CMBB v CMAK

[Nikita]

2 cents to add up. T-34s slopped armor was durectly influenced by Frnch designs, which were considered superior against ATGs compared to Russian ones. News about those tanks were delivered by a group of Russian tankers, returning from Spain war through France. Specifically, R-35, H-35 and FCM-36 were considered. All this (experience in Spain and new French designs) were the final argument to reconsider previous 1933-34 strategy of primacy of speed over armor.

Germans did not use the idea of slopped armor initially, because of conceptual differencies:
German approach was to separate functions of crew members and achieve good working conditions for each of them. They thought it was more important for combat efficiency at late 30ies. When you apply slopped armor, you are greatly reducing the working space inside and this was the problem of all French designs and Russian T-34s. You need to "sacrifice" one crew member and distribute his functions amongst remaining ones and still working compartment remained rather small. USA specialists refused to understand, how Russians were entering and exiting early model of T-34 during winter, when wearing winter clothes.
Small compartment has another serious drawback - crews had difficulties in exiting their tanks rapidly, which contributed to higher losses in trained specialists when tank was hit and burning.

[Mad Russian]

Well, finally i found something, unfortunately not in English or German, but I'll continue digging.

Panther:

Surely, engineers were closely co-operating with the military personell and formed up a specialised commision, which visited the front, where Guderian was present and made his statements (Oct. 18, 1941). I have all his memo on subject....

Why was there a need for a specialized commission if the Panther was coming anyway? Because it wasn't.

Hitler personally worked closely with the project, and was focusing engineers on armament and penetration capacity to withstand future Allied designs. F.e. he personally considered frontal armor of 80mm being not enough and requested to thick it up to 100mm, which is overkill for any Soviet tank or anti-tank gun at a time. This was stated by him on July 4, 1942.

I pointed out earlier that it was on Hitler's orders that the Panther went into production. Again, why would thy build a better that wasn't better? Of course a new tank would be superior to any existing tank not just be it's equal.

Generally:
Germans already considered rearmament of their panzer divisions and unification of tank design. Since they met Allied tanks of improved armor and maingun, and considered, that tanks may become heavier and better armored in the future, they changed their projects accordingly, so to say to jump ahead of time, i.e. have superiority over both existing Allied tanks, and future designs.

Yes, all models of the PzIII/IV were upgraded with better tank killing guns. A fact you don't want to acknowledge now. The PzIII moved up to a 75mm gun and the PzIV was continually upgraded with a longer barreled 75mm gun. All to be able to kill tanks better. Not the infantry mission you proposed earlier in the thread.

But none of the projects in panther development history was specifically designed against T-34. As I stated previously, it was a pre-planned upgrade,

You keep stating it but you haven't brought out a single source that shows it that can be verified by anyone other than you.

revised according to findings at the front towards increase of its combat qualities. But this increase, introduction of Panther maingun, thick slopped armor was not direct result of T-34. Main conserns were related to the future possible trends in Allied tank building.

REVISED ACCORDING TO FINDINGS AT THE FRONT?????? You have said repeatedly that the T-34 had no influence on the Panthers design. So then, what findings at the front exactly are you referring to here?

As I stated, the only feature, "copied from T-34", was introduction of slopped armor, which was rather unusual engineering decision for German hull design.

I never said the Panther copied anything from the T-34. I said it was developed as a direct result of the T-34 superiority over other German tanks. I said that the Germans asked that the T-34 be copied until a better German tank could be made. I said that the Panther was not being planned until the German tanks ran into the T-34 and they needed a better tank. Then the Panther was designed and put into production.

French were applying idea of slopped armor at several tanks, ex. FCM-36

I'm thinking you keep bringing this up because you think somewhere in here I give somebody credit for sloped armour? I said the T-34 was the best tank at the time of it's appearance. Sloped armour was a part of the reason for that. I'm okay with the French getting credit for inventing it if you are.

As for matilda, it is a separate topic and I suggest to froze discussion on it for the moment to prevent flooding. I doubt you are right about infantry support tank concept (how English people understood it when Matilda was under development), though.

The question of Matilda is very simple. You side step it since there can only be one conclusion. What other use would a tank have that is armed with a gun that only fires antitank rounds except to kill other tanks?

Answer...there is no other reason. Therefore by intent Matilda was designed as a tank destroyer. Yes, I know, it wasn't fast. Yes, I know, it had MG's. Yes, I know, it was intended to give the infantry a defense against enemy tanks.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

2 cents to add up. T-34s slopped armor was durectly influenced by Frnch designs, which were considered superior against ATGs compared to Russian ones. News about those tanks were delivered by a group of Russian tankers, returning from Spain war through France. Specifically, R-35, H-35 and FCM-36 were considered. All this (experience in Spain and new French designs) were the final argument to reconsider previous 1933-34 strategy of primacy of speed over armor.

Germans did not use the idea of slopped armor initially, because of conceptual differencies:
German approach was to separate functions of crew members and achieve good working conditions for each of them. They thought it was more important for combat efficiency at late 30ies. When you apply slopped armor, you are greatly reducing the working space inside and this was the problem of all French designs and Russian T-34s. You need to "sacrifice" one crew member and distribute his functions amongst remaining ones and still working compartment remained rather small. USA specialists refused to understand, how Russians were entering and exiting early model of T-34 during winter, when wearing winter clothes.
Small compartment has another serious drawback - crews had difficulties in exiting their tanks rapidly, which contributed to higher losses in trained specialists when tank was hit and burning.

Cramped turrets were a universal problem. It's one of the reasons that many Tank Destroyers were open topped. They had better vision and they had a much higher rate of fire since the turret wasn't as cramped.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nikita]

I understood I need to repeat myself again. Panther had to be a bit lighter, armed differrently, with different . However, findings at the front proved, that presented concept of universal tank was too light, because Russians already had similar designs towards weight and armament. So it was naturally decided to outperform them, as well as reconsider other technical decisions, related to mobility in poor Russian conditions, so the panther was delayed and came out as it was. But it was superior to Shermans, and all T-34 models, including T-34/85.
Idea of newer tank came out way ahead of noticing T-34. The project was upgraded due to Russian conditions and presence of both T-34 and KV, as signs, that Russians have well-armored tanks, which were met in increasing numbers.

For your knowledge commissions were visiting the front quite often, to keep up with the latest news of the enemy.

T-34 was not recognised as the best tank neither by Russians of 1941, nor Americans or Germans of the same period.

Basic principle is, that any tank should have capcaity to defend it own against the other tanks, but that does not mean it should be built or act primarily as a tank destroyer. Tanks are not its primary target on operational level. And I can not recall any major battle of WWII where tank duels as such were of scales, capable of influencing the outcome of the entire operation (even in North Africa the main result of tank duels was mutual attrition of tank forces). If they appear from both sides on the tactical field, they do become its primary targets for each other, because they are more dangerous, than ATGs, due to avalability to combine fire and maneuvre.

[Mad Russian]

I understood I need to repeat myself again. Panther had to be a bit lighter, armed differrently, with different . However, findings at the front proved, that presented concept of universal tank was too light, because Russians already had similar designs towards weight and armament. So it was naturally decided to outperform them, as well as reconsider other technical decisions, related to mobility in poor Russian conditions, so the panther was delayed and came out as it was. But it was superior to Shermans, and all T-34 models, including T-34/85.

Okay. Again, why would a country make a new tank model that wasn't better in armour and armament than their opponents tanks?

The Germans considered the Panther a medium tank. The Soviets considered it a heavy.

Idea of newer tank came out way ahead of noticing T-34. The project was upgraded due to Russian conditions and presence of both T-34 and KV, as signs, that Russians have well-armored tanks, which were met in increasing numbers.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! I get a big laugh when you go from the Panther wasn't influenced by the T-34 at all to the posts like this one where you claim the project was upgraded because of the T-34 and now the KV too. Nikita you can't have it one way in one post and another two posts later.....

For your knowledge commissions were visiting the front quite often, to keep up with the latest news of the enemy.

Normally commissions were sent to the front to check up on existing equipment. How it was preforming, how the new changes were doing, what new changes could be made. They were rarely demanded like in the case of the T-34 threat.

T-34 was not recognised as the best tank neither by Russians of 1941, nor Americans or Germans of the same period.

Yes, I know the T-60's and T-70's were the backbone of Soviet tank forces.... Even today the T-34 is often thought of as the best tank in WWII and even more often than that it is thought of as the most influential.

The T-34 was still in service with twenty-seven countries as late as 1996. That's not a tank I would think was very good.

The Americans? What would the Americans know about a good tank in WWII? Our best effort was the Pershing which had a gun roughly equal to the Tiger I. A 1942 German design. That's a ringing endorsement.

Basic principle is, that any tank should have capcaity to defend it own against the other tanks, but that does not mean it should be built or act primarily as a tank destroyer. Tanks are not its primary target on operational level. And I can not recall any major battle of WWII where tank duels as such were of scales, capable of influencing the outcome of the entire operation (even in North Africa the main result of tank duels was mutual attrition of tank forces). If they appear from both sides on the tactical field, they do become its primary targets for each other, because they are more dangerous, than ATGs, due to avalability to combine fire and maneuvre.

You are absolutely right. Tanks are not the primary target at the operational level. But to get to the operational level you first have to survive the tactical level and tanks are a primary target at the tactical level.

That's because no single battle determined the winner of the war. If you want a single battle that determined that you won't find it. To say that tank battles had no overall effect on all the theaters is something I don't comprehend. If tanks weren't the decisive weapons why were they made in such large numbers by all countries involved?

Again you are right. The Allies made WWII all about attrition. Now is when the Americans and their tanks show up in a good light. The Sherman was easily mass produced, repaired and was FAST! It was not a good tank to go head to head with the heavier German models. But by 1944/45 for the most part it didn't have to.

Good Hunting.

MR

[PoorOldSpike]

In "Panzer Leader" Guderian says Hitler went bananas when he discovered the PzIII had been fitted with the short 50mm L/42 gun instead of the long L/60 as he'd ordered.
Obviously Hitler wanted his tanks to have the best guns available for fighting other tanks..

[PoorOldSpike]

Patton (of all people) believed the tank should not fight other tanks but bypass them, therefore he felt its 75mm gun was adequate for shooting at its intended target - infantry.
Eisenhower agreed with him and the development of the Pershing was therefore not given the priority it deserved.
Later of course they realised their mistake as Panthers and Tigers made mincemeat of Shermans all across Europe..

DEATH TRAPS - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0...i_77148690

[PoorOldSpike]

It took years for the US Army to finally admit to the world and to itself that the best killer of enemy tanks was a tank
Gen. Abrams who served under Patton oversaw the initial development of the tank named after him. He and other WWII era tankers swore that American tankers would never again pay the price by going into war with an inferior tank.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-Hist...rategy.htm

[McIvan]

Nikita: Idea of newer tank came out way ahead of noticing T-34. The project was upgraded due to Russian conditions and presence of both T-34 and KV, as signs, that Russians have well-armored tanks, which were met in increasing numbers.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! I get a big laugh when you go from the Panther wasn't influenced by the T-34 at all to the posts like this one where you claim the project was upgraded because of the T-34 and now the KV too. Nikita you can't have it one way in one post and another two posts later.....
.....
Good Hunting.

MR

All Nikita means by this is that (as he has it) the Panther project had already started, but the arrival of the T34 led to the project getting far greater priority. Which is not at all contradictory.

Regards

[Mad Russian]

All Nikita means by this is that (as he has it) the Panther project had already started, but the arrival of the T34 led to the project getting far greater priority. Which is not at all contradictory.

Regards

How do you know that's what he means?

He has said that at no point was the T-34's arrival having anything to do with how or when the Panther evolved, that it was a progression tank. Meaning it was already on the drawing boards and going to be produced no matter what. No literature I have ever seen supports that idea.

At least that's what a progression tank means to me. We may be back to Tankers semantics here again.

Where's my turn? Stop all this modding and send me my turn.

Good Hunting.

MR