Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Get all the latest news on Slitherine.

Moderator: Slitherine Core

PeteMitchell_2
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by PeteMitchell_2 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:26 am

terminator wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:01 am
Retributarr wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:50 pm
At first, the Quality of the German tanks was far superior for a good period of the war. They were difficult to knock-out!. So...Just to illustrate one example: ...KURSK
What about the T-34 ? "When it was first encountered in 1941, German general Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world" and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over existing German armour of the period.
Yes, the T-34 was superior in 1941 (i.e. when compared to Pz IV/III... not even to mention Pz II/I) and I also think that many people would agree that the Tigers and Panthers were actually a response to heavier Allied/Soviet tanks (e.g. Somua S35, Char B1, Matilda II, T-34, KV-1) although their design histories had (to some extent) already started earlier/before the war...

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:24 am

PeteMitchell_2 wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:14 am
kondi754 wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:26 am
At present, specialists believe that 3rd Reich made a mistake by investing in heavy and inevitable very unreliable tanks, requiring extra ton of precious fuel. A much better idea would be to focus on the production of Stugs or light and medium Panzerjagers (and jet fighters, of course )
I agree. In addition, the production of ~1,350 Tiger I and ~500 Tiger II (and also ~6,000 Panthers) was in relative terms more complex/complicated (i.e. over-engineered) than the production of most of the Russian tanks (especially compared to the ~50,000 T-34s). So the (maybe) higher quality came at the expense of significantly reduced quantity, while eventually the production of larger Soviet quantities won the arms race/war... Not to mention some of the other German investments, e.g. the production of more than ~1,200 submarines... i.e. just as another example of (potential) poor focus/waste of resources (when looking at the bigger picture).
Thanks Pete, I completely forgot about one of the most important parameters, which is the cost of the production
In this aspect, however, the Yankees also dominated (which is obvious in the juxtaposition of the modern American market economy in contrast to the centrally controlled Soviet economy, based on the power of slave labor)
I will say more, the Americans deliberately didn't improve the Sherman tank very much, if it would lead to the increase of its cost or suspension of mass production
(BTW, the development potential of the Sherman tank was demonstrated by the British when they used a 17-pound anti-tank gun in his turret :twisted: )
As a result, Sherman, who won for Monty's battle at El Alamein in late 1942, was no longer such a brilliant tank in 1944-45, but because of the reliability, cost and organization of production is still the best :!:
The last thing - I read somewhere that the majority (about 90%) of the T-34 tanks produced in 1940-45 were destroyed irrevocably as a result of warfare, while the Sherman tanks only about 30% with a similar scale of production and use
The important thing what the Soviets don't want to admit is the fact that the armored corps composed of Sherman tanks operated in 1943-45 on the main directions of the Red Army strikes - under the 1st Belorussian Front and the 1st Ukrainian Front, which fought against the main German forces, directly in the direction of Berlin
It seems to me that despite the Soviet propaganda, they must have been quite good tanks, if they were part of the most important, most experienced, best equipped and trained Soviet armored armies 8)

funat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 9:54 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by funat » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:20 pm

I didn't log in for a LONG time, but after reading that Sherman was the best tank in WW2 (and something about "Soviet propaganda") - are you kidding me? And what about those subtle "slave labour" stuff? How is that compared to literal slave labour in Germany? Sherman (aka Tommy cooker) was a piece of junk that was kept being alive by overwhelming US Air force and being used late in the war when Germans severely lost manoeuvring ability due to lack of fuel and constant carpet bombing, gerilla warfare, sabotage and spare part issues . If there was parity in air - no Sherman would stay alive faced even to Panzer 3 and higher. Russian T34s were used in wars across the world as late as late 90s. They might be used today as we speak in half of African wars and in Ukraine.

Also - show us the 90% destruction rate source here please.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:14 pm

Slave labour - Gulag and millions of slaves forced to work hard in Siberia and behind the Arctic Circle, furthermore you will not tell me that the working conditions in the USA and the USSR were similar in any way for industry workers - working conditions, accommodation, living conditions, money earned and what you could buy in stores, holidays, free time etc.
After all, in the USSR (like in the Third Reich) there was a totalitarian system and people were not free
(I'm surprised that 74 years after the war there are still people like you in the world and it's shocking and sad :? )

Are you Russian? I'm right?
Few links for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment ... rld_War_II
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the- ... rformance/
https://ww2-weapons.com/russian-vs-germ ... -in-ww-ii/
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-so-many- ... et-tactics

As you can see, even Wikipedia reports that 80% of Soviet medium tanks were destroyed, other sources say 82% or even 90% (strictly T-34 tank)
Have you ever heard of the 8th Guards Armored Corps?
This unit was the one who decided about the successes of the 2nd Guards Armored Army in 1944-45 and finally participated in Berlin operation, and was fully equipped in M4A2 tanks

Of course, Sherman had many disadvantages, but every tank of World War II had its drawbacks, the point is that Sherman looks overally the best versus other vehicles
Last edited by kondi754 on Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

funat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 9:54 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by funat » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:28 pm

Kondi, you are as brainwashed as one can be, and I am done discussing politics with the likes. Second - I am a European, served in a NATO comms brigade, living in Belgium. Enough? Third - what you are doing in order to skew the facts, is adding all the possible side context facts to push for your case. Sherman may have been better maintained, maybe more of them had radio, and they were used on the winning side - but that's all. Pure hard comparison with no side help puts Sherman very low in the long list of WW2 tanks, and if you gave the Panthers to the Americans and Shermans to the Germans, US would most likely beat Russians in the race to Berlin. It's a similar to war jets comparison where USA top trained crews in the latest models supported by electronic jamming and overwhelming numbers shot down Iraqi or Libyan or Yugoslav MIGs. It's plain wrong and intentionally omitted. And childish - not sure what are you trying to prove.

funat
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 9:54 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by funat » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:30 pm

Also - it's not "Soviet propaganda" that claimed Sherman was bad - it was American and British soldiers.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:33 pm

I'm surprised that 74 years after the war there are still people like you in the world and it's shocking and sad
I doubt what you say about yourself, but what you write about Soviets is first and foremost an insult to common sense

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:34 pm

funat wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:30 pm
Also - it's not "Soviet propaganda" that claimed Sherman was bad - it was American and British soldiers.
Do you know what Russian soldiers were saying about Soviet tanks?
funat wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:28 pm
Kondi, you are as brainwashed as one can be, and I am done discussing politics with the likes. Second - I am a European, served in a NATO comms brigade, living in Belgium. Enough?
If people like you work in NATO in Brussels, I'm scared, it means that Europe is defenseless :shock: :lol:

PeteMitchell_2
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by PeteMitchell_2 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:54 pm

I am not taking sides with anyone here... :)

I would just say, some of the statements above (regarding the M4 Sherman, Firefly being a separate discussion) are relative in nature and may heavily depend on the point in time as well as the theater of operations (i.e. North Africa in 1942 vs. Western Europe or Lend-Lease tanks at the Ostfront in later years). However, from my understanding, I would also doubt “absolute” statements claiming that Sherman was the single best tank in WW2.

Maybe to help calm down the discussion a bit... another thing to consider (i.e. to distinguish) in all these discussions is the important difference between technical/operational superiority, battlefield superiority (i.e. one-to-one comparison with various special cases, e.g. distances/ranges, operating out of defensive positions vs. open field engagements, etc.) and overall numerical/economic superiority…
Last edited by PeteMitchell_2 on Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:09 pm

After all, I will insist on my opinion, remember that different countries have different tactics of using tanks in battle
The US Army used medium tanks to support infantry and armored raids into the enemy's operational space
The tanks of the enemy were to be fought by units specially created for this purpose: tank destroyers and jabo (fighter-bomber aircraft)
The Shermans simply avoided fighting with the Tigers and Panthers and even late Pz IV

Once again: Sherman was the best tank in a holistic approach, not only in terms of the battlefield, but also its production and exploitation

Retributarr
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by Retributarr » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:34 pm

https://archives.library.illinois.edu/b ... tanks-ww2/
A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2
Posted on November 22, 2013 by
Contributed by Nicholas Hopkins


The popularity of the Sherman was not due to its superior design, but its availability and mass production. On the contrary, this tank suffered from serious design flaws.

Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks.

Because of their insufficient armor, the insides of Sherman tanks were prone to catching fire during combat. This problem was compounded when fires ignited shells and other munitions inside a tank. Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”[iv] Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”.

In the course of the war, tactics of coordination, as well as better ammo storage systems, were implemented to reduce the tank’s many deficits.

The Sherman M4 medium tank proved to be both a “death trap” for American soldiers and a poor defense against German tanks. However, its use by almost all of the Allied Forces was crucial to their ultimate success in WWII.

The M4 Sherman had many failings, but it was reliable.
https://www.quora.com/
The-M4-Sherman-had-many-failings-but-it-was-reliable-During-the-breakout-from-Normandy-Patton-covered-hundreds-of-miles-in-just-a-few-weeks-Would-any-other-WWII-tank-still-have-been-running
General Eisenhower wrote General Clark about the high loss rates of the M4 tanks and the reason for this. Simply put Clark wrote back telling General Eisenhower this statement: Our Sherman’s have to be within 600 yards of the German tanks and on their flanks, meaning rear to be able to take out these tanks. The German’s can take out the M4 at 2000 meters head on. These are the reasons: the M4 had a cannon which fired a shell at 2000 meters per second, the German’s had cannons which fired a shell at up to 3700 feet per second, meaning it could smash through the armor on the M4 like a hot knife cutting through butter.

Our tanks could hit theirs multiple times while they only needed one shot to either destroy or incapacitate ours. They also show one of the stugs up on a slight hill who knocked out 17 Sherman’s before retreating due to someone figuring out they had a problem. 85 men were killed before they made the decision and as one historian states, simply put it was murder to send these tanks into battle.

Lastly it takes 6 tanks to kill one german tank, 5 which get destroyed and the sixth who finally is able to get around behind it to knock it out. But only if the German tank didn’t knock out the runners first leaving 4 tanks for pretty much target practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... f-war.html
Thursday, July 19, 2012

WWII Myths - T-34 Best Tank of the war
The revolutionary design of the T-34

Moreover there were several problems created by the sloped armor in the front, the sides and the back of the vehicle. This choice seriously diminished the internal space of the T-34. Tanks are always crowded on the inside. The T-34 however had a huge problem when it came to internal space.

The limited space not only affected crew performance but turned the T-34 into a deathtrap. Due to the limited internal space a penetration by an A/T round usually led to the destruction of the tank and loss of 75% of the crew. In the Sherman the figure was only 18%. The turret also suffered from a lack of space. It was so cramped that it affected movement.

Fuel tanks in the fighting compartment

The T-34 had limited internal space due to the sloped armor in the front, the sides and the back of the vehicle. There were fuel tanks in the engine compartment and at the sides of the hull. The presence of fuel tanks inside the fighting compartment made any penetration of the tank likely to lead to the complete loss of the vehicle

Although the T-34's sloped sides reduced the likelihood of the tank being penetrated by enemy projectiles, it also led to a decrease in internal hull volume. In the event that the T-34 was penetrated, the projectile was far more likely to produce catastrophic damage among the fuel and ammunition stored in such a small space. The side sponsors of the T-34's fighting compartment in particular contained fuel cells that if penetrated could lead to fire and the destruction of the tank.’

Serious design flawsApart from the limited internal space there were two more serious design flaws.

One was the lack of turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns) for the loader. This meant that the person loading the shells had to follow the movement of the gun and at the same time keep an eye on the floor so he doesn’t trip on the spent casings.

The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets.

Armor spalling
The armor of the T-34 had a high Brinell rating, meaning it was very hard. This was advantageous in defeating antitank rounds of caliber equal or lower to the armor’s thickness but had the disadvantage that it could lead to spalling. Combined with manufacturing flaws in the construction of the tank this meant that the T-34’s crew was often in danger even when hit by tank rounds that did not penetrate the armor.

Automotive performanceChristie suspension
The Christie suspension used on the T-34 had the advantage that it allowed for high speeds on road. Its disadvantages were that it took a lot of internal space and it had poor stability in rough terrain.

A German test of tank pitching motion at the Kummersdorf testing facility (1km undulated track) showed that the T-34 had the worst stability compared to the Pz IV, Tiger, Sherman and Panther (2).

The Christie suspension was a technological dead-end and the Aberdeen evaluation says: ‘The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected’.

Problematic gearbox
Another major problem was the unwieldy gearbox. It had poor reliability and it needed excessive force to change gears, leading to driver fatigue. The study ‘Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank’ says (4):'Rough steering due to the use of clutch and brake steering control, and

Difficulty in shifting due to the use of a spur gear clash-shift transmission (no synchronizers, no clutches) and a multi-disc dry clutch, undoubtedly make driving this tank a difficult and very fatiguing job.’

Powerful gun?
The T-34 had a large caliber gun. The initial version was the L-11 76mm of 30.5 calibers. This was quickly replaced with the F-34 76mm of 42 calibers and the T34/85 had the ZiS S-53 85mm of 54.6 calibers.

The caliber numbers look impressive. After all the main German tank of 1941-43 Pz III had a 50 mm gun and that of 1943-45 Pz IV had 75mm. However Soviet tank guns suffered from low velocity leading to poor penetration and accuracy at long ranges.

Lack of radio
Initially only the unit commander’s tank had a radio. In the course of the war radio was used more widely but even in 1944 many tanks lacked a radio set. The lack of radio meant that Soviet tank units operated with little coordination.

Visibility problems
German combat reports show that T-34 tanks had serious difficulties in navigating terrain and identifying targets. The problem was that the vision devices made it hard for the driver and the gunner to see what was happening.

The gun sights in Russian tanks are far behind the German designs. The German gunners need to be thoroughly accustomed to the Russian telescopic gunsights. The ability to spot a hit through the gunsight is very limited.’

In a Russian tank it is difficult to command a Panzer or a unit and at the same time serve as the gunner Therefore fire direction for the entire Kompanie is hardly possible, and the concentrated effect of the unit’s firepower is lost. The commander's cupola on the T 43 makes it easier to command and fire at the same time; however; vision is very limited to five very small and narrow slits.’
Reliability problems

The T-34 was supposed to be a simple and rugged vehicle that seldom broke down. Authors like to compare it to the more complex German tanks that supposedly broke down often. The concept of the T-34 as a reliable tank is another myth of WWII.The majority of vehicles in 1941 were lost due to equipment malfunction. The same reliability problems continued during the period 1942-44.

In 1941 T-34 tanks often had to carry a spare transmission strapped on the back to counter equipment failures (10). In 1942 the situation worsened since many vehicles could only cover small distances before breaking down. In the summer of 1942 the following Stalin order was issued to units (11): ‘Our armored forces and their units frequently suffer greater losses through mechanical breakdowns than they do in battle.

For example, at Stalingrad Front in six days twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of their 400 tanks. Of those about 260 owed to mechanical problems. Many of the tanks were abandoned on the battlefield. Similar instances can be observed on other fronts. Since such a high incidence of mechanical defects is implausible, the Supreme Headquarters sees in it covert sabotage and wrecking by certain elements in the tank crews who try to exploit small mechanical troubles to avoid battle.’

Henceforth, every tank leaving the battlefield for alleged mechanical reasons was to be gone over by technicians, and if sabotage was suspected, the crews were to be put into tank punishment companies or "degraded to the infantry" and put into infantry punishment companies.'

The constant complaints from the front forced the authorities to investigate the problems with T-34 production. In September 1942 a conference was held at the Ural tank factory by the Commissariat of tank industry (12). The conference was headed by Major General Kotin, People’s commissar of the tank industry of the USSR and chief designer of heavy tank ‘Kliment Voroshilov’. In his speech he said:

''Now ... there are a lot of complains about the T-34. You all know the reasons for flaws in the tanks. The first reason –inadequate visibility from the tank; the second reason, and this is the weak link that always accompanies our vehicle in the Army – final drive. And third, the main issue that we have today – insufficient strength of the idler wheel's crank. These issues are the major defects of the T-34 today. Having considered these issues from engineering and technological points of view I would like to discuss another issue, the one that directly resulted solely from our production deficiencies. They are: negligence during production of combat vehicles in the factories, carelessness of assembly and quality control of vehicles. As a result during combat employment our tanks sometimes cannot reach the front lines, or after getting to the territory occupied by the enemy for conducting combat operations, sometimes they are forced to remain on enemy's territory because of some little things... We have to make sure that as a result of this conference all shortcoming will be uncovered and following this conference all corrections in the tank will be implemented in the shortest possible time...Recently comrade Morozov and I visited comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin drew our attention to the fact that enemy tanks cover a lot of ground freely, and our machines although are better, but have a disadvantage: after 50 or 80 kilometers march they require repair.

There were constant problems with the gearbox and the engine filters. The Aberdeen evaluators noted:

‘On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.

‘The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device’

The same study says in page 451 about the transmission:‘The transmission had by American standards already failed, although with extreme care it could have been used further. Teeth ends on all gears were battered as the result of clash shifting. Many pieces of gear teeth had been broken off and were in the transmission oil. The failure is due to inadequate design, since excellent steel was used through the transmission.’

The mental image of the T-34 travelling hundreds of kilometers without stopping is fantasy.

A German unit that used the T-34/76 model ’43 in combat noted (14):‘Regardless of our limited experience, it can be stated that the Russian tanks are not suitable for long road marches and high speeds. It has turned out that the highest speed that can be achieved is 10 to 12 km/hr. It is also necessary on marches to halt every half hour for at least 15 to 20 minutes to let the machine cool down. Difficulties and breakdowns of the steering clutches have occurred with all the new Beute-Panzer. In difficult terrain, on the march, and during the attack, in which the Panzer must be frequently steered and turned, within a short time the steering clutches overheat and are coated with oil. The result is that the clutches don't grip and the Panzer is no longer manoeuvrable. After they have cooled, the clutches must be rinsed with a lot of fuel.’

Quantity vs quality
When looking into whether a weapon system is cheap or expensive the price is only one factor. The other one and I think the more important one is its performance. Is it better to build 100 cheap tanks or 50 expensive ones? The price difference might be significant but that about the other costs? 100 cheap tanks will need twice the crews and twice the fuel as the 50 expensive ones. They will also need twice the spare parts. If 50 tanks require 25 supply trucks then the 100 will need 50. You get the idea.

Then there is the aspect of losses. A cheap but poorly designed tank system will suffer more losses than an expensive but well armed and armored one. Machines can be mass produced but what about trained crews? A tank force that has limited crew casualties will have many tank aces and even the rest will be able to perform well in combat. On the other hand a country that builds large numbers of inferior tanks will lose them quickly, together with their crews. This will create a downward spiral as inexperienced crews will make up the majority of crews and thus severely limit the capability of the armored force.

The endless stream of T-34 tanks
Another myth is that there were hordes of T-34’s attacking the German formations. A simple look at the Soviet tank strength at various points in the war shows that the T-34 was not the most important tank. The light tanks T-60 and T-70 and the tank-destroyer SU-76 made up the majority of AFV’s in 1941-42 and even in 1943-45 the T-34 comprised roughly half of the Soviet frontline AFV force. In summer 1941 there were only 967 T-34’s in the total strength of 22.000 tanks. For the rest of the war:

Comparison with German and Western tanks
The German models Tiger and Panther were greatly superior to the T-34 in armor and firepower.

The T-34 was superior in mobility as its 500hp engine gave it an excellent power weight ratio. Also its wide tracks minimized ground pressure and allowed movement in soft ground. However its stability over rough terrain was not better than the German tanks.

T-34 vs PzIII

The main German tank in the period 1941-43 was the PzIII. It weighed roughly 22 tons and was armed (in that period) with a 50mm gun.The PzIII made up 28% of German tank strength at the start of operation Barbarossa. Roughly 72% of these had the new 50mm gun, the rest the 37mm (25). These guns could only penetrate the T-34 from the sides at close ranges while the Soviet tank could destroy the PzIII from long distances from all aspects.

By summer ’42 it made up 51% of German tank strength. At that time it had received a longer 50mm gun that could destroy the T-34 from 500m frontally (with special ammunition). It also received more basic armor (50mm from 30mm) plus 20mm bolted on parts. The extra armor negated the performance of the F-34 at long ranges.

Despite its theoretical inferiority the PzIII was able to fight against the T-34. What it lacked in armor and firepower it made up by having a better internal layout, better reliability and optics, a commander’s cupola and radio in every vehicle. Its main advantage versus the T-34 was its superior reliability

T-34 vs PzIVThe PzIV was the main German tank in the period 1943-45. It weighed 25 tons and was equipped with a 75m caliber gun. During the war it was upgraded with more armor and a better gun.

The PzIV made up 13% of German tank strength at the start of operation Barbarossa (26). The model used was equipped with a low velocity 75mm gun effective against infantry but not armored targets. From mid 1942 the PzIV was equipped with the longer 75mm gun KwK 40 that could destroy the T-34 from 1.000m. The basic armor was also increased to 50mm (from 30mm) plus 30mm bolted on and in 1943 80mm standard (for the front hull).

The upgraded PzIV was superior to the T-34 in internal layout, firepower, turret basket, optics, commander’s cupola, radio in every vehicle and its frontal hull armor could withstand the T-34 rounds.

A Soviet study in 1943 (27) admitted that the Pz IV was superior to their tank, assigning it a combat value of 1.27 to the T-34’s 1.16 (with the Pz III being the base 1.0).The T-34/85 that appeared in mid 1944 was a harder opponent due to its new gun but the PzIV still had an edge in the ‘soft’ factors mentioned above. Moreover the heavier 85mm rounds limited the number that could be carried to 56 compared to the Pz IV’s standard load out of 87. The 85 mm rounds were not stored in a safe manner (28) since 16 of the 56 rounds were in the turret This allowed the loader to use them quickly but it had the downside that a penetration of the turret led to the explosion of the shells and loss of the tank.

Conclusion

The T-34 is the victim of Soviet and German wartime propaganda. The Russians had every reason to build it up as the best tank of WWII. The Germans also overstated its performance in order to explain their defeats.If the T-34 was as good as propaganda made it out to be then it should have led to great Soviet victories in 1941-42. Instead what we see in that period is the poor performance of Soviet armored formations. In 1943-45 the T-34 was becoming outdated as the Germans used updated versions of the Pz IV and Stug III equipped with the powerful Kwk 40 75mm gun and of course they introduced the Tiger and Panther.

The ‘best tank of WWII’ suffered horrific losses against those tanks and even the updated version T-34/85 could not bridge the gap. According to a Soviet report (29) in the period summer 1943 - March 1945 the probability of the T-34’s armor being penetrated if hit was from 88-97%, thus any round that managed to hit the tank was practically certain to penetrate the armor.

The T-34 looked good on paper but in the battlefield its ‘soft’ flaws led to huge losses. Meanwhile Western tanks like the M4 Sherman and Pz IV may have lacked sloped armor or wide tracks but they were better combat systems overall

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:35 pm

Thanks Retributar for this articles, It's all true :!:

In addition, as I wrote earlier US Army commander, representatives of the government and industry at some point decided not to improve the Sherman tank
After all, they could, like British, create something like Firefly + add additional armor plates or, like Germans, "Schurzen" screens etc.
They, however, believed that the most important is mass production, and any serious changes in design can cause it to stop - deliberately decided not to change something that works well, they preferred to have a tank with "good" or even "sufficient" or "average" combat parameters than risk complications in the supply system of armored troops. They calculated that what they have is enough for them to win the war. (of course, US producers eliminated the most serious issues and improved Sherman a little but only as much as it was necessary :wink: )
This is a healthy, free market and economical approach to military management and armament production, which was absent in the USSR but above all in the totalitarian regime of the Third Reich, where "Gigantomanie" was chosen (after the Konigtigers, Maus and the E series of super heavy tanks were next)

In conclusion, everyone criticizes Sherman because was well known, produced in thousands of copies and used mainly by democratic countries where there is freedom of speech and most of the information is public and criticism is admissible
Third Reich and the USSR were totalitarian countries, where everything was secret and propaganda distorts the picture of reality (Soviet propaganda works as we can see on many even today :wink: )
but if we look closely at German tanks, and above all Soviet tanks, we find out that old good Sherman wasn't so bad at all

martiniiirichard
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:34 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by martiniiirichard » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:44 pm

Dear Panzer Corps

I had an idea for an improvement for this game. Not sure where to post it, so I will put it here. Would it be reasonable to add a diagram feature to replays of scenarios. Something simple, like pausing the game replay, adding in arrows, circles, and other shapes? For instruction purposes that would be amazing. I am imaging a developer laughing at me over my something "simple" request.

Richard

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3037
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by kondi754 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:12 pm

@Retributar,Pete Mitchell
Some specialists believes that the best tank of World War II was... the British A41 Centurion :mrgreen:
In May 1945, six tanks of the first production series were sent to the troops stationed in Germany (or Belgium, like some sources said). They got there to the 22nd Armored Brigade just before the end of the war. However, they didn't have time to take part in the battles.
Attachments
Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG
Centurion_cfb_borden_1.JPG (522.87 KiB) Viewed 2527 times

terminator
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by terminator » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:44 am

Despite all your figures to compare the different tanks, there is one essential thing that makes the difference that you have forgotten: it is the quality and experience of the tank crew :!:

PeteMitchell_2
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by PeteMitchell_2 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:59 am

martiniiirichard wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:44 pm
Dear Panzer Corps

I had an idea for an improvement for this game. Not sure where to post it, so I will put it here. Would it be reasonable to add a diagram feature to replays of scenarios. Something simple, like pausing the game replay, adding in arrows, circles, and other shapes? For instruction purposes that would be amazing. I am imaging a developer laughing at me over my something "simple" request.

Richard
I like your idea, this could also be useful for AARs if I understand it correctly. I believe/hope all comments will be read by Slitherine but you may want to open a separate thread here just to make sure it gets the attention it deserves: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=464
or maybe just repost it here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=76834
Last edited by PeteMitchell_2 on Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

PeteMitchell_2
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by PeteMitchell_2 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:00 am

terminator wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:44 am
Despite all your figures to compare the different tanks, there is one essential thing that makes the difference that you have forgotten: it is the quality and experience of the tank crew :!:
Absolutely!
kondi754 wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:12 pm
@Retributar,Pete Mitchell
Some specialists believes that the best tank of World War II was... the British A41 Centurion
In May 1945, six tanks of the first production series were sent to the troops stationed in Germany (or Belgium, like some sources said). They got there to the 22nd Armored Brigade just before the end of the war. However, they didn't have time to take part in the battles.
Thanks for the additional information.

By the way, I just found this voting page, maybe you will like it... :mrgreen: If nothing else, it has some nice pictures all in one place, enjoy: https://www.ranker.com/list/world-war-2 ... rothschild

ptje63
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by ptje63 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:54 pm

Steven J Zaloga has written some interesting "Tank vs. Tank" books, including the T34, Sherman and Panther, with similar interesting outcome - for me at least.

PeteMitchell_2
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by PeteMitchell_2 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:05 pm

ptje63 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:54 pm
Steven J Zaloga has written some interesting "Tank vs. Tank" books, including the T34, Sherman and Panther, with similar interesting outcome - for me at least.
Wow, thanks, this is really interesting:
https://ospreypublishing.com/catalogsea ... +J.+Zaloga
https://ospreypublishing.com/sherman-me ... 1942-45-pb

Gomez_Adams
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:29 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #8

Post by Gomez_Adams » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:34 pm

funat wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:30 pm
Also - it's not "Soviet propaganda" that claimed Sherman was bad - it was American and British soldiers.
Absolutely correct.


Post Reply

Return to “News & Announcements”