Fall 1942: the best medium tank on field

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

 

[Mobius]

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

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

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Production
Year - Soviet - German

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

Losses
Year - Soviet - German - Exchange Ratio

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

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

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

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

German vs. Soviet AFV losses – 1941-45.


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


Panzer Statistics

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mobius]

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

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

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

My math says that this is more like 2.6:1

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

 

[parsifal]

Admittedly Wiki, but worth mentioning at least

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soviet Tank/Mech Corps In WWII

 

[Mobius]

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

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

 

[Juha]

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

 

[wiking85]

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

 

[Denniss]

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

 

[parsifal]

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


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


German
112,143
587 tanks
2,625 guns

Casualties and losses

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

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

German
12,322 killed

Order Of Battle

Battle for Berlin: April – May 1945

 

[Vincenzo]

comparing guns (of tanks in my list)

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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

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