Interesring link about T-34 - NOT the best tank in the war?

[Imminentstorm]

A common misconception that is coming up along this thread is that tanks are being judged by their ability to kill tanks. The primary goal of tanks is infantry support and creating breakthroughs, not killing other tanks. That's the job of AT guns and tank destroyers. Tanks can and should be able to fight each other when necessary, but you can't judge the value of a tank solely on its anti-tank ability. That's a major problem the Panther had, it's ability to fire HE rounds effectively and thus support infantry was crap (for the same reasons its ability to fire AP rounds was great).

This precisely. Tank design and gun selection was a tradeoff of armor piercing/high explosive effectiveness. The vast majority of targets a tank was going to encounter on a give sortie were "soft" targets: infantry, trucks, guns, artillery, bunkers, etc... For these targets, good high explosive performance was key. To make a good HE shell you need a larger caliber and as thin a shell wall containing the explosive as possible. The problem is if you put thin-walled shells in a high velocity anti-tank gun they tend to disintegrate. So to put better anti-tank guns on a tank, which work better with high muzzle velocities, you have to compromise HE performance.

This is why you see the split roles in early German tank designs. The Panzer III carried a small caliber high velocity gun for attacking armor, the Panzer IV had a short, low velocity, larger caliber gun for firing HE at soft targets. The French and Early American (M3) designs solved the problem by giving the tanks 2 separate guns. A long smaller caliber HV gun in a turret for armor, and a short low velocity larger caliber gun in the hull for everything else.

(Though the Russians did find out that hitting German tanks with 152mm HE shells was surprisingly effective....)

 

[scroggin]

A common misconception that is coming up along this thread is that tanks are being judged by their ability to kill tanks. The primary goals of tanks are infantry support and creating breakthroughs, not killing other tanks. That's the job of AT guns and tank destroyers. Tanks can and should be able to fight each other when necessary, but you can't judge the value of a tank solely on its anti-tank ability. That's a major problem the Panther had, it's ability to fire HE rounds effectively and thus support infantry was crap (for the same reasons its ability to fire AP rounds was great).

Because tanks were not always the biggest killer of other tanks in WWII. AT guns, mechanical failures, bad driving conditions, and infantry in close combat were claiming a significant number of tank kills. This does not even address problems associated with air power.

In many cases, the goal of armored divisions wasn't to even be used against other armored divisions. You wanted to put the tip of the spear at weak points, not send your tanks against enemy tanks all the time. If you have the logistics to support it, you want plenty of armored forces that you can apply to the front in the right places to get your encirclements and whatnot. Building hordes of tanks that you can afford to supply and fuel is sensible even if you don't need to get 4:1 odds in any individual tank battle.

I wish I could find it, but I've read some accounts from tank crews that talk about how scared they were of AT guns and infantry when they were on the attack. It's really telling that some of them were measuring their skill, not in tank kills, but in noticing and neutralizing AT guns.

The hull design you want to cope with anti-tank guns is identical to what you want for defense against other tanks. The gun is more of a compromise. But as long as its able to fire H.E. It will do the job.

That fact that anti-tank guns are a more common enemy than other tanks doesn't make as big a difference to tank design as you might think.

 

[hkrommel]

But as long as its able to fire H.E. It will do the job.

That's like saying as long as you can catch a ball you can be a professional goaltender. Some tanks are much better at firing HE than others, the Panther was terrible at infantry support because its gun was poorly suited to firing HE rounds effectively.

 

[Kovax]

"Poorly suited" is a bit of an overstatement. It was slightly less effective, not drastically so.

 

[fredgiblet]

Soviet and US tanks might have have built Shermans and T-34s that were 45% cheaper than a Panther but the Allies and Soviets needed a 4 to 1 or even 6 to 1 ratio in tanks to win against the Germans so even if we the lower ratio the Soviets and Allies spent at the very least 2 dollars for every dollar spent by Germany.

If those ratios are correct you'd have a point, however they probably aren't. The previously posted "Myths of American Armor" video discussed this. The myth largely comes about for a simple reason: The smallest tank unit is a platoon of 5. If you're going to send your tanks out to fight a Panther you send out 5, not because it's what's needed, but because that's a platoon, so unless you're outnumbered and have to split your forces to multiple tasks you're going to send 5 tanks. It may be possible to accomplish the task with 2 or 3, but you're going to send 5 anyway.

From an economic point of view the Panther was a complete disaster. The most cost-effective German vehicle was the StuG III,

The StuG III was great, as long as you're on the defensive, on the offensive it's not quite as good. Thankfully(?) for the StuG crews they were usually on the defensive.

 

[fredgiblet]

On a side note, if USA entered the war earlier they might have gathered the expertise to make a tank to rival the Panther since USA was in no immediate danger but optimal use of abundant resources proved just as efficient.

They kinda did. The E8 Shermans with a 76mm gun were pretty damn close to the Panther in ability. Armor is a bit thinner, but at the ranges they're dealing with that's not a huge disadvantage and they're MUCH better reliability means they're more likely to actually be serviceable in combat.

If they had under 2 vs 1 win rate USSR should have stopped production by the end of 1943 because they had over 30.000 T-34s, why did they produce and additional 25.000 ? To labour the field with them ?

Why would you stop?

If you are in a total war and you have a production line running why would you stop it? The only reason to do so is if you're replacing that vehicle with something else, and even then repurposing the line is better (i.e. switching to StuGs from Panzer IIIs). You don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, maybe the Germans develop a handheld tank killer that can wipe out your entire force easily, maybe they get tank seeking missiles that turn every Storch into an effective tank killer, maybe the Western Allies decide that they don't like you taking Eastern Europe under your control and decide to do something about it. You DON'T go "Oh well we have X number of tanks, that's enough so let's shut down the lines!" that's just dumb.

Being a T-34 nerd I have to comment that the lack of radio is exaggerated somewhat. People seem to think that no T-34s were fitted with radios. I have no hard figures but what I've read from veterans is that whilst many lacked radios, some did have them even at the worst times. The worst times being in 1941 when shortages were greatest and from then on more and more radios were fitted as they became available.

Key word being "some", if one tank in a platoon has a radio then the platoon can't communicate with each other still. Better, but still causing a serious tactical weakness with the inability to coordinate maneuvers on the fly.

(Though the Russians did find out that hitting German tanks with 152mm HE shells was surprisingly effective....)

I don't know I would say that would be surprising...

 

[Secret Master]

Because this isn't World of Tanks. You always want to have material superiority. There's a common myth (mostly debunked, though you'll see it arise from time to time) that the US needed 5 Shermans for every German tank. This is the result of the US doctrine of sending a platoon (at the time it was 5 per platoon, now it's 4 IIRC) of tanks against every enemy sighted AFV when possible. Stug? Send a platoon. Tiger? Send a platoon. Panther? Send a platoon. That way it's an almost guaranteed kill. You may lose no tanks, or all of them, but the point is that you outnumber the enemy at every given opportunity. That ends up with more of their guys dead, and more of your guys alive.

Yep. If you can have 4:1 odds, you might as well use 4:1 odds. It's not a jousting tournament in Tudor England, where one guy on horseback jousts another guy on horseback.

In fact, massing armor for attacks is part of the point of having armored divisions in the first place. Guderian was big on combined arms, but he was also Mr. "Let's put all the armor on the schwerepunkt and curb stomp the opposition." The tanks needed their support, but if you have 1,500 tanks, use the damn things to achieve tactical superiority.

A common misconception that is coming up along this thread is that tanks are being judged by their ability to kill tanks.

Hey, I already said that! Wait, are you reading my mind? Are you a mutant in the X-Men franchise? Or are you a wizard?

 

[Opanashc]

For everyone to agree, we need to look at tank losses, numbers of tanks repaired, average life of tank between combat repairs etc.

 

[fredgiblet]

For everyone to agree, we need to look at tank losses, numbers of tanks repaired, average life of tank between combat repairs etc.

Even that's not necessarily indicative of the quality of the tank itself. Crew training, supply tactics and presence of combined arms plays a big part that sort of thing. It's realy impossible to do a head to head comparison short of actually taking crews of people, training them equally to use the tanks, then tossing them into an arena together.

 

[Secret Master]

For everyone to agree, we need to look at tank losses, numbers of tanks repaired, average life of tank between combat repairs etc.

So, you're saying we will never agree?

 

[Axe99]

For everyone to agree, we need to look at tank losses, numbers of tanks repaired, average life of tank between combat repairs etc.

Hahaha, if I ever see everyone agreeing in a tank thread, I'll know the end times are upon us .

 

[hkrommel]

Hey, I already said that! Wait, are you reading my mind? Are you a mutant in the X-Men franchise? Or are you a wizard?

I'm Batman

For everyone to agree, we need to look at tank losses, numbers of tanks repaired, average life of tank between combat repairs etc.

Unfortunately that's only part of the picture, and since nobody counted destroyed tanks or produced tanks the same way we can never get that information.

 

[MGL 86]

To know which was the best WW2 tank, we need to have round robin style tank vs tank matches. Like a Premier league. Destroy other tank 3 points, draw 1 point , loss 0 points etc

 

[Opanashc]

To know which was the best WW2 tank, we need to have round robin style tank vs tank matches. Like a Premier league. Destroy other tank 3 points, draw 1 point , loss 0 points etc

Except, tanks were not built to fight other tanks. Tanks were built to give infantry mobile gun platforms, to eliminate second-third etc lines of defense that artillery could not see and target fast enough for the breakthrough to matter. Thus, judging tanks by their anti-tank capabilities, is the same as judging who is the best man by having a boxing match. Sure, Mike Tyson can throw and take a punch, but are you going to put him ahead of people like Einstein, Mozart or Steve Jobs?

 

[hkrommel]

To know which was the best WW2 tank, we need to have round robin style tank vs tank matches. Like a Premier league. Destroy other tank 3 points, draw 1 point , loss 0 points etc

Except, tanks were not built to fight other tanks. Tanks were built to give infantry mobile gun platforms, to eliminate second-third etc lines of defense that artillery could not see and target fast enough for the breakthrough to matter. Thus, judging tanks by their anti-tank capabilities, is the same as judging who is the best man by having a boxing match. Sure, Mike Tyson can throw and take a punch, but are you going to put him ahead of people like Einstein, Mozart or Steve Jobs?

I'm pretty sure that was a joke

 

[Shatterfury]

Only again that was not true. The cost of a tank (or anytihng for that matter), is not just the materials, it's the labor (both man-hours, and required qualification of workers). And a tank needs to do much more than shoot at enemy tanks. Tank shooting other tanks was not the main or even the desired situation for Allies or Soviets.

Cute, very cute but the cost includes labour costs as well.
If you want to go a bit deeper into it you might as well assume that USA or USSR could have shaved around 25% off if not more off that cost of the Panther given their immense material advantage if they built the Panther themselves thus a T-34 being 45% cheaper would be invalid.
It was Germany`s lack of resources who kept the tank expansive not the tank design itself.

The workhorses like the StuGs - were certainly very cost effective (not sure if they were more cost-effective than allied vehicles, but it's bit hard to compare). Disasterous project like the Panther - no.

I could make a smug reply but the moderators will unleash political correctness in the thread instead I will encourage you to check page number two and be amased by an economic chart with the costs of the tank.
The Panther was only 30% more expansive that a Panzer IV.
A Tiger was 100% was more expansive than a Panther.
A Tiger II was over 500% more expansive than a Panther.

So no, the Panther was not a disaster, Tiger II was.

Why would you stop?

Why stop ???
Oh, I don`t know...maybe because you start having a bloated inventory and don`t have where to storage those tanks ?

Like it or not economically speaking, it`s retarded to continue producing 4 times your enemy if you lose under 2 tanks per 1 tank built by Germany so you start upgrading those you already have to a better variant.

But why doen`t USSR and USA upgrade the tens of thousands of T-34s and M4s to better variants rather then built new variants from scratch ???

Maybe because those were knocked off and were rusting on the battlefield ?

I don`t know if the rate was 4.25 vs 1 or 3.5 vs 1 but economically speaking USSR and USA, combined, produced just a bit over 4 tanks for every tank built by Germany.

I could also add UK and it`s dominions, I`m sure I could add a few tens of thousands of tanks to the equation.

Production numbers speak for themselves 4 v 1.
Is that the actual ratio for tanks lost ? I don`t know for sure but given production pattern of USA and USSR it`s easy to conclude that it`s close.

To try to say that USSR and USA would each have almost 20.000 tank in their inventory by end of 1944 and continue to build thousands more in 1945 is just mindblowing. That is want a 2 vs 1 loss would mean for USA and USSR.

So the only economically sane conclusion was that the loss ratios were closer to 4 vs 1.

 

[GermanPower]

I don't buy the Soviet T-34 was any good for a entire war. It doesn't perform well on the battlefield period. The reason it 'worked' was it has intelligent production design behind it and massive resources. I'd love to have seen how the Panther would have done if Germany had kicked the non-sense they had in production lines and focused in on pouring out the Panther as a reliable tank in the same way a T-34 was done. It would have certainly mattered. German tinkering and lack of resources killed them.

 

[Shatterfury]

I don't buy the Soviet T-34 was any good for a entire war. It doesn't perform well on the battlefield period. The reason it 'worked' was it has intelligent production design behind it and massive resources. I'd love to have seen how the Panther would have done if Germany had kicked the non-sense they had in production lines and focused in on pouring out the Panther as a reliable tank in the same way a T-34 was done. It would have certainly mattered. German tinkering and lack of resources killed them.

Well, T34-76 had a cost of 31.000 per units.
M4 and Panzer IV had a cost of 46.000 per unit.
Panther had a cost of 60.000 per unit.
All according to the chart on page 2.

So economically T-34 was cheap like hell.
To be honest I know that USA also gave USSR huge amounts of steep, tools etc. and that might have helped USSR in cutting the price of the tank but given Soviet cheapness those costs might be correctly factored in and this be the real price.

 

[fredgiblet]

Why stop ???
Oh, I don`t know...maybe because you start having a bloated inventory and don`t have where to storage those tanks ?

Storage is incredibly easy, all you need is a large flat place, which are in great supply both in the US and the Soviet Union. Also most of them aren't getting stored, they're getting sent to the front, if you can do the job with 2 tanks you can do it better with 3.

Like it or not economically speaking, it`s retarded to continue producing 4 times your enemy if you lose under 2 tanks per 1 tank built by Germany so you start upgrading those you already have to a better variant.

It's retarded to stop producing until the war is over. The only time you have too much firepower is when the units start to interfere with each other, until you've reached that point more guns is always better.

But why doen`t USSR and USA upgrade the tens of thousands of T-34s and M4s to better variants rather then built new variants from scratch ???

They did. Or at least the US did, there was a ton of variants of the Sherman, even Shermans with 105 mm howitzers in them and upgraded armor. However you can't just walk into a factory making bone stock M1A1s and say "All right, you're making Easy 8s now!" The tooling, training and logistical train for the production needs to be shifted over, and that takes time, time where they aren't producing as many. Also for the US in particular introducing new models means new spare parts, which ALSO have to be stockpiled on the far side of the world. Logistics is king.

As an example, the P-38 had a serious problem with compressibility causing the controls to lock up in high-speed dives. They figured it out and designed dive flaps to fix it, but stopping the production line to incorporate the dive flaps would have slowed production significantly, so they didn't do it. They built the planes like normal and then immediately added a dive flap kit once it rolled off the assembly line. That was a more efficient option than altering the production line.

Maybe because those were knocked off and were rusting on the battlefield ?

I don`t know if the rate was 4.25 vs 1 or 3.5 vs 1 but economically speaking USSR and USA, combined, produced just a bit over 4 tanks for every tank built by Germany.

I could also add UK and it`s dominions, I`m sure I could add a few tens of thousands of tanks to the equation.

Production numbers speak for themselves 4 v 1.
Is that the actual ratio for tanks lost ? I don`t know for sure but given production pattern of USA and USSR it`s easy to conclude that it`s close.

To try to say that USSR and USA would each have almost 20.000 tank in their inventory by end of 1944 and continue to build thousands more in 1945 is just mindblowing. That is want a 2 vs 1 loss would mean for USA and USSR.

So the only economically sane conclusion was that the loss ratios were closer to 4 vs 1.

I'm glad you aren't in army procurement, we'd have lost the war.

 

[fredgiblet]

I don't buy the Soviet T-34 was any good for a entire war. It doesn't perform well on the battlefield period. The reason it 'worked' was it has intelligent production design behind it and massive resources. I'd love to have seen how the Panther would have done if Germany had kicked the non-sense they had in production lines and focused in on pouring out the Panther as a reliable tank in the same way a T-34 was done. It would have certainly mattered. German tinkering and lack of resources killed them.

Indeed. Skip the Wunderwaffen, skip the heavy tanks and just crank out tons and tons of Panzer 4s and slightly downarmored Panthers which won't kill their final drives every 5 minutes. The Germans might possibly have won the war if their leadership was competent.