Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/13/2000 12:39:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 31

- 7/13/2000 12:41:00 AM

JJU57

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/9/2000
From: Chicago, IL. USA
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 32

- 7/13/2000 12:48:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 33

- 7/13/2000 1:12:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

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)

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 34

- 7/13/2000 1:15:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 35

- 7/13/2000 1:38:00 AM

Exnur

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/23/2000
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 36

- 7/13/2000 1:50:00 AM

Leibstandarte

Posts: 122
Joined: 6/19/2000
From: Austin, TX USA
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Cavalry Trooper (8th US) and Grandson of a Leibstandarte Tanker.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 37

- 7/13/2000 2:00:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

quote:

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....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 38

- 7/13/2000 2:46:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 39

- 7/13/2000 3:00:00 AM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 40

- 7/13/2000 3:27:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

Will got to add my two cents worth again For starters and idea of what each side was faceing. Tank losses for soviets 41-20,500 lost 72% of total tanks, most light 42-15,000 lost 42% of all tanks, half Medium & Heavy 43-22,400 lost 51% of all tanks, most Medium 44-16,900 lost 40% of all tanks, most Medium 45- 8,700 lost 26% of all tanks, most Medium German tank losses (This include both fronts) 1941-2,758 1942-2,648 1943-6,362 1944-6,434 1945-7,382 As for reliability. Soviets lost about 10% of their tanks to Tech Failure. As for the T-34, many were lost do to their gear-box and failure of transmission. I think from looking at this that you could say is that the Panther was the best tank of the war for the Germans and the T-34 for the soviets. I dont think the German would have did as will with the T-34 and the soviet with the Panther. The Germans were more skilled tankers and new how to make the best use of the Panther and the soviet military system was more geared to useing large number of tanks like the T-34 but with less skilled crews and heavyer losses. I would say the Germans could have matched the Allies much better in tanks but a number of nazis ideas came into play to stop this. The allies used woman in factories and other roles for much of the war freeing up man for war and other jobs. The Nazis never really made use of woman becouse it was against their creed. Will thats all I have to say for now.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 41

- 7/13/2000 2:42:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Leibstandarte, could you ask your grandfather how accurately they were able to shoot? what was the maximum range they opened fire? Did they speeden the traverse of tiger's turret by turning the whole hull instead of waiting that slow turret to turn? Was his tank ever knocked out or penetrated? And considering that there has been a lot of talk in this forum about what should happen when tank gets holed, well, what does happen? What are the chances that something or someone goes broken when the tank gets a penetrationg hit? Thanks in advance

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 42

- 7/13/2000 5:59:00 PM

Steve

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

Salutations gentlemen, Didn't German tank production peak in 44-45 at a level very close to the Russians?? I'm sure that I,ve read this somewhere...in fact I believe it was in Allan Clarkes "Barbarossa" that once Guderian got involved (and Speer) production really took off, however as always the empire builders were meddling and those uncouth artillery officers used their influence to ensure almost half of total production was in mobile guns..(Stugs etc) which were not classified as panzers and therefore escaped from Guderians grasp. The Germans went for the one million different models while the Russians went for the one model one million tanks(Well, a little literary licence here guys, but you get my drift... hey!! cut me some slack!!). As for best tank I vote for the one thats left once the shootings stopped...and hope to hell I'm in it!! By the by, did the Germans have IR/Night vision capability (Crude though it may have been) in there later tanks?? I seem to recall somewhere in the dim recesses of my addled brain that this may have been so.. Jagdpanther maybe?? This is in no way a statement of fact just a query!!(before some of you begin lighting your torches for a huge Aussie barbacue!!). Deepest regards to you all. Steve.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 43

- 7/13/2000 8:04:00 PM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Steve: Salutations gentlemen, Didn't German tank production peak in 44-45 at a level very close to the Russians?? I'm sure that I,ve read this somewhere...in fact I believe it was in Allan Clarkes "Barbarossa" that once Guderian got involved (and Speer) production really took off, however as always the empire builders were meddling and those uncouth artillery officers used their influence to ensure almost half of total production was in mobile guns..(Stugs etc) which were not classified as panzers and therefore escaped from Guderians grasp. The Germans went for the one million different models while the Russians went for the one model one million tanks(Well, a little literary licence here guys, but you get my drift... hey!! cut me some slack!!). As for best tank I vote for the one thats left once the shootings stopped...and hope to hell I'm in it!! By the by, did the Germans have IR/Night vision capability (Crude though it may have been) in there later tanks?? I seem to recall somewhere in the dim recesses of my addled brain that this may have been so.. Jagdpanther maybe?? This is in no way a statement of fact just a query!!(before some of you begin lighting your torches for a huge Aussie barbacue!!). Deepest regards to you all. Steve.

To give you an idea of German Production. 1944 Stug III 4850 StuH 904 Stug IV ~1000 PzIV 3161 for 44 & 45 Read about German IR at Robs panther page. http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/panther.html [This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited 07-13-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 44

- 7/13/2000 10:35:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I recall reading that one of Hitler's ideas, was that they couldn't hope to stem the USSR tide by tanks, so he was wanting to instead start making more AT guns and tank destroyers, and that those could keep up.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 45

- 7/14/2000 1:39:00 AM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Leibstandarte, could you ask your grandfather how accurately they were able to shoot? what was the maximum range they opened fire? Voriax

If you go to AchtungPanzer (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm) they have some good numbers on tank ranges, such as at what distance gunners were supposed to engage the enemy at, how many shots it took to hit at this range, etc. BA Evans

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 46

- 7/14/2000 6:23:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I read somewhere that at some point Hitler thought that sp guns with hollow charge ammo would eliminate the need for tanks. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 47

- 8/4/2000 3:37:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Leibstandarte, could you ask your grandfather how accurately they were able to shoot? what was the maximum range they opened fire? Did they speeden the traverse of tiger's turret by turning the whole hull instead of waiting that slow turret to turn? ...

Leibstandarte, if its not imposing, I'd still like to hear what your grandfather has to say on these two questions. Thanks to both of you. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 48

- 8/21/2000 11:55:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Hmm, a bit late here, but what heck, this topic just bobbed back to the surface.... While accurate to a certain extent, talking about how Germany should have better optimized its AFV production is somewhat missing the point; the limiting factor wasn't vehicles, it was crews and fuel. As late as '45 there were more tanks being produced than there were men to crew them, transportation to move them to the front, or fuel to fight them once they got there. Even in '41 and '42 operations were more limited by shortages of fuel than tanks. Something interesting to speculate on; what if the Libyan oil fields had been discovered in the '20s rather than the '50s? Or the current hydrogen internal combustion technology had been available....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 49

- 8/21/2000 1:35:00 PM

jsaurman

Posts: 129
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I think one needs to remember that all tanks had strong points and weak points: USA (SHERMAN) Strength: Mass production, super reliable engine built specifically for tanks Weakness: Very high profile, somewhat weak gun, gasoline could be flammable. Russia (T-34) S: Mass production, well sloped armor, well shaped turret, great range and good protection. W: Crude fit and finish, external fuel tanks, mediocre optics, cramped interior. Germany (Panther) S: Excellent gun, optics, protection. W: Difficult to manufacture, not enought trials to work out the kinks before being dumped into combat so were somewhat unreliable. Britain (the later C-series) S: Excellent gun and optics (17-pdr), good Rolls-Royce Meteor engine W: Also rushed to the battlefield, straight off the drawing board, so were very, very unreliable. There is no **best** tank, as you use any tank according to it's specific strengths, undoubtedly if the Germans could have mass produced their tanks on the scale of the USA and Russia they would have given everyone else in the world a massive ass-whupping. But raw materials shortages and production delays from bombing raids hamstrung them. They did do amazing things with what little they had to work with though...

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 50

- 8/21/2000 8:44:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Most Shermans did not have tank engines. There were all sorts of combinations. Aero engines, multiple large automobile engines stuck together, etc. Anyway, mass production has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how good anything is, much less a tank. Now, if you meant ease of production, that's something else.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 51

- 8/5/2000 2:09:00 AM

Skuderian

Posts: 52
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Purkersdorf
Status: offline

Hi Guys! My Grandfather was member of the 1. SS-Pz. Div. my uncle was member of the 2. SS-Pz. Div. So I asked them about the tanks they have used. They said that the best German tank was the "Jagdpanther" and the tank they feared most was the captured "Panther". For defensive missions they said that the Jagdtiger and King Tiger were more usefull. The American "Jumbo" was very difficult to kill. The russian tanks were easy to kill from distant ranges because they were not able to kill at the same ranges. For close distances they feared the JS�s. They never fought against the Pershings. Last point is that british tanks were not equal to the other ones. Greetings Skuderian

_____________________________

gez.

Skuderian

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 52

- 8/5/2000 2:29:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Skuderian: Hi Guys! My Grandfather was member of the 1. SS-Pz. Div. my uncle was member of the 2. SS-Pz. Div... Greetings Skuderian

Skuderian, May I ask what types of tanks they were on, were they ever on Tiger I's or have experience with them? If so, ask them how easy it was to acquire and track targets moving across their front. Did they sometimes rotate the hull to help get the slow turret onto a target or was this a problem only at close ranges? ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 53

- 8/5/2000 5:10:00 AM

crazyivan

Posts: 189
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

i have enjoyed reading all your input and some of you really go the whole nine yards when it comes to info thanks alot for your time .but getting back to the first question"what is the best tank in ww2 built on armour gun and design etc,my view is i,m sad to say would be the panther this hurts me to admitt as i,m a russian fan of what i would class as runner up the t34 series 76/85smm . the only thing that has saved my t34s from total wipe out is there speed which under the new waw ruls makes them very hard to hit at high speeds but in vs3 this could cuase a few breakdowns i,m thinking

. any way getting back to the panther its gun is a real stopper if you look at its penertration stats its very high velocity 75 shell could perice armour at greater ranges than that of the tiger and being more accurate due to its velocity, or though its punch wasn,t as powerfull as the 88s the latter modles being up armoured and with far better gear boxs wear a lot more reliable.but even if only one was ever built it would stil as a weapon of war would have been the best.

_____________________________

"The best form of defence,is attack"

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 54

- 8/5/2000 5:12:00 AM

crazyivan

Posts: 189
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

"The best form of defence,is attack"

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 55

- 8/6/2000 4:47:00 AM

Schrubbery

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Many of you are forgetting that every tank is a child of its own time. So, Italian M-13/40 was better than American M1A2 in 1940, because in 1940 M1A2 didn't exist. The same goes with all the T-34/85's, K�nigstigers, Comets etc. You can't name just one "best tank", because the war spanned from 1939 to 1945, and most of the tanks were not in service all that time (was any???). What you could ask is, "what was the best tank in", say, "July 1941", and the answer would be T-34 M41. Not in 1945, though.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 56

- 8/6/2000 6:30:00 AM

Hauptmann6

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Portage, MI
Status: offline

Yes, the PzIV in all of it's forms. I belive that they took it out of production in the fall of 44 but it was still a frontline tank at the end of the war... The PzIII also served the entire war but not as a frontline tank, it was used as the base for many SP guns ect... Haupt

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 57