Glider
Captain
Just one question. If the 37mm AA gun was so lethal against the T34, why did the Germans have such trouble destroying them?
Russia marks anniversary of its best tank
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Probably because there were many of them, they were fast, and due to their speed they probably didn't often let themselves get out flanked that easily by AA guns 
I personally wouldn't like to take a Whirlwind for a spin against 100 T-34's heading my way. No sir, lets the Paks take care of that one, I'll stick to shooting a/c down then.
Desperate times call for desperate measures Glider. I bet it didn't happen often that a 3.7cm AA gun got to face off with a T-34, or was even considered for the task. But catch a soldier in a dire spot and I assure you he will give everything he's got to get outta there alive. So a T-34 turning around the corner to suddenly face a prep'ed AA gun probably couldn't expect them AA crew to just run for home. They'd no doubt let loose all they had at that thing and hope for the best. And apparently that sometimes worked, and for a good reason as the T-34 turret was a weak point. As to how many Germans actually knowing about it, well who knows, I bet they were mostly traumatized by seeing their 5cm shells bounce of the glacis.
I personally wouldn't like to take a Whirlwind for a spin against 100 T-34's heading my way. No sir, lets the Paks take care of that one, I'll stick to shooting a/c down then.Desperate times call for desperate measures Glider. I bet it didn't happen often that a 3.7cm AA gun got to face off with a T-34, or was even considered for the task. But catch a soldier in a dire spot and I assure you he will give everything he's got to get outta there alive. So a T-34 turning around the corner to suddenly face a prep'ed AA gun probably couldn't expect them AA crew to just run for home. They'd no doubt let loose all they had at that thing and hope for the best. And apparently that sometimes worked, and for a good reason as the T-34 turret was a weak point. As to how many Germans actually knowing about it, well who knows, I bet they were mostly traumatized by seeing their 5cm shells bounce of the glacis.
- Thread starter
- #43
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Did the T34's defeat the German tanks? Yes, with alarming frequency.
Were T-34's available in the middle of winter when the German designs were immobilized? Yes.
Does having a tank to be available at any time when your adversary cant field one help swing the tide of battle to your favor? yes.
Could the Russians build more tanks in a quicker time than the Germans? Yes.
What was the best tank when it counted? The T34.
Were T-34's available in the middle of winter when the German designs were immobilized? Yes.
Does having a tank to be available at any time when your adversary cant field one help swing the tide of battle to your favor? yes.
Could the Russians build more tanks in a quicker time than the Germans? Yes.
What was the best tank when it counted? The T34.
It maybe true that a 3.7mm Flak can penetrate the T-34 armor, in fact it must've been possible or else the Ju 87 G makes a lot less sense, but I very much doubt German PAK crews used a 3.7mm cannon successfully against T-34s on many occasions. I'm willing to learn if anyone can bring up actual field reports or secondary sources though.
I do seem to recall that only 5cm PAK and only with the best of ammunition was considered to be a reliable stopper against the T-34 early in the campaign.
I would agree though, the myth created around the T-34 is overblown. If it never existed the Russians would have more KV-1s with essentially the same result. From a purely technical point of view it had a bad turret and reliability problems early and later it didn't receive necessary armor upgrades. The 85mm version is hyped a lot but realistically each of the three major medium tanks could destroy eachother at most combat ranges iirc. What remains is its great mobility though.
I do seem to recall that only 5cm PAK and only with the best of ammunition was considered to be a reliable stopper against the T-34 early in the campaign.
I would agree though, the myth created around the T-34 is overblown. If it never existed the Russians would have more KV-1s with essentially the same result. From a purely technical point of view it had a bad turret and reliability problems early and later it didn't receive necessary armor upgrades. The 85mm version is hyped a lot but realistically each of the three major medium tanks could destroy eachother at most combat ranges iirc. What remains is its great mobility though.
Glider
Captain
From what you are saying the 37mm could penetrate the T34 and the 50mm L42 couldn't which you must admit, sounds lacking in common sense in particular as the Germans upgunned the Pz III as fast as they could from the 37mm, to the 50mm and then as quickly to the 50mm L60
I am sorry Soren but I remain to be convinced.
I am sorry Soren but I remain to be convinced.
+1
Hello Soren
How one understand rare is a bit subjective but 37mm APCR production for Paks was 12,3% of the whole 3.7cm Pak 35/36 ammo productionduring WWII and that had dropped to 8,2% in 1942, the last full year of 3.7cm Pak ammo production. In 43, when the production stopped, production was mighty 1000, yes one thousand, APCRs for 3.7cm Pak the whole ammo production for those guns was over 2½ million.
And I knew Oleg, we changed messages years ago when I visited battlefield.ru message board. He was then very active there. He also wrote some articles in Journal of Soviet/Slavic Military Studies. He was well infprmed on Soviet tank forces, at least on 43 period. But I would like to know what exactly he or Artem wrote on the lethality of 3.7cm Flak.
Hello Riacrato
I agree that T-34-85 wasn't some kind of super tank but it suited for Soviet needs. KV had all the drawbacks of heavy tank, which became significant especially during a deep penetration offensives, which played significant role in Soviet operations during later part of the war. But of course one had to fight with the equipment one had and adapt tactics/stategies if necessary.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
How one understand rare is a bit subjective but 37mm APCR production for Paks was 12,3% of the whole 3.7cm Pak 35/36 ammo productionduring WWII and that had dropped to 8,2% in 1942, the last full year of 3.7cm Pak ammo production. In 43, when the production stopped, production was mighty 1000, yes one thousand, APCRs for 3.7cm Pak the whole ammo production for those guns was over 2½ million.
And I knew Oleg, we changed messages years ago when I visited battlefield.ru message board. He was then very active there. He also wrote some articles in Journal of Soviet/Slavic Military Studies. He was well infprmed on Soviet tank forces, at least on 43 period. But I would like to know what exactly he or Artem wrote on the lethality of 3.7cm Flak.
Hello Riacrato
I agree that T-34-85 wasn't some kind of super tank but it suited for Soviet needs. KV had all the drawbacks of heavy tank, which became significant especially during a deep penetration offensives, which played significant role in Soviet operations during later part of the war. But of course one had to fight with the equipment one had and adapt tactics/stategies if necessary.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
I see the tank theorists are hard at it again pedalling the same old half truths that conveniently ignore the big picture that doesnt conform to their view on the course and outcomes of the war. Looking at the results produces a totally opposing appraisal of the T-34 as a war winner and army beater.
The USSR was a country with only about the same industrial index in 1938 as the Germans. As a result of German gains in Barbarossa, that Industrial index was down to about 70% of German capacity by the end of 1941. The Russians received Lend Lease aid that accounted for about 10-15% of its national economy, so roughly speaking the Russians fought their war with roughly 85% of Germany's military capacity. Based on time spent on the eastern front, over 80% of Germany's army strength, and around 40-50% of its air strength was committed to the eastern front. About 5% of german military capacity was spent on U-Boats
Yet T-34 production alone exceeded German Tank production by a wide margin. In terms of turreted tanks the Germans produced 23500, and a further 17445 of other vehicles, and remember the Germans had an additional two years of wartime production in which to ratchet up that total. T-34 production was over 40000 in that time, and the Russian emerged with over 20000 T-34s in their inventory (not all running, but useable nevertheless). If 80% of german tank losses occurred on the Eastern Front, and the Germans lost every tank in their inventory by the 8th May 1945, it had taken the loss of 20000 T-34s to see off the equivalent of 32000 German AFVs. Of course other Soviet tanks contributed to this effort, about 50% of that 32000 in fact, but the loss rates of German super weapons was almost the same as the T-34. And a T-34 cost less than 1/8 the cost of a Panther Tank......
To say that produceability is not a key issue in WWII is one of THE most dumb, uniformed, downright misleading statements I have ever read on this forum. The allies until the latter part of 1943 had not done that much to relieve the pressure on the Eastern Front. For example, there were something like 200 Divs committed to Barbarossa, with a further 60 on garrison in the occupied territories. After looking into this issue in some depth, I can report that until December, virtually none of these Divs were combat ready in the accepted sense.
Yet, the Russian at first outproduced, and then outfought the Germans. The Germans were halted at Moscow, under somewhat controversial circumstances. Then came Stalingrad, also blamed on the controversial leadership of Hitler. Then came Kursk, again excuses are sought about failures in leadership, then the clearing of the Ukraine, the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, the destruction of Army Group Centre, the Drive to the Vistula, and then the final offensives into the heart of germany itself. None of these victories are attributed to the military prowess of the Russian war machine, or its equipment. It was all due to Russian superiority of numbers....but hold on, didnt we establish that Russian military/industria potential was only 85% that of Germany. Something does not add up here....if numbers arent important, but the Russians won by numbers, how can they do that if they only have 85% the industrial capacity of the germans????
And doesnt it seem just a little strange that these vastly superior German Tanks that we keep getting lectured on were unable to make any significant progress in the most significant tank Battles of the war, not just Kursk, but a whole string of them.
The facts are the Russians did win by numbers, but the T-34 was a tank good enough in quality to send the finest army in the world into utter and total defeat. It needed numbers and some quality to do that
The USSR was a country with only about the same industrial index in 1938 as the Germans. As a result of German gains in Barbarossa, that Industrial index was down to about 70% of German capacity by the end of 1941. The Russians received Lend Lease aid that accounted for about 10-15% of its national economy, so roughly speaking the Russians fought their war with roughly 85% of Germany's military capacity. Based on time spent on the eastern front, over 80% of Germany's army strength, and around 40-50% of its air strength was committed to the eastern front. About 5% of german military capacity was spent on U-Boats
Yet T-34 production alone exceeded German Tank production by a wide margin. In terms of turreted tanks the Germans produced 23500, and a further 17445 of other vehicles, and remember the Germans had an additional two years of wartime production in which to ratchet up that total. T-34 production was over 40000 in that time, and the Russian emerged with over 20000 T-34s in their inventory (not all running, but useable nevertheless). If 80% of german tank losses occurred on the Eastern Front, and the Germans lost every tank in their inventory by the 8th May 1945, it had taken the loss of 20000 T-34s to see off the equivalent of 32000 German AFVs. Of course other Soviet tanks contributed to this effort, about 50% of that 32000 in fact, but the loss rates of German super weapons was almost the same as the T-34. And a T-34 cost less than 1/8 the cost of a Panther Tank......
To say that produceability is not a key issue in WWII is one of THE most dumb, uniformed, downright misleading statements I have ever read on this forum. The allies until the latter part of 1943 had not done that much to relieve the pressure on the Eastern Front. For example, there were something like 200 Divs committed to Barbarossa, with a further 60 on garrison in the occupied territories. After looking into this issue in some depth, I can report that until December, virtually none of these Divs were combat ready in the accepted sense.
Yet, the Russian at first outproduced, and then outfought the Germans. The Germans were halted at Moscow, under somewhat controversial circumstances. Then came Stalingrad, also blamed on the controversial leadership of Hitler. Then came Kursk, again excuses are sought about failures in leadership, then the clearing of the Ukraine, the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, the destruction of Army Group Centre, the Drive to the Vistula, and then the final offensives into the heart of germany itself. None of these victories are attributed to the military prowess of the Russian war machine, or its equipment. It was all due to Russian superiority of numbers....but hold on, didnt we establish that Russian military/industria potential was only 85% that of Germany. Something does not add up here....if numbers arent important, but the Russians won by numbers, how can they do that if they only have 85% the industrial capacity of the germans????
And doesnt it seem just a little strange that these vastly superior German Tanks that we keep getting lectured on were unable to make any significant progress in the most significant tank Battles of the war, not just Kursk, but a whole string of them.
The facts are the Russians did win by numbers, but the T-34 was a tank good enough in quality to send the finest army in the world into utter and total defeat. It needed numbers and some quality to do that
Last edited:
Hello Soren
From Yugoslav tests of 1960s, guns vs armor
75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT against T-34/85
M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m
M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m, 350 BHN steel 45mm @ 40deg
M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m
And according to German data, Penetration vs homogenous armour at 30º from vertical, PzGr.39:
74mm/1500m and 64mm/2000m. So I don't see that the results supported your claim that the cast armour of the turret was significantly poorer quality than the armour of the hull or the plates Germans used in their tests.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
From Yugoslav tests of 1960s, guns vs armor
75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT against T-34/85
M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m
M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m, 350 BHN steel 45mm @ 40deg
M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m
And according to German data, Penetration vs homogenous armour at 30º from vertical, PzGr.39:
74mm/1500m and 64mm/2000m. So I don't see that the results supported your claim that the cast armour of the turret was significantly poorer quality than the armour of the hull or the plates Germans used in their tests.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
parsifal,
although I overall agree with what you say (even though you add an awful lot of pathos sometimes) isn't it equally "dumb" as you put it to say "the tank can't be superior because it didn't win the battles for its nations"? Really to me that sounds just as dumb as saying mass produceability isn't a key factor.
although I overall agree with what you say (even though you add an awful lot of pathos sometimes
) isn't it equally "dumb" as you put it to say "the tank can't be superior because it didn't win the battles for its nations"? Really to me that sounds just as dumb as saying mass produceability isn't a key factor.Really? According to all the sources I have the T-34, while proving a shock to the Germans, didn't fair too well even in 1941, and by 1942 it was being put to complete shame by the StuG III PzIV.
The war in the east was a numbers game, and the Soviets were able to produce far more tanks than the Germans were.
It is odd how many people seem to ignore that the Germans were fighting a war on 4 fronts, the west, east, south and northern africa. The Germans while producing great tanks quite simply couldn't produce enough of them to supply all these fronts.
The T-34 wasn't the key to victory in the east, Hitler decision to fight a war against 2 other superpowers in the west was however.
Sorry but the T-34 just gets far more credit than it deserves IMO. Ofcourse it played role in Germany's defeat, it was there and it fought, but it wasn't unique and better tanks could be built at a similar price. The Sherman tank was a superior combat vehicle if you ask me.
Last edited:
Where did I say anything like that? Look at the tables I listed, the 5cm gun performs better than the 3.7cm gun with similar ammunition.
If you're refering to me saying that the Germans were traumatized seeing their 5cm shells just glance off the T-34 glacis plate, then I am gonna have to ask what that has to do with the turret? The glacis plate is front upper hull plate incase you didn't know it.
Parsifal said:
Sorry but that's just complete nonesense. Look at how well the T-34 faired once the upgunned StuG's and PzIV's arrived in 1942, the T-34s were being slaughtered on the battlefield. Heck even in 1941 the Germans managed to cope with it.
The T-34 could be built in great numbers, but also had to because of its rather poor performance in the field.
I would btw also like know how on earth you came to the conclusion that Germany lost 80% of its tanks in the east? Remember that there's a further 3 fronts to take into account here.
Next come your claim that the Soviet Union only possessed 85% of the industrial potential of Germany... erm, where is that from? Shall we compare the mass of material produced by each country during the war and see who actually made the most?
Last edited:
Forgive me for believing more in the controlled tests conducted at Aberdeen in Germany during the war than some Yugoslavian test done 20 years later with old worn guns firing old ammunition. Such a thing affects MV and armour penetration performance more than you know.
Hello Soren
the main point was that the upper side and turret side offered same protection which was probable what was Soviet aim when they designed the turret. So same gun with same ammo could pierce 350 BHN steel 45mm @ 40deg and 75mm cast steel @20deg from vertical from same max range. Conclusion, if a gun was incapable to pierce the upper side armour it was also incapable to pierce the turret side armour. And the test were made against real T-34-85.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
the main point was that the upper side and turret side offered same protection which was probable what was Soviet aim when they designed the turret. So same gun with same ammo could pierce 350 BHN steel 45mm @ 40deg and 75mm cast steel @20deg from vertical from same max range. Conclusion, if a gun was incapable to pierce the upper side armour it was also incapable to pierce the turret side armour. And the test were made against real T-34-85.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
All that proves Juha is that the 3.7cm gun was lethal against the side hull as-well. I guess the problem with the turret is mention in the book because it infact was very thick, but the cast armour just didn't provide the protection the thickness implied it would. So it probably came as a surprise to Soviet tankers when they saw their own tanks being knocked out by 3.7cm hits to the side turret.
One thing is clear, with APCR the 3.7cm AA gun was capable of puching through the T-34's side armour from 1,000m if the side angle was straight. But in combat it seldom is. Therefore I doubt many kills if any were achieved at such a range with the 3.7cm weapons. But at ranges of 200 to 300m the 3.7cm gun packs more than enough punch with APCR to overcome a slight side angle, and considering that AA guns are fully automatic, a burst of fire from that range would've been lethal to the T-34. From the front the T-34 had little to fear from light AA guns.
One thing is clear, with APCR the 3.7cm AA gun was capable of puching through the T-34's side armour from 1,000m if the side angle was straight. But in combat it seldom is. Therefore I doubt many kills if any were achieved at such a range with the 3.7cm weapons. But at ranges of 200 to 300m the 3.7cm gun packs more than enough punch with APCR to overcome a slight side angle, and considering that AA guns are fully automatic, a burst of fire from that range would've been lethal to the T-34. From the front the T-34 had little to fear from light AA guns.
Last edited:
Soren
Quote from Your own message #26 : " The German figures… were conducted against… 265 to 350 BHN for 7.5cm to 3.7cm guns…"
And T-34-85 upper side armour was 350 BHN steel 45mm @ 40deg from vertical.
And German figures for 3.7cm K.w.K L/45 with Pzgr 40 ie APCR from Jentz: Panzertruppen 1 p. 283 are 64m/100m and 31mm/500m, 30deg from vertical.
From those facts IMHO you might have difficulties to convince others to believe your conclusion
Quote:" One thing is clear, with APCR the 3.7cm AA gun was capable of puching through the T-34's side armour from 1,000m if the side angle was straight."
Because at least the normal AP shell of 3.7cm Flak weighted exactly same as that of 3.7cm Pak and the muzzle velocity of AA gun was only little higher, 770m/s vs 745 m/s. Probably also APCR shots were same if normal AAA battery had any of them, because of they were not very common, see production figures I gave earlier. Of course burst of APs might have effect on fairly hard armour of the upper side. Also I would not be surprised if some 34-85 turretswere substandard cast, during mass production it is always possible that some products are "Monday quality" as for ex some of glacis of Panthers were.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
Quote from Your own message #26 : " The German figures… were conducted against… 265 to 350 BHN for 7.5cm to 3.7cm guns…"
And T-34-85 upper side armour was 350 BHN steel 45mm @ 40deg from vertical.
And German figures for 3.7cm K.w.K L/45 with Pzgr 40 ie APCR from Jentz: Panzertruppen 1 p. 283 are 64m/100m and 31mm/500m, 30deg from vertical.
From those facts IMHO you might have difficulties to convince others to believe your conclusion
Quote:" One thing is clear, with APCR the 3.7cm AA gun was capable of puching through the T-34's side armour from 1,000m if the side angle was straight."
Because at least the normal AP shell of 3.7cm Flak weighted exactly same as that of 3.7cm Pak and the muzzle velocity of AA gun was only little higher, 770m/s vs 745 m/s. Probably also APCR shots were same if normal AAA battery had any of them, because of they were not very common, see production figures I gave earlier. Of course burst of APs might have effect on fairly hard armour of the upper side. Also I would not be surprised if some 34-85 turretswere substandard cast, during mass production it is always possible that some products are "Monday quality" as for ex some of glacis of Panthers were.
Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
[QUOTE=riacrato;609423]parsifal,
although I overall agree with what you say (even though you add an awful lot of pathos sometimes) isn't it equally "dumb" as you put it to say "the tank can't be superior because it didn't win the battles for its nations"? Really to me that sounds just as dumb as saying mass produceability isn't a key factor.[/QUOTE]
Possibly I didnt get the point out. In the end, the armed services of a nation and its associated hardware must achieve as much as possible of its political leaderships objectives, as cheaply as possible. The T-34 helped the Russian leaderships objectives be obtained. The German leadership achieved none of its wartime goals, and the hardware attached to its army contributed to that failure. But why. Any objective analysis is going to reveal the a marked qualitative superiority in German equipment, of just about every category, but a shortage in numbers. Given that the german industrial indexes are considerably higher in Germany than they are in Russia, the only way this can be explained is the relatively high cost of equipment made in Germany, and the relatively low cost in Russia.
The second part of the wquation is the effectiveness of that cheap equipment, of which the T-34 is a premier example. I have heard all sorts of fantastic loss exchange rates over the years, and none of them stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. Some loss rates of 20 or even 30 to 1 have been mentioned over the years by some. That may have happed on isloated occasions, but the reality from a strategic perspective is that the T-34, destroyed, captured or immobilized nearly the same number of german AFVs than their own losses. Roughly speaking, 20000 T-34s were lost destroying, capturing or disabling something in the order of 16000 enemy AFVs. These are rough numbers, other sources show that the total losses in T-34s in battle were just 12000. and that in exchange the T-34 equipped forces destroyed close to the same number of AFVs (not including Halftracks and the like)
It is impossible to separate the political effects of the military (and its equipment) from its basic statistics, which might explain your conclusion that I rely on pathoss too much. Its not pathos, its an acknowledgement of that crucial relationship
although I overall agree with what you say (even though you add an awful lot of pathos sometimes
) isn't it equally "dumb" as you put it to say "the tank can't be superior because it didn't win the battles for its nations"? Really to me that sounds just as dumb as saying mass produceability isn't a key factor.[/QUOTE]Possibly I didnt get the point out. In the end, the armed services of a nation and its associated hardware must achieve as much as possible of its political leaderships objectives, as cheaply as possible. The T-34 helped the Russian leaderships objectives be obtained. The German leadership achieved none of its wartime goals, and the hardware attached to its army contributed to that failure. But why. Any objective analysis is going to reveal the a marked qualitative superiority in German equipment, of just about every category, but a shortage in numbers. Given that the german industrial indexes are considerably higher in Germany than they are in Russia, the only way this can be explained is the relatively high cost of equipment made in Germany, and the relatively low cost in Russia.
The second part of the wquation is the effectiveness of that cheap equipment, of which the T-34 is a premier example. I have heard all sorts of fantastic loss exchange rates over the years, and none of them stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. Some loss rates of 20 or even 30 to 1 have been mentioned over the years by some. That may have happed on isloated occasions, but the reality from a strategic perspective is that the T-34, destroyed, captured or immobilized nearly the same number of german AFVs than their own losses. Roughly speaking, 20000 T-34s were lost destroying, capturing or disabling something in the order of 16000 enemy AFVs. These are rough numbers, other sources show that the total losses in T-34s in battle were just 12000. and that in exchange the T-34 equipped forces destroyed close to the same number of AFVs (not including Halftracks and the like)
It is impossible to separate the political effects of the military (and its equipment) from its basic statistics, which might explain your conclusion that I rely on pathoss too much. Its not pathos, its an acknowledgement of that crucial relationship
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
M Kenny gives a better breakdown of the loss rates for the Germans in their AFVs that is far better than anything I can produce. As you can see from his figures, 75-80 % of Tank losses are attributed to activities in the east front, which is a very neat correlation to the percentage of man days, as a proportion total force pool. In other words, 80% of losses in equipment equates to the fact that 80% of the German army was deployed to the east.
Also your claims of decimation for the T-34 simply dont add up in a strategic sense. As I have said previously, 20000 lost to capture or destroy roughly 16000 AFVs is not corroborating your claims that they were massacred. In a strategic sense they were not being massacred.
My sources on the superior german industrial index comes from a number of well respected sources, but as a starting point includes Overy and Ellis's work on the wartimes economies. Ellis produces some easily understood tables that shows prewar, in terms of all the major industrial indices, coal, iron ore, copper, in particular, the Germans were enjoying a lead in production. In terms of available factory space they enjoyed a lead of nearly two to one.
In steel production figures are particularly revealing and explode the myth that Germany was outclased in her industrial potential compared to the Soviets. In 1942, the Russians produced 9.7 million metric tons of mild steel, compared to 50.6 m metric tons in Germany. In coal production, the Germans produced 408 m metric tons, to 75.5. There were exceptions in productive outputs, most significantly in oil and associated products, but it is not true that the germans were industrially outclassed by the Russian. What the Russians did do was to fully mobilize their economy to a war footing, but even this allowance cannot account for the vastly superior outputs of finished products by the Russians in comparison to the germans. The Germans should have been outproducing the Russians from 1942-45, even taking into account the effects of bombing and shortages (USSBS estimates that bombing accounted for 5% of german production in 1942, 10% in 1943, 40% in 1944), and not including the potential production sources from the occupied territories.
Only if the cost of equipment is included into the equation can the relatively low outputs of German industry be explained. The reasons for this high cost are varied, but theyr are legitimate costs just the same
