Best Tank of WW2

@Parsifal : Let me repeat one more time from two separate sources i get 117.100 you may choose to believe that the true price was 2.500.000 RM but it's still your assumption.Price for PZIV is given as 104.000 again without gun and radio.Price difference is marginal ,the Panther WAS NOT expensive like a Tiger.Everything else you said isn't sourced from anywhere.Oh and i found that the 2.000 hours is actually taken from Spielberger ''Panther and its Variants '' so it's not chaff.Tank crew losses were high? How did that happen if the tank survived and was blown up by the crew later? Did they return from the afterlife to dispose of their tank?
Anti-tank gun were useful in defense of a specific location but the Eastern Front was a VERY big place and when the enemy tanks pass you by what are the anti-tank guns to do? Fly after them ? That's where you need mobility.

Hi CT

If you are not all that keen to debate this issue, why are you here....I dont get that.

As per your request, I did go and dig up some source material to back up the statements I have made. I have a double garage that I have converted to a library, with some thousands of books dealing with all manner of WWII issues. Ive found about 20 publications that appear relevant to this issue. I have not researched all of them yet, so I will just stick to those that I have looked at so far.

According to: George Parada (Achtung Panzer the Pzkpfw V) and Pzkpfw VI, "the M-4 Sherman alone accounted for over 50000 tanks produced. It had outstanding operational rediness rates on average over 75% in Normandy, but suffered poorly in open combat with German Heavy Tanks. Exchange rates of 4:1against the Sherman were frequent. A Soviet T-34 had an exchange ratein excess of 1:1 against the Panther due to mobility and reliability advantages"

This last statement really surpised me, and I will talk further a little later.

Parada furthe states "Construction of the Tigertank took 300000 manhours and cost RM321500 in 1944, fully ready and delivered. A Panther cost slightly more than half that, when fully fitted out and ready for combat(my underline). Prices for a fully completed Panther could vary from RM150K to RM221K".

According to the Soviet Department Of Weaponaryt of the Red Army - Foreign Weapons Evaluation Reports in a report dated late 1944, it states "The Red Army is encouraged to use and maintain captured Stug III and Mk IV types, as these tanks are reliable and suited to breakthrough operations. There is a good supply of spare parts for these types....the newer German Panther and Tiger types suffer poor reliability and there are few reservesof spares. They suffer poor mobilitiy levels and are unsuitable for rapid breakthrough operations. They have unreliable engines and transmissions and overly complex suspension and steering mechanisms"....wow...well said fellas

A report by the British Military College Of Science; School Of Tank Technology quoted by J Spielberger reaches very similar conclusions in a report dated about the same time.


I kind of anticipate you are not going to be happy with these comments, so I decided to dig a little further. I uncovered a book I have noreally looked at for a while.....which I will elaborate on in my next post

The next reference I uncovered was from Robert Forczyk Panther and T-34 Operations in the Ukraine July- December 1943 The author is PHD of military history and has written several books. I know that he lectures in military history at the University of Maryland. I am also told he lectures periodically at Westpoint. He is a recogbized specialist in armoured warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-5.

The book goes into considerable detail about the design, development and production of both the Panther ands the T34. He points out the serious weknesses in the drive train of the Panther and the low serviciability rates they suffered. For the T-34, he is critical of the retenjtion of the T34/76 in production lontg after it was outclassed as a battle tank. However he concedes that given the choices available at the time this was the right decision. Whereas in these crucial months the Soviets were well supplied with a relaible, mobile and somewhat effective battle tank, the Germans were opting for the introduction of untested prototypes in the middle of a war and with known design faults. It was a recipe for disaster.

At Page 23 he states "If ever there was an example of 'haste makes waste' in wartime, it lies in the Panther development and production program...unlike the T34 program of two years earlier, the Panther never underwent serious mobility or field trials. Guderian knew the tank was a loser and stated as such to Speer". But he was overruled by Hitler, who was supported by Saur (chief designer)"......hmm, seems like there are some fairly prominent Germans not supporting you. First you denigrate Rommels suggestion in favour of your pet tank, now it seems the father of the panzerwaffe is deserting you too....what is the world coming to.....but I suppose you do have Hitler on your side, so that might be good.....

Relevantly the author goes into some detail in a comparison of the respective armaments carried by the Mk IV, MkV and T-34/76.

The gun used in the T34/76 in the latter part of 1943 was the 76.2mm (F-34 subtype). The German guns are of course the L43 and L70 guns. The F-34 could penetrate 63mm @1000m, the L43 could penetrate 87mm m@1000m and the L70 111mm @ 1000m. The accuracxy and rof of the Soviet tank was wosened by the optics and the turret design.

With these performance figures the T-34 was vulnerable to a frontal penetration by either german type at ranges in excess of 1000m. By comparison, the F-34 wouold only achieve a side penetration of the panther at that range and a penetration of the glacis plate at 300m , whilst frontal armour of the Panther could not be penetrated except at point blank range. Clearly at range the German tanks held a significant advantage......but did this matter as much as one might think....more to follow

Continuing from my last post...

Close fighting required a rate of turret traverse, and in this the T-34 held a clear advantage. It had a rate of traverse of 30degrees per second, or roughly five times that of the Panther. According to the author, the Panther held a clear advantage in terms of firepower at ranges above 600m, but not much of an advantage at ranges below that. at short ranges I suspect the germans needed to rely on their superior crews in 1943.

In terms of mobility the author says that the Panther was only theoretically as mobile as the T-34. In reality, it was much less mobile. Only in the seventh road cruising gear was it faster that the Soviet Tank. I the likely combat gears, the T-34 had a top speed of 29kmh to the Panthers 13kmh. Fuel consumption of the Panther was four times that of a T-34 and twice that of a MkIV, and was using petrol rather than diesel. This did not make any sense for a country short of petrol.

A major weakness of the MkV was its relaibility compared to the T-34/76. According to the author, German records reveal that no unit equipped with the Panther in 1943 achieved a readiness rate above 35% during sustained operations (operations lasting more than a week). "Far more Panthers were lost to mechanicalfailures in 1943 than to enemy action, whilst the opposite is true for the T-34."

For comparison, T-34 formations achieved a redines rate of 90%for manouvres up to 300km. Panther readiness rates sank to below 90% after less than 100 km of road travel, on average. At 500 km of continuous movement Panther readiness rates statistically would sink to 10%, whilst T-34 rates continued to be above 60%. This was one of the key crieria laid down by Guderian at thye concept stage of the panther in late 1941. It was never achieved by the panther. According to the author "it was the T-34s continued advantages in mobility and reliability in the latter half of 1943 that assisted the most in achiving the Soviet victory".

The author mentions the relative levels of crew proficiency. At this time the Germans still held a qualitative advantage , which however was gradually changing.

Its late...next instalment tomorrow guys

In Tanknet forum someone posted the serviceability rates for Pz IV ,Panther and Tiger for East and West from May '44 to March '45 , source was Jentz "Tiger I and II combat tactics' .The Panther compared with the PzIV had slightly lower serviceabiliy in the East and in the West avg 5-6%.I have the Forczyk book ,calling it biased would be the mother of all understatements.His conclusion is that the T-34 was a better tank.This at the same time Soviet commanders were begging for a replacement......If you want to be amused check his reviews for Amazon ,i won't say anything more.You need to realize that a tank is also affected by several variables for example the Panther would be given the hardest missions ,thanks to it's survivability it would take damage but keep working etc .All this factors would cause lower serviceability.Best source for German tanks is Jentz if you don't have Panzertruppen go get it.

ctrian said:

In Tanknet forum someone posted the serviceability rates for Pz IV ,Panther and Tiger for East and West from May '44 to March '45 , source was Jentz "Tiger I and II combat tactics' .The Panther compared with the PzIV had slightly lower serviceabiliy in the East and in the West avg 5-6%.I have the Forczyk book ,calling it biased would be the mother of all understatements.His conclusion is that the T-34 was a better tank.This at the same time Soviet commanders were begging for a replacement......If you want to be amused check his reviews for Amazon ,i won't say anything more.You need to realize that a tank is also affected by several variables for example the Panther would be given the hardest missions ,thanks to it's survivability it would take damage but keep working etc .All this factors would cause lower serviceability.Best source for German tanks is Jentz if you don't have Panzertruppen go get it.

Click to expand...

These are the reviews of Forczyks book from Amazon as you suggested, and he receives generally good reviews....here they are:

Review
"...Robert Forczyk, a Ph.D. who served 18 years as an armor officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, concludes that the T-34's brilliantly simple, functional conception made it the better of the two... After providing technical details, [the] book discusses crew training and tactics, profiles one or two outstanding operators of each tank and then shows how they performed against one another in combat. Enhanced by photos and artwork, including views of the interiors and through the gun sights, the Duel series is sure to spark debate among Buffs." -Jon Guttman, Military History Magazine (January/February 2008)

"Robert Forczyk's Panther vs. T-34: Ukraine 1943 is a pick for any military library focusing on equipment and action. A blend of first-person perspectives and digital artwork chart the progress of the two greatest tanks of World War II." -The Bookwatch (December 2007)

"This work provides a welcome contrast to the usual praise surrounding the Panther, and it is one of the best Osprey Duel series titles to date." - Mark E. Stille, World War II Quarterly (Volume 4, Number 4, 2007)

"In all, a superb look at these two tanks and how well they operated in combat against each other. A book I can highly recommend for you." -Scott Van Aken, modelingmadness.com (November 2007)

"Overall, this is a good addition to Osprey's library... The text was compelling to read and caused me to reconsider my thoughts about both tanks." -tabletopgamingnews.com (October 2007)
Product Description
Robert A. Forczyk provides a riveting and intense description of the design and development of these two deadly opponents, the Panther and the T-34, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses and describing their tactics, weaponry and training. Moreover he gives an insight into the lives of the tank crews themselves, who were caught up in the largest land conflict of World War II, in some of the most important engagements in the history of warfare.

Innovative digital artwork and first-person perspectives place the reader in the midst of a duel between the titans of the Soviet and German armed forces in a ruthless and relentless death match that would determine the war on the Eastern Front and, indeed, the fate of Nazi Germany.

I would hardly think they are canning him. Guess you dont have too many friends there either. He has the credentials and the expertise to say what he says with some authority. And there are others that support him. Aqs for Jentz.....well....l'll check him out too if you like and see just how selective you have been there as well....

No no no i meant HIS reviews .Also if you have the time i recommend ''T-34 Mythical Weapon'' it's a great book ,really amusing and it totally destroys the myth.
Oh and there's no need for insults im'not responsible for you lack of knowledge.

Thanks for the input.

One might just wonder what would've happened had the Soviets continued to produce 57mm from 1941-43, both in towed tank gun flavor (produced in perhaps 1:3 ratio vs. 76,2mm tank gun?). Or opted for a derivative of 76,2mm AA gun as tank/AFV armament in 1939, for future T-34 KV tanks.

Problem with soviet tanks wasn't just the gun with low velocity and lack off accuracy but also engine ,suspension and transmission.In the end you get what you pay for regardless of what mr Forczyk thinks.

tomo pauk said:

One might just wonder what would've happened had the Soviets continued to produce 57mm from 1941-43, both in towed tank gun flavor (produced in perhaps 1:3 ratio vs. 76,2mm tank gun?). Or opted for a derivative of 76,2mm AA gun as tank/AFV armament in 1939, for future T-34 KV tanks.

Click to expand...

The thing is it wasn't needed for 1941 and most of 1942, With the normal 76.2mm being able to handle any German tank until the Tiger shows up in the fall of 1942 you have about a year or more were it is just a needless complication. And even then the numbers of Tigers are quite small. With the Panther not showing up until the summer of 1943 the 57mm isn't really going to change to overall picture. A klittle more long range tank sniping perhaps but it wasn't going to decide any battles.
Russian 76.2mm AA gun would have about the same armor penetration as an American 3in or 76mm tank gun given equal quality projectiles, With many of the same problems. Larger heavier gun needs bigger turret and or counter balances on turret rear, larger ammo restricts number of rounds that can be carried. Would the improved performance be worth it in 1941-42?

The intention was not to battle Tigers (the one year earlier SU-85 might've been nice for that), but to deprive Pz-IV (from F2 to H), Pz-III J L, and StuGIIIF/F8/G from gaining advantage or parity in gun vs. armor race. As for ability of existing turret to receive a bigger gun, it was not a problem for Pz-III (5cmL42 -> L60) and for PzIV (L24 -> L43 -> L48 ). The decision made in 1939 caters for issues better than one made in 1941, for Soviet example. As for ammo, the difference for Pz-III was 87 vs. 80 rounds (short vs. long 5cm) while Pz-IV with longer 7,5cm carried more rounds than types with L24 gun
Of course, it takes much more than golden bullet to reverse the outcome of a major campaign.

ctrian said:

Oh and there's no need for insults im'not responsible for you lack of knowledge.

Click to expand...

Hey now, the only one being insulting here is you. Chill out!

I know that the T-34/85 tank was the overall greatest tank of the war: cheap, reliable, good range, great all-terrain vehicle, very well armor, and still had the necessary firepower to tackle on Panthers and Tigers, but if I had to say which tank was the best with combat record, id say it was the Tiger I. The Panther was great but I would argue that it only became that dominant weapon late in the war with the F and G variants. The Sherman was very easy to produce, but was made out of paper compared to German and Russian tanks. The Tiger Tank, although being near invincible, ate fuel and resources like no tomorrow, plus was extremely heavy, slow and only increased the problems that the Tiger I suffered from. The T-34 was wonderful in almost every aspect, but its problems didn't come from the tank itself, they came from the Russians who didn't have radios in there tanks and did a very poor job at developing effective tactics (it was easier for T-34 to ram German tanks than to aim and fire at them).

The reason for why the Tiger tank is so great is because of the ways that the German employed it. Its true that the tank suffered from taking up a lot of resources, was a difficult and heavy tank to move under poor conditions, was very difficult to repair, and didn't have the angled armor. But the tank entered service as early as 1942 months before the Panther would, was in fact impressively maneuverable, did a great job as a stationary gun (usually ambushing British and American forces over France), and could fire at almost every tank before they were in range (the only tanks that were equal or superior to the T-34 in range were the SI-1 and SI-2 tanks and any long range anti-tank weapons).

I've read a bunch of stories of how German tank commanders even though outnumbered were able to take out a number of enemy tanks before either being forced to retreat, rearm, or get hit.

So these 4 options with the voting aren't that great. These are obviously the best tanks there were in the war when related to performance. But they should have also included the Tiger I, the firefly, and the Panzer.

tomo pauk said:

The intention was not to battle Tigers (the one year earlier SU-85 might've been nice for that), but to deprive Pz-IV (from F2 to H), Pz-III J L, and StuGIIIF/F8/G from gaining advantage or parity in gun vs. armor race. As for ability of existing turret to receive a bigger gun, it was not a problem for Pz-III (5cmL42 -> L60) and for PzIV (L24 -> L43 -> L48 ). The decision made in 1939 caters for issues better than one made in 1941, for Soviet example. As for ammo, the difference for Pz-III was 87 vs. 80 rounds (short vs. long 5cm) while Pz-IV with longer 7,5cm carried more rounds than types with L24 gun
Of course, it takes much more than golden bullet to reverse the outcome of a major campaign.

Click to expand...

Some tanks and turrets were more suitable for up gunning than others. Americans went for a new turret to go to the 76mm on the Sherman, British had to cut a hole in ( or a good part of the rear wall out) in order to move the radio back far enough to clear the recoil of the 17pdr. Ammo fell from 97 rounds of 75mm in an M4A3 to 71 round of 76mm in an M4A3E8 but it seems Sherman ammo storage was rather "flexible" form version to version? Fire fly fell to 42 rounds and that was after they took out the bow gunner and used the space for an ammo rack. Most T-34s are listed at 67 rounds or so but some people claim the 1943 model could hold 99 rounds (??), wither the tank had radio could make a rather notable difference in rounds carried. T-34-85 carried 56 rounds.

One of my books while staying pretty consistent on main gun rounds for the German tanks has the MG ammo jumping all over the place
Mk IIIs, even with 50mm/L60 guns had a hard time with T-34s unless they had AP 40 ammo, they were better than L42 guns but to be effective they had to get within effective hitting range of the Russian gun.

ctrian said:

No no no i meant HIS reviews .Also if you have the time i recommend ''T-34 Mythical Weapon'' it's a great book ,really amusing and it totally destroys the myth.
Oh and there's no need for insults im'not responsible for you lack of knowledge.

Click to expand...

You will always find adverse reviews, though in this case I havent yet see the review you are talking about. Your dismissal of Forzyk might have some legs, except that much of what he says is supported by other sources. This includes some primary sources as well as some observations by some fairly well respected experts. I have not read Jentz, and need to, but i note he has received some criticism as well over th years, and judging from the title, is mostly concerned with operations after 1943 (ie from May 1944).

As to insults, where did I insult you. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with finding your ideas aligning to those of Hitler. That can be off putting, but it is, what it is....many of the respected senior leaders of the regime, both inside and outside the wehrmacht saw the introduction of the panther in 1943 as gross folly. Names like Guderian, Rommel, and Speer demostrate in their comments their opposition to it.

About the only real insult is that I dont agree with your preconceptions and positioning in this debate. Apart from that, I respect your right to say what you feel and advance whatever argument youthink appropriate. Perhaps, finding your beliefs founded on shaky ground is insulting, but you have only yourself to blame for that.

I'm insulting HIM? I would hardly think they are canning him. Guess you dont have too many friends there either. He has the credentials and the expertise to say what he says with some authority. And there are others that support him. Aqs for Jentz.....well....l'll check him out too if you like and see just how selective you have been there as well....

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with finding your ideas aligning to those of Hitler

Parsifal Jentz is a more reliable source on German tanks since that's all he writes about and he uses only German reports and documents.Also Spielberger's books are extremely detailed and again rely on German records.My advice would be not to put your trust on credentialism since the social ''sciences'' aren't really scientific but instead focus on actual reports and records not their iInterpretation by a third party.

Since when did I put my faith into the social sciences. Is this another comment like the one about a panther costing RM 2.5million? If so it wont work, I will pull you up every time.

Forzcyk is certainly not a social scientist. Now, I believe you when you say that jentz is a good source, but not for the reasons you give. Limiting sources to the country of origin is a surefire way of producing a biased, lopsided propaganda rag, rather than getting a balanced overall view.

Ther is nothing wrong with Forzycks view, and in large measure he is backed up by both Spielberger and Parada as well as the evaluations made by the foreign reports of captured vehicles. These foreign sources are still primary sources, and no less valid than German only sources. I cannot comment on Jentz, but I am willing to bet that what I find when I do have a look will not be what you are trying to say it is.

And whilst I am not offended by your comments, neither should you be about mine. My comments are well within the accepte norms of this place. Your opinions are in alignment with hitlers, and out of step with some very distinguished commanders of the wehrmacht as well as Speer. Your opinions about Forzcyk are are out of step with most reviews about his book. This means in my book that from independant, un-involved parties you are isolated. I am sure ther are many persons who do agree with you...good for them, but those places wher you are seeking support or seeking to denigrate the opinions of distinguished persons are being proven untrue every time i look closely at the claims you are making. If that is insulting you, it can only be because the claims you making are being exposed as untrue. It may be insulting, but its within acceptable limits. I am not seeking to denigrate you personally, but I am endeavouring to disprove what you are saying. Evidently I am having some success, because if I wasnt, you would not find it so "insulting".

Now, can we get back to business please

Man reductio ad hitlerum is the lowest form of argument.If you want to move on i have no problem but what if i call you Goebbels or Himmler? This is up to the admin to decide.

I didnt call you Hitler, or Goebels or Himmler. I said that your view coincided with Hitlers, and is at odds with Guderian, Rommel and Speer ( and a whole lot of other eminent German officers). Are you saying that Hitler did not press for the early deployment of the Panther, to the point of delaying Citadel, and that that this premature deployment, by an overweight behemoth that had been upgunned at Hitlers insistence was not a problem? Because, when you break it all down, that seems to be what you are supporting, when you argue that the Panther did not suffer from numerous problems on deployment. In other words, on this issue, and no other, yours and Hitlers view are synchronized. Its not too late for you to recant and say the early deployment of the panther was a mistake, and that it did indeed suffer numerous mechanical faults. In short, agree with Forczyk. Or you can continue to agree with hitler, and anyone else from the period that might agree with you.

I am not saying you are Nazi, or a Hitlerite or anything even remotely like that. There is nothing low or insulting in observing this fact and commenting on it. But I am playing hardball with you, because thats how you want to play.

This is getting tiring....Of course the Pz V had the well known problems since it was rushed into service.Despite that it also had the most kills compared to other tanks in Kursk.You seem to think it was similar to the Tiger in weight and cost,i'm sorry but it was in different class.Eventually problems were sorted out and like i posted before in '44 difference in serviceability was 5-6% despite Panther given the hardest missions.For the 2n half of '43 Soviets paid for their belief that the Germans would only field new heavy tanks in small numbers.The T-34 was thus rendered obsolete and they had to scramble for a solution( T-43 , T-34/85).What of the above is provocative or new ? What does any of this have to do with Hitler?
Oh and i'm sure that if it was me who had started calling you names i would be banned by now, but instead i don't see the admin anywhere...