanese tanks were, then one wonders how they would have stood up to a German attack, once Germany decided it wanted sole control of the whole world.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

The Japanese tanks were appalling. Most of the Japanese warfare was fought in jungles or impassable tank terrain though. In Burma in 1941 the British 2nd Royal Tank Guards with M3 Stuart Light Tanks destroyed any Japanese tanks they came across with ease but found the terrain of raised roads and soggy paddy fields their worst enemy. Many fell off the side and couldn't be recovered. 
Japanese artillery was also poor. The only good machinery they had was their planes and ships. And even then, the AVG with P-40s gave the Japs hell. And when the USN got its act together at Midway, and the RAF got decent equipment to the CBI the Japs planes and ships were inferior. 

You know the Japanese had a Panther and a Tiger?


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 18, 2005)

I hadn't been aware. Got any pictures of this Panther and Tiger in Japanese colours? I mostly play a bit of BF1942: Forgotten Hope which is a cool mod and very realistic in some of its battle portrayals.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

I don't think they ever got painted for Japanese operations. They were Japanese owned but never left Germany and were loaned to Germany to defend the Reich. 

The picture is Japanese buying the Panther Ausf D, they also purchased a VI 'Tiger' but I can't find any pictures of that.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 22, 2005)

Cool photo that one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

and what a usefull investment.............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

Had they got it to Japan, possibly. I doubt it though, the Panther is not really suited to jungle warfare.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 24, 2005)

It still would have been something better than what they did have, and could have been useful to the Japanese as the basis for a better tank more suited to Jungle Combat.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

Possibly but re-designing a huge monster like that for such tiny spaces as found in the Jungle would take time.


----------



## trackend (Jan 25, 2005)

I think the best Japanese land vehicle was the bicycle it was used quite extensively to great effect in the Indo china campaign


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

British made better use of Donkeys and mules though.


----------



## Kongo Otto (Jan 28, 2005)

My persoanl favorite: 8,8cm Flak 36


----------



## trackend (Jan 29, 2005)

Unfortunately its not on the list otto but if it was I think you are quite right 
a brilliant weapon. And as an anti tank/field piece devastating.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

Part designed by Bofors, might I add.


----------



## trackend (Jan 29, 2005)

Typical swedish playing both sides of the field


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2005)

Well, it was designed in 1936...


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Panzerfaust for impact on the battlefield, alone. No other weapon caused such a dramatic rethink in armoured conflict. It was not the fact that this RPG was the best because it wasn't, what made it have such a large impact was the fact that it was one shot, one kill then drop it and run off. Disposable weaponary, easily mass-produced and deadly.
> 
> Soviet tank crews were forced to formulate ideas to cover every single part of the battlefield because German tank hunters could be anywhere. In Berlin, 1945, when the IS-2s started rolling down the German streets it was always one on the left covering the right, one on the right covering the left and one at the back covering both and ready to move up. Why? Because they knew that anyone could be in a building, cellar, under rubble anywhere with a Panzerfaust. Shoot it, and run off into the streets.
> 
> ...


M48 equals


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2005)

Are you talking about the M48 'Patton' built between 1952 and 1959, the mainstay tank in VIETNAM?


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

My vote goes to the MP44 (late known as StG 44 - Sturmgewehr 44). The first real assault rifle ever, and the "father" of all modern individual armament.

Douglas.


----------



## reddragon (Feb 27, 2005)

I believe their 88-mm gun was the best weapon of the war. It was very powerful and versatile, starting off as an anti-aircraft gun, then being used as an anti-tank gun during the invasion of France, then put on the Tiger tank.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

Good point, the 88 was deadly (not the Breda.88 ) It got used for everything, mounted on U-Boats for anti-shipping, deadly against aircraft or tanks. I think the first use of it as an anti-tank gun was at Arras in 1940


----------



## reddragon (Mar 2, 2005)

Yes, I've heard that the British launched a counter attack with a number of the Matilda tanks and General Rommel could not stop them and out of desperation set up a line of the 88-mm flak guns. That was when they discovered that it made an excellent anti-tank gun.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 2, 2005)

Yep, that was the incident I was talking about


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Good point, the 88 was deadly (not the Breda.88 )



 

Yes, it was, to anyone getting within 10 feet of the thing


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 20, 2005)

I voted for the MG42 but I would agree that the '88' was the German's best weapon of the war, a very versatile weapon, with good naval, flak and antitank uses. Great all round weapon


----------

