Quite right. I still make use of those, but I no longer use either Pz 4 or T-34.
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Quite right. I still make use of those, but I no longer use either Pz 4 or T-34.
How? How is that even remotely possible? Wikipedia says Soviets had armour losses of ~75%? That surely can't be right, unless a broken tread is being counted as a loss? That just doesn't seem even remotely reasonable to have tank losses that high.
As I understand, Soviet way of counting :
Damage or mechanical issue in combat, if can't be repaired on the front : "Lost"
Tank repaired : "Produced" [if it had to be sent to the back]
So those 57K tanks are actually way less "physical" tanks
Last edited:
- 1
What Narwhal said. The Soviet's counted any tank that broke down or got destroyed as "lost", as their idea of a loss was that the tank was unavailable to the unit for use in combat action, no matter if the tank could be repaired or not. This means that their loss figures are grossly exaggerated compared to other nations, because they'd count a busted transmission, broken steering, jammed turrets or any other mechanical failure that the crew couldn't repair as a loss.
Similarly, any tank that was sent back to the factory for repairs was considered a "new" tank in the statistics. This meant that rebuilt tanks were counted as "new", but also that tanks that were sent back for regular factory maintenance were considered "new" tanks. So all in all, it is really hard to get actual numbers on how many unique tanks the USSR built or how many tanks were damaged beyond repair, because those are numbers that the USSR never bothered to keep track off.
- 1
The Soviet analysis for tank losses is analogous to 'casualty' in the infantry. For the Germans it is closer to MIA/KIA.
In terms of the OP I would tend to go with the T-34/85 as an overall better tank because it was a better all round vehicle (at least with a well trained crew who could manage its nightmarish ergonomics), due to the 85mm gun being much better against soft targets and fairly similar against hard ones. The T-34 also fitted the Soviet operational doctrine better than the 1945 Pz-IV fitted the German doctrine. Overall, however, there is not a great deal to separate them.
Jerry cans rock.
In terms of the OP I would tend to go with the T-34/85 as an overall better tank because it was a better all round vehicle (at least with a well trained crew who could manage its nightmarish ergonomics), due to the 85mm gun being much better against soft targets and fairly similar against hard ones. The T-34 also fitted the Soviet operational doctrine better than the 1945 Pz-IV fitted the German doctrine. Overall, however, there is not a great deal to separate them.
Jerry cans rock.
- 1
Perhaps "at the end of its upgradability" might be a better way of putting it than "obsolete". While it was certainly still quite effective in 1943 (and somewhat viable in 1945), the writing was already on the wall as to the impending end of its career, and its intended replacement was already in production in the form of the Panther.
The M4A3E8 "Easy 8" was clearly a better design than the makeshift shoe-horning of a 17 pounder into the M4 chassis known as the "Firefly", and effectively put the newer and heavier Sherman ahead of the earlier Panzer IV and T-34 in many or most respects.
The best variant of the Sherman depends on the role. As an all round medium tank, the E8 was definitely an excellent design. The Firefly however was superior against enemy armour (I'd even suggest it was the best widely used tank of the war in terms of anti-armour) and this is how it was employed, a single tank per troop would be a Firefly giving the unit some anti-armour punch while maintaining all round utility.
I'd agree that the Pz IV was nearing the end of its development cycle by the wars end. The Sherman could and did have some extra upgrades stuck on to keep it viable, the Pz IV was really reaching the limits of what it could practically take.
I'd agree that the Pz IV was nearing the end of its development cycle by the wars end. The Sherman could and did have some extra upgrades stuck on to keep it viable, the Pz IV was really reaching the limits of what it could practically take.
Firefly is more about tank destroyer than tank! Tank is more about all round against tank, infantry,..
Speaking of upgrades, despite being one of best tanks in the war, Panther could never have replaced Panzer 4 considering how little capacity it had for upgrades - it was basically stronger version of Panzer 4 and then all upgrades that were added to Panzer 4 were also added to Panther.
Good ad hoc solution though as it was no more expensive than Panzer 4.
Good ad hoc solution though as it was no more expensive than Panzer 4.
Maybe not in Reichsmarks, but in all other respects it most certainly was. It required more raw materials (if only because it was 20 tons heavier), had a longer and more involved production that required more expert engineering and required more logistical capacity to get to the front (again, because it was 20 tons heavier). Even if the Reichsmarks comparison is true (and there's plenty to suggest that it was mostly Speer fudging the numbers to look good), you could still get almost 2 Panzer IVs out of the same amount of materials that a single Panther required. For a nation that is facing numerically superior enemies and needs to get the most out of its' scarce resources, it was the wrong choice to go for an over-engineered and overweight tank that only proved slightly more effective than the tank it replaced, while being almost twice as heavy and much more resource intensive to field and maintain.
The "WW2 best tank" thread should be definetly added to the ban list...
- 1
Only because the best tanks are clearly the IS2, KV1 and T34 equally.
But King Tiger 88 mm Flak German Panzer heavy tank achtung panzer.
Nuff said, end of discussion.
- 1
Less accurate, slower target acquisition, slower rate of fire, one fewer crew member (meaning one fewer pair of eyeballs to spot trouble), an extra few tons of weight meaning your suspension is in worse condition and your ground pressure is higher. Plus more ammo to catch on fire if something goes wrong. Also, did the 17 pounder have gyroscopic stabilization like the 75 and the 76?
If you had your choice between the easy 8 with a 76 and the firefly you would certainly be better off in the easy 8. It's just that the firefly was rushed to the front lines by the british while the americans were slow to put the 76mm on the frontlines. This let the quick fix that was the firefly get the fame even though it was inferior.
Sure it was approaching the end of it's upgradability but it was also pretty close to the limits of tank technology at the time. The workhorse of the panzer divisions in the late war wasn't the panther, it was the panzer IVs and stug IIIs. The workhorse tanks after the war were M4s, T-34s, T-54, tanks that looked a lot more like the Panzer IV then any other German tank. There was a fantasy of an ubertank that the Panzer IV didn't meet but in terms of what armies actually needed and what could exist, the Panzer IV was pretty close.
Last edited:
There are a lot of soviet reports about tanks out of action and irrecoverable lost tanks so obviously some of you are really wrong.... Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century basic bibliography if some of you want to spend time reading a book instead of propaganda.
About the question of the thread by 1945 I am with the T-34, with a lend and lease radio and a tune up optics.
About the question of the thread by 1945 I am with the T-34, with a lend and lease radio and a tune up optics.
Last edited:
