NationStates

Empire of Cats wrote:By the way, the source for my "Soviet Wave" assault, for those curious, is "The Atlas of World War II" by Dr. John Pimlott. The quote goes as follows:

"It happened in the initial fighting in December that the Russians would advance in close formation, singing, and even hand in hand, against the Finnish minefields, apparently indifferent to the explosions and the accurate fire of the defenders. The fatalistic submission which characterized the infantry was astonishing." - Marshal Mannerheim

While this isn't the whole "IVAN WE CHARGE NOW URIIIIIII" suicidal charge that might come to mind, but is an indication that Soviet troops were brave to the point of almost suicidal actions in order to achieve success.

Anyway, I digress. OK, which was better - the T-34 or the Panzer III, as they were often engaged in combat with each other.

T-34, duh.

>Better armor
>Better gun
>Better patriotism
>Better alcohol
>Better subwoofers
>Better porridge
>Better tracksuits

Also, saw this and thought it was pretty funny.

(Image)

Spoiler that shit.

Uxupox wrote:

Empire of Cats wrote:By the way, the source for my "Soviet Wave" assault, for those curious, is "The Atlas of World War II" by Dr. John Pimlott. The quote goes as follows:

"It happened in the initial fighting in December that the Russians would advance in close formation, singing, and even hand in hand, against the Finnish minefields, apparently indifferent to the explosions and the accurate fire of the defenders. The fatalistic submission which characterized the infantry was astonishing." - Marshal Mannerheim

While this isn't the whole "IVAN WE CHARGE NOW URIIIIIII" suicidal charge that might come to mind, but is an indication that Soviet troops were brave to the point of almost suicidal actions in order to achieve success.

Anyway, I digress. OK, which was better - the T-34 or the Panzer III, as they were often engaged in combat with each other.

You can be brave when you expect a shot in the back if you turn around.

True.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:T-34, duh.

>Better armor
>Better gun
>Better patriotism
>Better alcohol
>Better subwoofers
>Better porridge
>Better tracksuits

What is this, Da Ali G Battle of Kursk?

For the tank experts, how good is the T-72B1. They have been using it in Ukraine.

Empire of Cats wrote:By the way, the source for my "Soviet Wave" assault, for those curious, is "The Atlas of World War II" by Dr. John Pimlott. The quote goes as follows:

"It happened in the initial fighting in December that the Russians would advance in close formation, singing, and even hand in hand, against the Finnish minefields, apparently indifferent to the explosions and the accurate fire of the defenders. The fatalistic submission which characterized the infantry was astonishing." - Marshal Mannerheim

While this isn't the whole "IVAN WE CHARGE NOW URIIIIIII" suicidal charge that might come to mind, but is an indication that Soviet troops were brave to the point of almost suicidal actions in order to achieve success.

Anyway, I digress. OK, which was better - the T-34 or the Panzer III, as they were often engaged in combat with each other.



Also, saw this and thought it was pretty funny.

(Image)

The T-34 was much better. Faster, much better gun, much better armor. Most versions of the Panzer III had a very wimpy gun that was almost useless against the T-34. Panzer I-III were pretty shitty.

Novus America wrote:

Empire of Cats wrote:By the way, the source for my "Soviet Wave" assault, for those curious, is "The Atlas of World War II" by Dr. John Pimlott. The quote goes as follows:

"It happened in the initial fighting in December that the Russians would advance in close formation, singing, and even hand in hand, against the Finnish minefields, apparently indifferent to the explosions and the accurate fire of the defenders. The fatalistic submission which characterized the infantry was astonishing." - Marshal Mannerheim

While this isn't the whole "IVAN WE CHARGE NOW URIIIIIII" suicidal charge that might come to mind, but is an indication that Soviet troops were brave to the point of almost suicidal actions in order to achieve success.

Anyway, I digress. OK, which was better - the T-34 or the Panzer III, as they were often engaged in combat with each other.



Also, saw this and thought it was pretty funny.

(Image)

The T-34 was much better. Faster, much better gun, much better armor. Most versions of the Panzer III had a very wimpy gun that was almost useless against the T-34. Panzer I-III were pretty shitty.

Yes, the armor penetration wasn't all that good.

As for ze Panzers...as the saying goes, it's not what you have as much as what you do with it. Isn't that right, France?

Empire of Cats wrote:I agree that it was a good tank, but personally, I actually think that the Panther makes a better candidate for that distinction. Our tank was good, but was susceptible to being knocked out easily. Panzerfausts? Check. Land mines? You bet. Crazy suicidal banzai soldiers with mines strapped to them? Yes, but only in the Pacific. It was not too hard to kill in a 1-v-1 situation, but its greatest strength lay not in the tank itself but in its numbers and the prowess - or lack of it - in its tankers.

The problem with the Panther is that the US Army found, in analyzing engagements made by the 3rd and 4th Armor Divisions over the course of 1944, that the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective than the Panther. Numbers, as in the myth of Shermans just swarming the German tanks with numbers, is also unfounded as the Ballistics Research Laboratory discovered that average engagement numbers had US tanks at only 1.2 to 1 German. All of that shows the M4 was not easy to take out, and superior to the Panther on average.

Empire of Cats wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The T-34 was much better. Faster, much better gun, much better armor. Most versions of the Panzer III had a very wimpy gun that was almost useless against the T-34. Panzer I-III were pretty shitty.

Yes, the armor penetration wasn't all that good.

As for ze Panzers...as the saying goes, it's not what you have as much as what you do with it. Isn't that right, France?

Yup. Actually the British and French had more AND better tanks during the Battle of France.
They just used them poorly and had not properly adopted combined arms yet.

Novus America wrote:The T-34 was much better. Faster, much better gun, much better armor. Most versions of the Panzer III had a very wimpy gun that was almost useless against the T-34. Panzer I-III were pretty shitty.

The T-34 was horrible compared to the 50mm Panzer III, to the point it was getting slaughtered by them and said Panzer III was the decisive T-34 killing weapon for most of the war. Even as late as 1943, the II SS Corps was mainly using the Panzer III and damn near destroyed both 1st and 5th Guards on the southern axis of Citadel.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Empire of Cats wrote:I agree that it was a good tank, but personally, I actually think that the Panther makes a better candidate for that distinction. Our tank was good, but was susceptible to being knocked out easily. Panzerfausts? Check. Land mines? You bet. Crazy suicidal banzai soldiers with mines strapped to them? Yes, but only in the Pacific. It was not too hard to kill in a 1-v-1 situation, but its greatest strength lay not in the tank itself but in its numbers and the prowess - or lack of it - in its tankers.

The problem with the Panther is that the US Army found, in analyzing engagements made by the 3rd and 4th Armor Divisions over the course of 1944, that the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective than the Panther. Numbers, as in the myth of Shermans just swarming the German tanks with numbers, is also unfounded as the Ballistics Research Laboratory discovered that average engagement numbers had US tanks at only 1.2 to 1 German. All of that shows the M4 was not easy to take out, and superior to the Panther on average.

True as to the Panther, though the Sherman did have to use swarm like tactics against the Tigers, which were much fewer in number.

The Sherman was quite a good tank, and could more than hold its own against most tanks. And the few it could not defeat one on one it could defeat with numbers.

Rio Cana wrote:For the tank experts, how good is the T-72B1. They have been using it in Ukraine.

The T-72, sans the export models such as the T-72M, are damn fine weapons with proper crew and equipment (ERA being the main one) able to easily best western models.

Novus America wrote:True as to the Panther, though the Sherman did have to use swarm like tactics against the Tigers, which were much fewer in number.

The Sherman was quite a good tank, and could more than hold its own against most tanks. And the few it could not defeat one on one it could defeat with numbers.

The problem is that we simply just don't know with regards to swarm tactics against Tigers. There were barely any ever facing the Anglo-Americans in the ETO, according to Steve Zaloga (Of Osprey fame) and the Patton Museum, so nothing definitive can be said. I can't imagine, however, the numerical odds were that much worse for the Tiger considering how even the Panther vs Sherman numbers are, and despite that, engagement range research by the US Army pretty much proved it was more than possible for a single Sherman to crack a Tiger using its mobility to hit the sides.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Novus America wrote:The T-34 was much better. Faster, much better gun, much better armor. Most versions of the Panzer III had a very wimpy gun that was almost useless against the T-34. Panzer I-III were pretty shitty.

The T-34 was horrible compared to the 50mm Panzer III, to the point it was getting slaughtered by them and said Panzer III was the decisive T-34 killing weapon for most of the war. Even as late as 1943, the II SS Corps was mainly using the Panzer III and damn near destroyed both 1st and 5th Guards on the southern axis of Citadel.

Most the Panzer IIIs had the 37mm and short 50mm. Only the long 50mm (and 75mm) worked against the T-34.
But the Panzer III was not a very good tank, and already largely obsolete by the time the war started. As noted above, it is not simply the weapon you have, but how well you use it. With better crews, tactics, coordination and combined arms support, a worse tank can beat better ones.

See the Battle of France. German tanks were not that good at the beginning of the war. It was there use of them that was superior.

And this is also noted by your source, that points out in many cases the T-34 was poorly employed.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Novus America wrote:True as to the Panther, though the Sherman did have to use swarm like tactics against the Tigers, which were much fewer in number.

The Sherman was quite a good tank, and could more than hold its own against most tanks. And the few it could not defeat one on one it could defeat with numbers.

The problem is that we simply just don't know with regards to swarm tactics against Tigers. There were barely any ever facing the Anglo-Americans in the ETO, according to Steve Zaloga (Of Osprey fame) and the Patton Museum, so nothing definitive can be said. I can't imagine, however, the numerical odds were that much worse for the Tiger considering how even the Panther vs Sherman numbers are, and despite that, engagement range research by the US Army pretty much proved it was more than possible for a single Sherman to crack a Tiger using its mobility to hit the sides.

Well the swarm like tactics would help getting around the sides. Two or 3 Shermans could definitely beat a Tiger.

Though the US also made good use of tank destroyers, artillery and tank buster aircraft as well. Which also needs to be accounted for in the kill ratios.

In 1v1 situations, the Tiger II was the best tank in WWII.

Novus America wrote:Most the Panzer IIIs had the 37mm and short 50mm.

Up until 1941/1942 yes, which makes it even more astonishing that the limited handful of 50mm equipped Panzer IIIs destroyed damn near 60% of the thousands of Soviet tanks knocked out in 1941. By 1942, your average Panzer III was sporting a 50mm and continued to whack Soviet armor long into the war as shown by Panzers of II SS Corps at Kursk.

Only the long 50mm worked against the T-34.

And yet, 22% of T-34 losses even in 1942 were to weapons of a smaller caliber than the long 50mm.

But the Panzer III was not a very good tank, and already largely obsolete by the time the war started. As noted above, it is not simply the weapon you have, but how well you use it. With better crews, tactics, coordination and combined arms support, a worse tank can beat better ones.

You're going to need to prove this weird assertion, given the fact that the Panzer III dominated the Soviets and Western Allied tanks for the majority of the war.

See the Battle of France. German tanks were not that good at the beginning of the war. It was there use of them that was superior.

Which is irrelevant, consider that the majority of German tanks used in 1940 were of the older varieties, which is not the case by 1941 and you were specifically talking about the utilization of the Panzer III against T-34s.

And this is also noted by your source, that points out in many cases the T-34 was poorly employed.

The source specifically notes the T-34 was poorly designed, and thus inferior to German tanks.

Rio Cana wrote:For the tank experts, how good is the T-72B1. They have been using it in Ukraine.

The monkey model export T-72s have been pretty useless, though largely due to be sold without proper training support.
The Russians sell them cheap to poor countries, but often without giving any support on how to use them properly, maintain them properly, or even do things like bore sight the main gun. Pretty much do a cash and carry dump and run.

The newer non export models look good on paper. Problem is the Russians have a tendency to grossly exaggerate and overinflate the effectiveness of their equipment.
Actual combat performance is almost always much worse than the claimed effectiveness.
Because they have never been used against modern western tanks, it is hard to tell if they are as good a claimed, or like much of Russia more bark than bite.

The fact the Ukrainians even with their shit military have fought them to a standstill says something. Russian performance in the Donbass has not been particularly impressive as the Ukrainian army is total shit, and should be easy to walk over.

Sure Russia has not launched an all out attack, but still the fact that the did not score a decisive victory and only got a third of the Donbass says something.

Novus America wrote:Well the swarm like tactics would help getting around the sides. Two or 3 Shermans could definitely beat a Tiger.

Of course, but the problem is we just lack the data to know whether or not your average Western Front Tiger was getting swarmed or if the odds were much more in line with what we know for a fact occurred with the Panther.

Though the US also made good use of tank destroyers, artillery and tank buster aircraft as well. Which also needs to be accounted for in the kill ratios.

The Tank Destroyers were the biggest waste of resources for the US Army in WWII, and how quickly they got rid of it speaks volumes. As for the rest, that inflates the kill ratios and thus makes the tank vs tank comparison here irrelevant.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Novus America wrote:Most the Panzer IIIs had the 37mm and short 50mm.

Up until 1941/1942 yes, which makes it even more astonishing that the limited handful of 50mm equipped Panzer IIIs destroyed damn near 60% of the thousands of Soviet tanks knocked out in 1941. By 1942, your average Panzer III was sporting a 50mm and continued to whack Soviet armor long into the war as shown by Panzers of II SS Corps at Kursk.

Only the long 50mm worked against the T-34.

And yet, 22% of T-34 losses even in 1942 were to weapons of a smaller caliber than the long 50mm.

But the Panzer III was not a very good tank, and already largely obsolete by the time the war started. As noted above, it is not simply the weapon you have, but how well you use it. With better crews, tactics, coordination and combined arms support, a worse tank can beat better ones.

You're going to need to prove this weird assertion, given the fact that the Panzer III dominated the Soviets and Western Allied tanks for the majority of the war.

See the Battle of France. German tanks were not that good at the beginning of the war. It was there use of them that was superior.

Which is irrelevant, consider that the majority of German tanks used in 1940 were of the older varieties, which is not the case by 1941 and you were specifically talking about the utilization of the Panzer III against T-34s.

And this is also noted by your source, that points out in many cases the T-34 was poorly employed.

The source specifically notes the T-34 was poorly designed, and thus inferior to German tanks.

The source notes that both design flaws AND employment caused problems with the T-34. It was not a single cause.
Only 22% is not good. The Panzer III was slow, underpowered, had fairly weak armor, and most versions had a weak gun.
What makes it good exactly?

It was already largely obsolete before the war started, as the Panzer IV was far superior.

German tactics, crews and combined arms support being better played a big role as well.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Novus America wrote:Most the Panzer IIIs had the 37mm and short 50mm.

Up until 1941/1942 yes, which makes it even more astonishing that the limited handful of 50mm equipped Panzer IIIs destroyed damn near 60% of the thousands of Soviet tanks knocked out in 1941. By 1942, your average Panzer III was sporting a 50mm and continued to whack Soviet armor long into the war as shown by Panzers of II SS Corps at Kursk.

Only the long 50mm worked against the T-34.

And yet, 22% of T-34 losses even in 1942 were to weapons of a smaller caliber than the long 50mm.

But the Panzer III was not a very good tank, and already largely obsolete by the time the war started. As noted above, it is not simply the weapon you have, but how well you use it. With better crews, tactics, coordination and combined arms support, a worse tank can beat better ones.

You're going to need to prove this weird assertion, given the fact that the Panzer III dominated the Soviets and Western Allied tanks for the majority of the war.

See the Battle of France. German tanks were not that good at the beginning of the war. It was there use of them that was superior.

Which is irrelevant, consider that the majority of German tanks used in 1940 were of the older varieties, which is not the case by 1941 and you were specifically talking about the utilization of the Panzer III against T-34s.

And this is also noted by your source, that points out in many cases the T-34 was poorly employed.

The source specifically notes the T-34 was poorly designed, and thus inferior to German tanks.

So let me get this straight. You are arguing that (typically) US tanks>German tanks>Soviet tanks....I guess that does make sense.

Interesting to note, but the Panther was supposed to have been the German's response to the T-34, in that they sought to develop a cheap and easily produced medium tank. They didn't quite achieve that, but they did make one heckova medium tank.

Also, completely unrelated, but I always thought that it was interesting to note that the only Pershing (our response to the Tiger II) destroyed in combat was destroyed by a tank destroyer called a Nashorn (Rhino) tank destroyer, shortly before the war ended.

"Nashorn from 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93 was also responsible for the destruction of the only M26 Pershing, destroyed in Europe. Pershing from the 3rd Armored Division was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945."

Oil exporting People wrote:

Novus America wrote:Well the swarm like tactics would help getting around the sides. Two or 3 Shermans could definitely beat a Tiger.

Of course, but the problem is we just lack the data to know whether or not your average Western Front Tiger was getting swarmed or if the odds were much more in line with what we know for a fact occurred with the Panther.

Though the US also made good use of tank destroyers, artillery and tank buster aircraft as well. Which also needs to be accounted for in the kill ratios.

The Tank Destroyers were the biggest waste of resources for the US Army in WWII, and how quickly they got rid of it speaks volumes. As for the rest, that inflates the kill ratios and thus makes the tank vs tank comparison here irrelevant.

Well some of the later tank destroyer models proved useful. Sure the half track ones were crap.
They got rid of them as by the end of the war it was possible to mount a gun on a tank just as powerful. Making the obsolete. But earlier on this was not always the case.

And sure, it is hard to asses one on one performance just based on total kill ratios.
A lot of factors go into it beyond which tank is better one on one.
Training, skill of crews, employment, combined arms support, etc. all have to be factored in.

Novus America wrote:The source notes that both design flaws AND employment caused problems with the T-34. It was not a single cause.

It states there were issues with employment in 1941, yes, but also notes that can't successfully explain it all away and most definitely cannot not explain why 1st and 5th Guards got slaughtered by the Panzer IIIs at Kursk.

Only 22% is not good.

The point was that the T-34 was not impervious to even smaller caliber German weapons, and also why by 1942 most German tanks were either the Long 50mm Panzer III or gradually becoming Long 75mm Panzer IVs.

The Panzer III was slow, underpowered, had fairly weak armor, and most versions had a weak gun. What makes it good exactly?

And yet, it was slaughtering T-34s as late as 1943 and most were upgunned by 1942. Seriously, you're claiming the Panzer III with the long 50mm is awful despite the fact two elite Soviet Guards tank armies lost hundreds of tanks against the II SS Panzer Corps at Kursk, while only managing to inflict 48 total (Not recoverable) losses on the Germans. Those sorts of results speak for themselves.

Edit: I decided to do some checking, and you're flat out wrong concerning this. The Panzer III had a higher road speed than the IV (25 to 24 mph) and was faster off road. Both had the same engine horsepower, and while the IV had better frontal armor, the III had superior all around protection with the mid-war models. The L/60 Gun could also penetrate T-34s frontally at 500 meters, and it was long known it could easily score kills with hits to the rear or sides on the Soviets.

It was already largely obsolete before the war started, as the Panzer IV was far superior.

And yet it was six times as effective as the Panzer IV at knocking at T-34s in 1942.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Novus America wrote:The source notes that both design flaws AND employment caused problems with the T-34. It was not a single cause.

It states there were issues with employment in 1941, yes, but also notes that can't successfully explain it all away and most definitely cannot not explain why 1st and 5th Guards got slaughtered by the Panzer IIIs at Kursk.

Only 22% is not good.

The point was that the T-34 was not impervious to even smaller caliber German weapons, and also why by 1942 most German tanks were either the Long 50mm Panzer III or gradually becoming Long 75mm Panzer IVs.

The Panzer III was slow, underpowered, had fairly weak armor, and most versions had a weak gun. What makes it good exactly?

And yet, it was slaughtering T-34s as late as 1943 and most were upgunned by 1942. Seriously, you're claiming the Panzer III with the long 50mm is awful despite the fact two elite Soviet Guards tank armies lost hundreds of tanks against the II SS Panzer Corps at Kursk, while only managing to inflict 48 total (Not recoverable) losses on the Germans. Those sorts of results speak for themselves.

Edit: I decided to do some checking, and you're flat out wrong concerning this. The Panzer III had a higher road speed than the IV (25 to 24 mph) and was faster off road. Both had the same engine horsepower, and while the IV had better frontal armor, the III had superior all around protection with the mid-war models. The L/60 Gun could also penetrate T-34s frontally at 500 meters, and it was long known it could easily score kills with hits to the rear or sides on the Soviets.

It was already largely obsolete before the war started, as the Panzer IV was far superior.

And yet it was six times as effective as the Panzer IV at knocking at T-34s in 1942.

From looking it up the T-34 had a top speed of 33 MPH and a 500 hp engine.
The Panzer III only 25 mph and 296 hp.

It was certainly slow. Panzer IV was not that great either, but did have a much better gun than most IIIs.
And if the Panzer III was so great, why were they replaced and converted to other roles than tanks? Why did they and stop building the III and keep building the IV? Why were they already going to different tanks? Cleary the Germans thought it was inferior to newer models and inferior to the IV.

The long 50mm was okay, but not great, hence why the Germans went to bigger guns. The short 50mm and 37mm were definitely obsolete. Hence why they were replaced as fast as possible.

I agree the T-34 was not that great either. But again a lot goes into kill ratios beyond just which tank is better.

Fact is the T-34 had a better gun, better armor, better speed. It was often used poorly and its crews poor. And yes earlier models especially did have major problems.

Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 were contemporaries meant to compliment one another. The Panzer 4 was never a replacement for the Panzer 3 until it became apparent the 3 could not be sufficiently up gunned due to turret ring diameter. And this as 1942-1943.

Rio Cana wrote:For the tank experts, how good is the T-72B1. They have been using it in Ukraine.

Hi Rio! The answer to your question is that they good tanks when used by competent commanders.

The T-72 is used by Venezuela and Nicaragua. You might enjoy reading "Trial by Fire", a book by Harold Coyle about Nicaraguan T-72s being used to fight against the U.S. Army.