BF-109 Metallurgical Quality?
- Thread starter contrails16
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not to contradict the folks at Vultee who know a lot more than I do, but I have also heard the theory that the thicker paint was used to smooth out rougher surface textures associated with German materials and construction methods thus improving aerodynamics.
I really have no idea whether that is true or not. Bad paint sounds just as feasible.
I really have no idea whether that is true or not. Bad paint sounds just as feasible.
Crimea_River
Marshal
The observations about the paint are very different than what I understood to be single coat systems used by the German manufacturers but that's a topic for a separate thread. I wonder if there was a field applied coating over the factory finish which resulted in thicker paint.
".....The Point was that in 1941 a German 25 tons tank with no room for growth was confronting T-34/76 (28 tons with huge room for growth) and KV-1 (44 tons) Hence Panzer V (latter known as Panther was unavoidable and necessary. ......" Yes and no. If the German tank manufacturing industry had been big enough and well enough supplied, the Germans would just have produced thousands of superior Tigers to destroy the thousands of T-34 and not even bothered with the Panther. But they couldn't even produce enough Panthers, the IV being the most common German tank from mid-War to the end. The Soviets could churn out dozens of T-34s for each Tiger or Panther. In that respect, industrial economics doomed the Third Reich.
The nature of tank combat on the Russian Front (and the Desert) meant frontal armour was more important than side armour. Because the terrain was flat, you had plenty of time to turn and get your thick frontal armour facing the enemy before they got to shooting range. IIRC, the later Panzer IVs (and StugIVs) had solid steel wheels on the front suspension pair to help support that thicker hull-front armour, which was 80mm on the later IV models. The IV F-2's front armour was one of the reasons the T-34 was upgraded with the 85mm gun. So the Panther was necessary to restore superiority, but the Panzer IV F-2 was good enough to beat parity with the T-34/76. The problem was the German tank industry in 1941 was set up to produce lots of Panzer III models, which were decidedly inferior to the T-34/76, hence the idea of a combo-III/IV. The III/IV was supposed to supply a superior medium tank to the T-34/76 without too much disruption to existing production tools and factories, and it was the failure to be superior to the improved T-34/85 which was why it was eventually cancelled.
".....It should have been built earlier...." How were the German tank designers to predict a need for the long-75mm-armed IV F-2, let alone the Panther? The lackadaisical German intelligence said the Soviets only had T-26s (which the Germans had studied in Spain) and the old BT tanks. The short-50mm-armed Panzer III E/F/H was superior to the T-26. They had no reason to believe a better-armed tank was necessary, but they had the Tiger under development anyway and scheduled for debut in June 1942. Original design work for a "breakthrough" tank that became the Tiger actually started in 1937, about the same time as the team that designed the T-34 formed, so long before the T-34 was known about. The Tiger would prove far superior to the T-34/76, but the Tiger took twice as much time and material to make as a Panzer IV F-2. The German industrial base couldn't make enough of them fast enough, hence the need for something better than the Panzer III but less expensive in time and materials than the Tiger.
As it was, the quick change to put the long 75mm into the Panzer IV F-2 meant a medium tank capable of dealing with the T-34 at ranges of up to 1600m was at the front in August 1942. And that was very important because the crap turret design of the T-34/76 meant the Soviet crews often couldn't even see a Panzer IV at 1600m. And even then, the T-34 crews often didn't fire until 500m because the T-34's 76.2mm F-34 gun's poor sights meant they had problems hitting the Panzer IV, and often could not penetrate the Panzer IV's 80mm hull armour at longer ranges (the Panzer III J with the long 50mm could just penetrate the T-34/76 at 500mm). The superior 3-man turret design, optics and that long 75mm PaK 40 gun made the IV F-2 a T-34/76 killer at a safe range and on a reliable hull. So, the Panzer IV F-2 was necessary, the Tiger I was unavoidable (it was already nearing design completion), but the Panther and Tiger II were over-ambitious attempts to regain a level of extreme superiority. And don't even get me started on the crazy resource-hogs like the Elefant and Maus, or daft ideas like the Heuschrecke!
The nature of tank combat on the Russian Front (and the Desert) meant frontal armour was more important than side armour. Because the terrain was flat, you had plenty of time to turn and get your thick frontal armour facing the enemy before they got to shooting range. IIRC, the later Panzer IVs (and StugIVs) had solid steel wheels on the front suspension pair to help support that thicker hull-front armour, which was 80mm on the later IV models. The IV F-2's front armour was one of the reasons the T-34 was upgraded with the 85mm gun. So the Panther was necessary to restore superiority, but the Panzer IV F-2 was good enough to beat parity with the T-34/76. The problem was the German tank industry in 1941 was set up to produce lots of Panzer III models, which were decidedly inferior to the T-34/76, hence the idea of a combo-III/IV. The III/IV was supposed to supply a superior medium tank to the T-34/76 without too much disruption to existing production tools and factories, and it was the failure to be superior to the improved T-34/85 which was why it was eventually cancelled.
".....It should have been built earlier...." How were the German tank designers to predict a need for the long-75mm-armed IV F-2, let alone the Panther? The lackadaisical German intelligence said the Soviets only had T-26s (which the Germans had studied in Spain) and the old BT tanks. The short-50mm-armed Panzer III E/F/H was superior to the T-26. They had no reason to believe a better-armed tank was necessary, but they had the Tiger under development anyway and scheduled for debut in June 1942. Original design work for a "breakthrough" tank that became the Tiger actually started in 1937, about the same time as the team that designed the T-34 formed, so long before the T-34 was known about. The Tiger would prove far superior to the T-34/76, but the Tiger took twice as much time and material to make as a Panzer IV F-2. The German industrial base couldn't make enough of them fast enough, hence the need for something better than the Panzer III but less expensive in time and materials than the Tiger.
As it was, the quick change to put the long 75mm into the Panzer IV F-2 meant a medium tank capable of dealing with the T-34 at ranges of up to 1600m was at the front in August 1942. And that was very important because the crap turret design of the T-34/76 meant the Soviet crews often couldn't even see a Panzer IV at 1600m. And even then, the T-34 crews often didn't fire until 500m because the T-34's 76.2mm F-34 gun's poor sights meant they had problems hitting the Panzer IV, and often could not penetrate the Panzer IV's 80mm hull armour at longer ranges (the Panzer III J with the long 50mm could just penetrate the T-34/76 at 500mm). The superior 3-man turret design, optics and that long 75mm PaK 40 gun made the IV F-2 a T-34/76 killer at a safe range and on a reliable hull. So, the Panzer IV F-2 was necessary, the Tiger I was unavoidable (it was already nearing design completion), but the Panther and Tiger II were over-ambitious attempts to regain a level of extreme superiority. And don't even get me started on the crazy resource-hogs like the Elefant and Maus, or daft ideas like the Heuschrecke!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
