Question on tanks.....

[Drake666]

Originally posted by JJU57:
It's one thing to discuss the technical merits or battlefield merits of each. But to assume that if the Germans produced a T-34 or Sherman the result might be different is crazy. It didn't matter what tank the Germans produced. The problem wasn't with the tank but with the number of factories and availability of raw resources.

Would 10,000 extra T-34 mattered if there was no ammo or fuel for them? Remember the Germans lacked many raw goods and never could produce enough ball bearings to meet their needs.

Finally, it wasn't till '43 that they actually went into full wartime production.

Your right about that. The German had to go for tanks that were better then what other nations had they never had the fuel to support the number of tank that the US and soviets could.

What they should have did late in the war is produced the panther and the jagpanther. They were two very good weapons that worked will togethere becouse of their speed and armor.

[Fabs]

Originally posted by Seth:
Well, if the Russians had produced Panthers, they would probably have made almost as many. Anything's easy to produce in large numbers when you have enough factories.

I am not an expert on this, and I would defer to someone with greater in-depth knowledge of Tank production.

However, I am almost certain that the overall effort required to produce one Panther tank was a multiple of that required for a T-34.

Given that Soviet industrial capacity would have been constant, the number of units would have been lower, but I can't estimate by what factor.

The mechanical complexity of the Panther made it less reliable, and that would have further hampered its overall effectiveness.

So, if the Soviets would have been producing Panthers, it is interesting to see if the lower number of less reliable but technically more advanced vehicles would have produced an overall effectiveness equal, superior or inferior to that of the actual number of T-34 variants that were produced.

Someone with greater knowledge than mine of the relevant facts may care to comment.

------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Nikademus]

like most things, all the 'little' factors added together to create the overall effect.

so while its true that producing a cheaper and less complicated tank alone would'nt have solved the problem it 'was' one of the main factors that contributed to Germany's lack of numbers.

a not so well-known fact of the war was that for a large % of the time period the entire German economy was'nt even fully geared up for the war effort!!!! how much lost production did that add up too?

sticking to the one issue though it cannot be denied that every forced upgrade and modification forced upon the Germans with the debut of battlewinners like the T-34 cost production.

development of such a big and complicated answer to the T-34 (Panther) cost more production.

finally Hitler's obsession with Super-heavy tanks cost yet more production

Granted, given the sheer economic power of the ALlies it probably would'nt have made much difference in the end (except maybe to prolong the war) but one does not help things when they produce tanks so huge and complicated that they can only build say......489 of them! (Pz-VIb)

[Seth]

Well, I think reliability is a very valid factor, and frankly, an exact duplicate of the Panther built by Russians would have been even worse. How many T-34's were built during the Panther's production run ONLY? That's a much better basis for comparison. I'm certain that there was more effort in one Panther than one T-34. I just don't think this matters. For instance, the Japanese and Italians produced pitiful numbers of planes, and the Americans produced rivers of more advanced designs. We obviously weren't too worried about how much time one of them took to make, because our factory floor area was probably the size of Holland Of course the better tank is going to be harder to make, it shouldn't be penalized for that.
Another thing, of course the Sherman and T-34 are actually still around in small numbers. (Well, the T-34, at least.) There were a lot of them, and the side that made them won. I saw a mint looking M3 Stuart in a Paraguayan military parade on TV. Doesn't mean it's a good tank, just that Paraguay is poor, and probably will keep putting truck engines in it for another 50 years.

[This message has been edited by Seth (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Nikademus]

I saw what appeared to be a full intact M3 as i was passing the FT Lewis installation south of Tacoma WA on I-5.

heh, almost wiped out. Hard to drive when one is craining their neck over trying to get a better look!

[Voriax]

I try to keep out of this best tank discussion... This story has really nothing to do with it but as you begun talking current use/existance of T-34..you may find this interesting:
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank1.html


Voriax

[Fabs]

Ok, Seth, but the point I am making is IMO a fairer way to arrive at a comparaison.

1)Apply Soviet production capacity allocated to the T-34.

2) Using a factor that my limited knowledge can't suggest, determine how may Panthers would have been produced by that capacity in the same timescale.

3) applying another factor for effectiveness, balancing reliability with the higher technical spec and its effect on overall effectiveness, arrive at a final number that would show which weapon system is the best.

I can't make the judgements involved in determining the two factors, I simply don't know enough about the subject.

I would not assume that the Soviet built Panther would be less reliable than the T-34. This is probably true, but then one would have to also question Soviet crews ability to operate a more complex machine (not necessarily because they were less skilled than the Germans, but because the numbers of skilled crewmen required may have been difficult to find).

The more refinements like this you try to include, the less meaningful the comparaison will be.

I know there are very clued up individuals participating in this forum.

Would anyone care to stick their neck out and tell us how it would pan out?

------------------
Fabs

[Greg McCarty]

Here are the best figures I have.

During the war:

T34 Overall production: over 40,000.

PzkwV: 5500; most were Ausf A and G.

That suggests an auful lot about kill ratios
AND production capacity.

Sources are World Almanac edited by a British historian.

Originally posted by Seth:
Well, I think reliability is a very valid factor, and frankly, an exact duplicate of the Panther built by Russians would have been even worse. How many T-34's were built during the Panther's production run ONLY? That's a much better basis for comparison. I'm certain that there was more effort in one Panther than one T-34. I just don't think this matters. For instance, the Japanese and Italians produced pitiful numbers of planes, and the Americans produced rivers of more advanced designs. We obviously weren't too worried about how much time one of them took to make, because our factory floor area was probably the size of Holland Of course the better tank is going to be harder to make, it shouldn't be penalized for that.
Another thing, of course the Sherman and T-34 are actually still around in small numbers. (Well, the T-34, at least.) There were a lot of them, and the side that made them won. I saw a mint looking M3 Stuart in a Paraguayan military parade on TV. Doesn't mean it's a good tank, just that Paraguay is poor, and probably will keep putting truck engines in it for another 50 years.

[This message has been edited by Seth (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Nikademus]

cool site Voriax thanks!

[Seth]

Voriax-Wow! In my car, I can pretty much laugh at SUV's, but I think I'd yield to that if I met it downtown.

Fabs-The point is that easy to make does not equal best. If that were true, then Ferrari would be worse than a Trabant. There may be some merit to the ease of use issue, but then again, the more technically advanced, the better. If the crew is poorly trained, it doesn't make the tank bad. If it's hard to do basic things, like drive it, that's one thing, but if some peasants can't figure out what the rangefinder does, that's different. Swamping superior equipment under numbers doesn't make worse equipment better.

[This message has been edited by Seth (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Drake666]

Tanks Production Quantity Production
Panther Ausf. D 850 Jan. 1943 - Sept.1943
Panther Ausf. A 2,000 Aug. 1943 - May 1944
Panther Ausf. G 3,126 Mar. 1944 - Apr. 1945

As you can see from this from just Jan 43 to Apr 45 Germany produced some 5976 panthers. You compair this to 20000 T-34s built from around 1939 to 45 and I would think the panther is not much harder to build. I would say Germany could have produced 20000+ panther if they were not produceing tanks like the tiger I and II and all the other kinds that they were building.

[JJU57]

Originally posted by Greg McCarty:
Here are the best figures I have.

During the war:

T34 Overall production: over 40,000.

PzkwV: 5500; most were Ausf A and G.

That suggests an auful lot about kill ratios
AND production capacity.

Sources are World Almanac edited by a British historian.

It also suggests an awful lot about the Germans being greatly outnumbered. Last time I posted this I got flamed that they weren't outnumbered as badly as the 10 - 1 ratio heard most often concerning tanks and aircraft.

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by JJU57:
It also suggests an awful lot about the Germans being greatly outnumbered. Last time I posted this I got flamed that they weren't outnumbered as badly as the 10 - 1 ratio heard most often concerning tanks and aircraft.

There is outnumbered strategically then there is outnumbered operationally and tactically. The Germans were often able to move forces around in a fire fighting brigade manner to use fewer numbers of troops to achieve favorable odds at multiple centers of gravity in quick succesion. Then again sometimes the Soviets were able to use their huge numbers to pin down the Germans and prevent this from happening (especially after Hitler's stand fast order, c.f. Stanlingrad)


------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Nikademus]

Steven Zagoda in his book on Russian tanks made a similar statement (as Larry's) in regards to comparing production figures vs 'actual' strengths at the front

He stated that there were numerous times when the #'s of AFV's at the front were not all that disperate between the German and Soviet army's

the overwhelming #'s indicated by the production figures must be taken in context with other considerations.

on the T-34 vs Panther issue, another factor that favors the T-34 (as best overall tank) was its adaptability. Introduced in 1940-1 the tank was able to stay competetive with only very minor upgradings. (the Sherman would be the runner up in this catagory, followed more distantly by the German Mk-IV)

[Seth]

Well thankfully, the Germans didn't last long enough to find out how adaptable the Panther really was, so it gets an unfair handicap there.

[Exnur]

I'd agree with Seth here and go one further.

Normally, when historians talk about the best tank, they look at it individually, and when it works. Sure there are valid points about reliability, ease of production, etc. But IMO, the best tank is the one you'd want to be sitting in when you're being shot at. I'd also rate highly a tank with the best survivability factor. It improves morale, and you improve the odds of keeping experienced tank crews. Using this criteria, I'd say the Panther wins over the T-34, more so over the Sherman.

[Leibstandarte]

Originally posted by Charles22:
Leibstandarte: Hmmm, I'll take advantage of your proposal. As you may know, we've been debating on whether the Tiger (PZVIE) is worthy of the 200mm front turret armor it's been given. Some see a hole for the gun (big surprise) and think it's peculiar to the Tiger, hence such reasoning suggests that it's not worthy of the 200mm rating. Why don't you ask him, if it's hole around the gun was any larger than any other tanks he knows of? Did he feel as secure with that frontal armor as is so commonly related? (Ask him both questions if you would, please)

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

I asked him first about the hole for the gun. He said that honestly he had never thought about it because they really didn't worry about Allied tanks taking them out. They were mainly concerned with the Fighter-bombers. So to answer your second question he said yes they felt very safe in the KonigsTiger.

On a related note having been on quite a few tanks myself in the service I would say that the hole the gun fits into would only be a factor in a down the tube shot, or a shot dang close to it. With 5 years experience as a gunner I would say the chances of this are very, very slim to say the least. I hope this helps.

[sven]

Originally posted by Exnur:
I'd agree with Seth here and go one further.

Normally, when historians talk about the best tank, they look at it individually, and when it works. Sure there are valid points about reliability, ease of production, etc. But IMO, the best tank is the one you'd want to be sitting in when you're being shot at. I'd also rate highly a tank with the best survivability factor. It improves morale, and you improve the odds of keeping experienced tank crews. Using this criteria, I'd say the Panther wins over the T-34, more so over the Sherman.

I disagree. Reliability must factor into it or you will have morale problems from lack of faith in the equipment. Also I am speaking from a strategic standpoint, not a personal one.

regards,
sven



------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[Charles22]

JJU57: If my disagreeing with you on the 10-to-1 ratio was "flaming" you, then prepare for some more . In order for those figures to equate a 10-to-1 ratio, the USSR would've had to produce 150,000 more tanks than they did (a sizeable exaggeration). Also, it's a LOUSY comparison, because the T34 was produced throughout the USSR's entry into the war ('41 onwards), while the Panther didn't start seeing action until March of '43. Compare T34 production in '43 to Panthers in '43 (which of course speaks absolutely nothing to total tank production) onwards and see just how further fradulent the 10-to-1 figure is.

[Fabs]

This is another one of those issues where a lot depends from the standpoint that is taken by the person who expresses an opinion.

If you are looking at the individual vehicle and you are judging it from the technical advancement point of view, then it's true that the Germans walk away with the prize, but the margin may vary if you decide to take mechanical reliability into account.

A great tank killer is no use if it spends too much time out of the line being repaired.

The Ferrari/Trabant analogy applies to this scenario. If you had to decide which of the two cars is better suited to a family you would get a different answer.

But tanks are elements of a weapon system, and German doctrine specifically stated that they should always be employed in groups, not individually.

If you take a wider view and look at a series of tanks as elements of a weapons system, considering the overall effectiveness of that weapon system, you may come to different conclusions.

How much more effective was a single Panther compared to the T-34?

Again, answering that using available data could be misleading because it may not take into account differences in the crew skills.

The Soviets had to crew a much larger number of vehicles. If this reduces the average skill level of the crews, tanks are going to get killed because they are being used less effectively. Having more of them compensates for that.

One would have to consider a situation where crews of similar ability confront each other a large number of times, and ensuring tactical factors are even.

The answer would then be how many of one type are destroyed or incapacitated in relation to how many of the other.

One still has to determine if producing a single Panther would tie up more materials and production capacity. Again, there are variables.

I don't know if German workers could assemble a more complex design in the same time or even faster than Soviet workers could assemble the simpler one.

It probably would not be a bad bet, except that Soviet workers would have been producing the same design for longer and in greater numbers, so their learning curve advantage would have been great by 1943, when the Panther started to appear.

As I said, it would be an interesting exercise. Whether it would produce a definitive answer is another question.



------------------
Fabs