My main source for this response is from the following:
Tank Archives: Tank Reliability
It states;
As almost everyone knows, the Panther had a lot of mechanical problems when it debuted at Kursk. However, a report from Guderian to Hitler proudly proclaims that these problems have been resolved by 1944.
"The latest messages from the Panther battalions say that the Panther is currently capable of withstanding all combat conditions, and does not even have minor drawbacks. For example, the 1st tank regiment writes on February 22nd, 1944: "The Panther in its current shape is perfect for battle. It greatly surpasses the T-34. Almost all minor drawbacks are gone. It is greatly superior to the PzIV in armament, armour, off-road maneuverability, and speed. The lifetime of the engine is 700-1000 km.
- Less damage to the engines.
- There are no more breaches in side reduction gears.
- The controls and suspension demonstrate their qualities.""
CAMD RF 500-12462-93
700-1000 sounds like a very large number of kilometers. I guess we could take the 1st regiment's word for it that the T-34 isn't the shining star of the Eastern Front anymore, ignoring the fact that Guderian's "all drawbacks are gone" assertion seems to be contradicted by them.
However, just to be thorough, let's look at some numbers from the other side. The 6th Guards Tank Army discovered the following lifespans of their tanks:
"T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
IS/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours
M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours
Individual tanks made it as far as 3000 km, and their motors functioned for 300-350 hours."
I am fairly sure these reported engine life spans were from tanks manufactured later in the wart, as the figures otherwise greatly conflict with dat obtained at Aberdeen in 1942.
These are the figures for
all components. Even the weakest link of the Soviet and American tanks served twice as long as the Panther's engine.
Final drives were generally the weakest links for all tank designs and could be as low as 150km depending on the amount of strain being placed on the final drive. Weight was a big factor there and given that german tanks were generally much heavier than anyone elses with their drive systems typically massively overloaded it would be reasonable to assume the lifespan of their final drives was a veritable basket case…..generally.
A French report from 1947 on the Panther states that average engine life was 1000km with some reaching 1500km. (Spielberger)
- A German report from April 1944 mentions that "new engines have a significantly longer lifespan than the first series" and mentions examples of engines running up to 1800km. (Jentz)
- A document dealing with the engine life of a wide range of vehicles in service with British forces in North Africa (and Italy?) has some figures on engine life (from Bovington, was posted on the G104 Yahoo Group May 5th, 2001.)
Sherman M4A2: 1400-3000 miles
Sherman M4A4: 518-642 miles
Churchill: 600-1000 miles ("rarely more than 1000 miles")
Grant: 400-2000 miles.
I dont know how the French report reached its conclusions, but the figures from Jentz is a single case of three tanks while the British figures are taken from many different reports, some of the figures qualified by "isolated case" or some specific cause like "oiling up" or "by constant plug changing". So they should not be taken as averages but rather as examples.
From (WO 169/3861) message G(AFV) Middle East to ?, end of September 1942, regarding the Tank Overhaul Program:
Overhaul Mileage Limit:
Crusader – 1,200
Valentine – 2,500
Matilda – 1,000
Stuart – 3,500
Grant – 1,500
Annual Mileage Rate:
All – 3,000
Time in Workshop for Overhaul
All (except Stuart) – 8 weeks
Stuart – 4 weeks
Objective of the program was to maintain tank formations in the field above strength with a vehicle mileage limit of 250 miles per month.
In regard to the now famous report on the T-34 completed at the Aberdeen proving Ground it should now be familiar to most that the assessment was scathing about the t-34 (and KV-1) AFVs that were submitted for testing. An article by Boris Kavalerchik about the assessment appeared in the Russian-language magazine Voenno-Istoricheskiy Arkhiv, issue No. 1, 2006. Kavalerchik says that contrary to popular opinion in Russia which holds that the T-34s which were sent to the US and England were intentionally not of the highest quality, in the spring of 1942 five T-34s were specially prepared using the highest quality parts at the Ural Tank Factory (UTZ), which at that time produced the best T-34s in Russia.
The article, comments on Aberdeen's finding that the T-34 broke down beyond repair after 343 kilometers due to dirt getting into the engine's cylinders.
Kavalerchik responds to this by saying "There was nothing unusual about a tank breaking down after such a short period. At that time T-34 tanks were guaranteed not to break down for 1,000 kilometers, but in practice this number was unattainable. According to a report by the Scientific Institute for Armored Equipment (NIBT) to Ya. N. Fedorenko, the chief of the Red Army's Auto-Armored Directorate, the average distance a T-34 travelled before requiring overhaul (capital repairs) did not exceed 200 kilometers". The Aberdeen T-34 exceeded this.
This information does need to be balanced against a number of known circumstances however. In 1942 the quality of Soviet tanks had significantly fallen for many understandable reasons. These included the difficulty of reestablishing production by the evacuated factories at new locations, factories switching over to new production, the loss of many supply lines and sources of raw materials, a sharp drop in the average qualification of workers due to losses among experienced workers and the hiring of many new, inexperienced workers including women and teenagers. These new workers worked tirelessly and did everything they could for the front, but they were not qualified. Producing the most tanks possible was the priority, which was understandable since the heavy losses of the initial part of the year had to be made up. Therefore the requirement for quality was reduced, and the military accepted any tank that was built and running at the time of delivery. It proved a war winning decision. As a result, in 1942 some 34's could only go 50-100 kilometers before needing an overhaul.
To a certain degree this was justified because tanks, as a rule, did not survive until the expiration of its overhaul life, short as that was. The life of a tank on the front line was not long – on average 4-10 days (not counting time spent in transit on rail road and being repaired), or from 1-3 attacks. In 1942 the average mileage before being put out of service due to combat was 66.7 kilometers, which was less than half the average mileage before needing an overhaul. The majority of tanks simply didn't live long enough to break down.
The V-2 diesel engine which equipped T-34s and KV-1s was still suffering growing pains. At that time its designers were struggling to extend the diesel's service life to 100 hours, but in reality it seldom lasted more than 60. The engine of the T-34 which was tested at Aberdeen broke down at 72.5 hours, of which 58.45 were under load and 14.05 were while idling. The KV's diesel lasted 66.4 hours. One of the deficiencies of the B-2, besides a short guaranteed life, was an increased fuel consumption (12% above norm), and, especially, a completely unacceptable over-consumption of oil, which exceeded existing norms by 3-8 times! Therefore the range of a T-34 in 1942 was limited not by fuel, but by oil: according to the averages at that time from the technical department of the People's Commissariat for Tank Production, a T-34 carried enough fuel for 200-220 kilometers, but oil for only 145. At the same time German and American tanks didn't require any additional oil; it was simply changed every 2,000 kilometers.