Russian Armor in CMBB

[dave68124]

Has anyone noticed a problem in CMBB with the rating of Russian armor? After playing a few games of CMBB, it appears to me that the Russian armor, even at close range engagements (less than 500m), is substantially disadvantaged against the Tiger and Panther. I understand this is somewhat reflected historically, but the -34 has a 76mm gun and compared to equivalent U.S. armor in CMBO, the chances of a -34 knocking out a Tiger in CMBB is considerablly less than a Sherman v. Tiger engagement. It seems to me at least that Russian armor is not rated appropriately in CMBB. Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this or if it my imagination.

Thanks,

Dave

[Pzman]

My understanding is that the T-34s 76mm gun is not as good as the US 76mm gun, I may be wrong though.

[Commissar]

Are they hitting from the front or what? From what I understand, by 1943 and when the glamour cats made their debut, the old T-34/76mm had to almost be at point blank range to take out a Tiger or Panther. Flank shots were more forgiving but by 1943 the T-34 was showing its age quite noticeably.

While the 76.2mm gun was an excellent gun in '41 it quickly became inadequate to deal with heavier German armor by mid-War. Another factor that may explain why the Sherman 76 is better at taking out the glamour cats is the quality of the ammo. Soviet ammo was not as high quality as US ammo. The Soviet typically overcame the quality problem with higher caliber ammo. Availability of tungsten rounds would also be important.

[ October 13, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Andrew H.]

That's right - the 76 mm gun on the T-34 is pretty close in performance - slightly worse, actually, than the 75mm gun on the Sherman.

[killmore]

I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gun

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
That's right - the 76 mm gun on the T-34 is pretty close in performance - slightly worse, actually, than the 75mm gun on the Sherman.The analogy I've heard is:
Soviet 76.2mm is nearly as good as US 75mm
Soviet 85mm AA is nearly as good as US 76mm

This is a bit of a generalization, given the diff.caliber Soviet 76's, but it's probably close.

[zukkov]

hell the russian 76 even has problems in early war. it has a tough time penetrating the mkIIIs front up as well, not to mention the mkIVs...

[Mud]

Well, don't forget that the penetration and optics models have changed. In CMBO, most any penetration could KO a tank, while in CMBB, even a turret penetration from a decent gun won't necessarily even freak out the receiving crew enough to get them to bail, let alone KO the tank. In addition, the German vehicles might have a higher accuracy due to their optics gear.

Also... the T-34 was upgunned to the T-34/85 probably for a reason, and tank destroyers like the SU-100 also have a part to play. The IS-2's power is also quite hefty... if it hits.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by killmore:
I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gunDo you have a source for this? I don't think it's correct. I haven't used a Tiger in BB, but t-34s have a problem with the 80 mm of armor on the StuGs and later Pz IIIs; they shouldn't be able to penetrate the tiger from the front at all.

[Sitzkrieg]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:
The analogy I've heard is:
Soviet 76.2mm is nearly as good as US 75mm
Soviet 85mm AA is nearly as good as US 76mm

This is a bit of a generalization, given the diff.caliber Soviet 76's, but it's probably close.Actually, this is a pretty accurate statement in some quick tests I did to check this "generalization" out. T-34/85s are deadly to Tigers and Panthers (especially Tigers) up to around 750m, like the Sherman 76 in CMBO. After that range, the Tiger and Panther have the advantage with their optics.

In similar tests, the T-34/76 is completely outclassed at all but shorter ranges, even by the PzIV(l).

BTW, these tests were at 3-to-1 or greater odds in favor of the Soviets.

Keith

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Panzerman:
My understanding is that the T-34s 76mm gun is not as good as the US 76mm gun, I may be wrong though.It is not as good as the US 75

[flamingknives]

Posted by: Andrew Hedges

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by killmore:
I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.
The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a source for this? I don't think it's correct. I haven't used a Tiger in BB, but t-34s have a problem with the 80 mm of armor on the StuGs and later Pz IIIs; they shouldn't be able to penetrate the tiger from the front at all. I think he means the US 76mm. That would make sense.

[ October 14, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[killmore]

The source was History channel.
And yes that was 76mm gun on a T-34. (I don't know which specific type of 76mm)
We are talking extremely close ranges here. Probably less than 50 meters. Even if there was no penetration then 76mm was breaking off a chunks of tigers armour. Second shot was then fatal.
The program was about Zitadelle.

I do believe that at longer ranges 76mm was totally useless.

But then again Dailmers 40mm nailed my Tiger at 600m (front armour). So it is probably possible in CMBB too.

Also there was specification of "was able". So this is not 80% of the time.

[ October 14, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[Scots Grey]

Ok we are not comparing like with like here the russian 76.2mm gun on the T-34 is a good deal shorter in caliber than the American 76.
The 85mm gun(which is also on the KV-85)has amuch lower muzzle velocity than the American 76 and both which is less powerful than either the 7f/L43 on the Panther or the 17pdr on British Tanks
I have the figures somewhere and will try and post them when I have more time.

[Nippy]

Everything you wanted to know about Armor Penatration. (http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons6.html)

The only one missing from the list is the American 76mm.

Also, here is some quick data from CMBB itself:

Year is 1944, Ammo compared is standard AP and is assumed to hit 0 degree armor and 100 meters.

Soviet 85 L55 gun - 128mm
American 76mm - 123mm
Soviet 76.2mm gun - 86mm
American 75mm - 90mm

At much longer ranges +1000m the 76.2 losses to the 75mm, while the 85mm surpasses the American 76mm by a tiny margin. Of course, Soviet Main guns have the added benifit of canister rounds and higher HE blast value.

Fun fact: The Soviet 57mm L/73 is almost identical in preformance to the American 76mm up to ranges of 1000 meters and it seems to work better against sloped armor.

[EightInchArty]

Bigger problem than gun in T-34's is lack of commander. Two man turret doesn't allow anybody to look for targets/dangers, while shooting the gun. Look at the game; When T-34 fires (pre '43 model?) it's essentially buttoned.

Time to sneak those tank hunters close...

[K_Tiger]

Again, i startet a thread about the penetration datas from the "short" shermans, and in reply, i got the answer, that BTS mixed the ammunition from early to late war. Ok, this was a decission from BTS and it was ok for me, due to the fact, cmbo was more in the late part of WWII.

Now, i see shermans in 42`with nearly the same penetration stats. Why this now?? The Guy above me says 90mm at 100 meters 0° degree, Achtung Panzer (dont know theyr sorces) say 66mm at 500m with 30° degree. In the game we see 93mm at 500 meters 0° and 77 at 30°.

Im wonder, where the name "Pop-Gun" cames from...Only from encountered Tigers couldn be, there where to few around.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by EightInchArty:
Bigger problem than gun in T-34's is lack of commander. Two man turret doesn't allow anybody to look for targets/dangers, while shooting the gun. Look at the game; When T-34 fires (pre '43 model?) it's essentially buttoned.

Time to sneak those tank hunters close...Their spotting is freakin' terrible while buttoned...in one battle I'm firing MG34's like crazy (for 15 turns now), and they never get spotted by the T-34's. Or, if they do the T-34 loses target-lock when my unit gets pinned...and then they have BIG trouble acquiring new targets.

[zukkov]

i was suprised to see that the 76/L52 gun on the su76m is not as good as the 76/L42 gun on the t34. which one was known as the "crash boom"?

[K_Tiger]

Originally posted by zukkov:
i was suprised to see that the 76/L52 gun on the su76m is not as good as the 76/L42 gun on the t34. which one was known as the "crash boom"?Me too...but i dont know to mutch about russian weapons.

I was too surprised to see, that the german at-riffles are far better then the russian ones...i think, i read the opposite.

[EightInchArty]

The famous 76.2L52 was a true multipurpose gun; Artillery, AA, AT and Tank Gun. In fact SU 76's were served as SP-Artillery or SP- AT guns as needed.

Germans found them superior to their Pak 50 guns and captured AT pieces were used widely until arival of superior Pak 75 gun. According of Franz Kurowski's Panzer Aces, the gun was lethal to almost every tank in arsenal at ranges closer than 500m, and could kill Pz III at 1000m.

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by killmore:
I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gunThe history channel goof up alot. According to 'Weapons Testing Ground at Kummersdorf'
by Wolfgang Fleischer, the Tiger was immune to the standard soviet 76mm from all directions and ranges.
It states this changed in late 1943 with 76mm sub-caliber ammo penetrations reported at < 300m on side and rear plates. No frontal or mantle penetrations.

[EightInchArty]

Originally posted by Karl_Smasher:
The history channel goof up alot. According to 'Weapons Testing Ground at Kummersdorf'
by Wolfgang Fleischer, the Tiger was immune to the standard soviet 76mm from all directions and ranges.
It depends on too many facts to be reliable. AT rifles were able to penetrate vision blocks and gunnery optics of Tiger tank and thats where you aimed. Same goes to AT- guns. You can aim the thing where you want to, if you are half deasent gunner, so pure armor mm- reading vs gun penetration is academic at best.

[ October 14, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: EightInchArty ]

[Warmaker]

I still have yet to lose a Tiger I to a Russian 76mm. From the flanks/rear they should have a chance at very short ranges but they don't make my crew flinch if they hit me from the rear.

Sorry, the old trick in CMBO for a lucky hit just doesn't happen oftenly in CMBB. You're going to have to earn your kill against Big Cats in CMBB. The other thing is the caliber of the penetrating round. It just seems that smaller caliber rounds that penetrate don't really do too much to even a regular crew. On the other end of the spectrum a 75mm/L70 will wreak havok if it penetrates. I don't even worry much about AT Rifles too much in early war scenarios/QBs.

[Andrew H.]

Yeah, the history channel is wrong a lot. It's possible that the history channel was talking about the sides of the Tiger, and not the front. IIRC, the side armor on the Tiger is 80mm, which is what the Germans generally regarded as T-34 proof - cf the StuG F/8, the Pz III L/M, etc. So it's conceivable that the Germans believed that the Tiger's side armor would be impervious to the T-34/76 from the side at any range, and were supprised by extremely close range side knockouts.

[Mike]

Originally posted by zukkov:
i was suprised to see that the 76/L52 gun on the su76m is not as good as the 76/L42 gun on the t34. which one was known as the "crash boom"?Dunno - but I'm surprised to "learn" that the Russian 76/L52 was used on any SP chassis - AFAIK the SU-76 used a variant of the ZIS-3 76.2mm divisional field piece, which was to all intents and purposes exactly the same as the 76mm in the T34!

The L52 gun (I forget the designation) was a pre-war design that was produced in limited numbers only during the war, whereas teh bulk of Russian 76.2mm field artillery was the ZIS-3 of about 40 calibres.

[Sitzkrieg]

Originally posted by Nippy:

Fun fact: The Soviet 57mm L/73 is almost identical in preformance to the American 76mm up to ranges of 1000 meters and it seems to work better against sloped armor.
No doubt! :eek:

Fear this little sucker! I just tried a QB against a mixed Soviet force of T-34/76 and T-34/57.

I saw this in earlier today and had to try these out.

First off, in Oct '43 the T-34/57 is cheap (using variable rarity anyway). 22 T-34s vs. 4 Tigers. Soviets were Medium quality, Germans High quality (no one higher than Vet though). Rural, gentle slopes, light trees. However, not a "billard table" as there were far more trees than I expected and enough elevation changes to restrict full map LOS. Plus lots of marsh and soft ground (this was in the South). The tree cover enabled the Soviets to get within about 150 to 200 meters.

To the T-34/57s I lost one Tiger, another gun damaged with crew casualty and another took several partial or full penetrations from one of these. Luckily no crew casualities or damage but the guy almost paniced or routed a couple of times when he was getting hammered on.

I still was able to destroy all the Russian tanks but if I had mixed in more of the T-34/57s, I think I would have lost all my Tigers with as many shots as I took at close range (damn turret is SO SLOW!).

Definately a giant killer and not a "picked cherry" as rarity will attest too. Also, I never knew the Soviets mounted anything but a 76mm or 85mm gun in the T-34. Time to brush up on my Eastern Front knowledge I guess.

Keith

[CombinedArms]

So was this T-34/57mm a long dedicated anti-tank weapon (sort of like the Brit 6-pounder).

What's puzzling me in all of the above discussion of the T-34's limitations is how much this informed opinion seems to contradict the T-34's widespread reputation as "the best all-around tank of the war". Despite its sloped armor it seems that it can be readily killed at range by a whole slew of German AFVs. Moreover, its 76 and 85mm guns aren't quite as good as the Sherm 75 and 76 (at least against tanks) and these same T-34 guns are no where near as good as the Firefly's 17-pounder. When one considers the absence of radios and a dedicated loader till later in the war, the T-34 seems to me the inferior of the Sherman in all but off-road manueverability and ground pressure. The T-34/85 is starting to be a pretty good tank, but some other thread asserted that the Russians actually preferred lend lease Sherm 76s to the T-34/85. And if the T-34 is really not quite as good as the oft-maligned Sherman, then how can it be the best tank of the war? :confused: :eek:

Have we been sold a bill of goods all these years?

[ October 14, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Denizen]

It depends on too many facts to be reliable. AT rifles were able to penetrate vision blocks and gunnery optics of Tiger tank and thats where you aimed. Same goes to AT- guns. You can aim the thing where you want to, if you are half deasent gunner, so pure armor mm- reading vs gun penetration is academic at best. This is a very important point; we must remember that no armor battle works as perfectly as on paper, that it is foolish to assume that a certain thickness of armor is completely immune to a certain caliber projectile.

[Nippy]

No doubt!

Fear this little sucker! I just tried a QB against a mixed Soviet force of T-34/76 and T-34/57.

Here is a fun little test. Open up the mission edior and buy a T-34/76 and a T-34/57 for the Soviet and a Tiger I for the Germans. In the map editor have the Tiger face both T-34 models head on and set them 100m apart. Now select each T-34 one at a time and use the LOS key to "test" the tiger. Here is what you get.

T-34/76

Hit chance 92%
Kill: None

T-34/57

Hit chance 94%
Kill: Fair

I know which one I'd rahter have :D

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Have we been sold a bill of goods all these years?The T-34 was called by several of the big name German generals the best tank in the world in 1941. In the fall of '42 up-gunned german AFVs started to appear and rapidly put the T-34 down a few notches. The T-34 was really only king for the first year of the war, after that it fell way down the armor food chain. Most people who think its the best tank of the war have only seen the quotes from the first year and don't see the rest where the big cats ruled the battlefield.

[Panzer76]

The T-34 is a great tank. It is fast, it doesnt bog down easily, it can take out every axis tank from the front in the beginning of the war, and is very resitant to enemy tanks at that time point.

BUT, tanks rarly fought other tanks! Most often than not, they fought inf and Pak fronts. People tend to forget that the games they plau day in and day out vary considerbly from the historical battles, which goes a long way in explaining why people are surprised over X tanks performance in the virtual battlefield.

*Of cource* will the T-34 struggle in the later years, as ANY of the early years tanks.

[Slapdragon]

Also realize this, the M4A3 met the T-34 in battle in Korea and the middle east. In both regions it was, tank for tank, superior.

Now some of this is outside of the game -- the late model M4 was better built, easier to operate, and its stabilization actually worked, but the T-34 was no slouch, it just was just king of the battlefield when it first showed up against short barreled Model IIIs and 38s.

[Slapdragon]

Also realize this, the M4A3 met the T-34 in battle in Korea and the middle east. In both regions it was, tank for tank, superior.

Now some of this is outside of the game -- the late model M4 was better built, easier to operate, and its stabilization actually worked, but the T-34 was no slouch, it just was just king of the battlefield when it first showed up against short barreled Model IIIs and 38s.

[Denizen]

The T34 was the best design of its era, and if not for the T55 it would be the best design of all time. Here is why:

Dollar for dollar (or ruble for ruble as the case may be) no armored vehicle could match the capabilities of the T34. Built entirely out of simple dummy-proof parts, the T34 could at least compete with German designs of incredibly greater complexity. Even with a completely unskilled workforce suffering from malnutrition, the factory production time required for the T34 was between 3700 and 8000 man-hours. For comparison, the German heavies required hundreds of thousands of man-hours with skilled workers. Often criticized for not improving the T34 from 1941-1943, the soviets in fact made huge strides in the design of the T34, cutting production time in half, vastly simplifying parts and reducing the total number of parts, meaning that maintenance of the vehicles became easier as well as production. On the whole, the significant thing about the T34 is not its capability in comparison to other tanks, but rather the fact that it was supremely superior use of resources; all of the man and material that went into the production and maintenance of a single Panther platoon or even a Sherman or PzR 3 platoon would be enough to create a force of T34s several times larger. The T34 is history's most important AFV; its unparalleled efficiency allowed a the Soviet Union to become a superpower by 1945 after having been teetering on the brink of capitulation in 1941.

[PJungnitsch]

These figures were posted before:

Average cost of Sherman combat models produced from January 1942 - May 1945 is $48,798
Panther: $39,000
T-34/76: 34,000
T-34/85: $29,500

Prices are dollars adjusted for various factors.

While the T-34 was somewhat cheaper than its rivals, it was not by that much. And I would wager that production time of Panther (very slightly more than Sherman) in '44 was similar to T-34 as Panther was specifically designed for mass production.

Each however did suit their own countries production techniques.

[K_Tiger]

Denizen.

You forgot to mention, the unparalleled death rate of the T-34.. :D

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Denizen:
For comparison, the German heavies required hundreds of thousands of man-hours with skilled workers. .The Germans found that in '43 the amount of hours required to build five PIIIs would result in 4 Panthers. Which one is more cost effective.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Denizen:
all of the man and material that went into the production and maintenance of a single Panther platoon or even a Sherman or PzR 3 platoon would be enough to create a force of T34s several times larger..I'd be interested if you could substantiate this.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:
These figures were posted before:

Average cost of Sherman combat models produced from January 1942 - May 1945 is $48,798
Panther: $39,000
T-34/76: 34,000
T-34/85: $29,500

Prices are dollars adjusted for various factors...I'm rather skeptical that the Panther was about 80% of the cost of a Sherman, which makes me wonder about all the other figures as well. What is your source for this?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:
So was this T-34/57mm a long dedicated anti-tank weapon (sort of like the Brit 6-pounder).

What's puzzling me in all of the above discussion of the T-34's limitations is how much this informed opinion seems to contradict the T-34's widespread reputation as "the best all-around tank of the war". Despite its sloped armor it seems that it can be readily killed at range by a whole slew of German AFVs. Moreover, its 76 and 85mm guns aren't quite as good as the Sherm 75 and 76 (at least against tanks) and these same T-34 guns are no where near as good as the Firefly's 17-pounder. When one considers the absence of radios and a dedicated loader till later in the war, the T-34 seems to me the inferior of the Sherman in all but off-road manueverability and ground pressure. The T-34/85 is starting to be a pretty good tank, but some other thread asserted that the Russians actually preferred lend lease Sherm 76s to the T-34/85. And if the T-34 is really not quite as good as the oft-maligned Sherman, then how can it be the best tank of the war? :confused: :eek:

Have we been sold a bill of goods all these years?My view on this is the fact that the T34/76 was so advanced for its day bearing in mind it was first available in late 1940 (from memory). Not only was it the first medium battle tank to have substantially sloped armour to specifically aid its survivability, it was damn fast, low silhouette, significantly low ground pressure to enable it to go just about anywhere and finally, it also had a bloody big gun for its day which was at least the equivalent of its main rival's 50mm versions (German) and 40mm versions (British) in terms of AFV penetration and far superior in terms of HE effect on soft targets.

The other thing worth noting is that the Sherman only became available on the battlefront around mid to late 1942 i.e. almost 2 years later, yet was not a substantial improvement on its Russian predecessor in terms of AFV penetration and soft target effectiveness while being easier to hit because of its tall design, poorer ground pressure and therefore less flexible in all conditions, easier to penetrate (initial models at least) and slower to boot.

That's the crux of the matter in terms of best tank of WWII. It most certainly was the absolute standout contender for the early period of the war. Whether the Panther trumped these very same benefits later in the war is a matter of personal opinion.

Regards

Jim R.

[TSword]

In 1940 & 41 the T-34 was the best tank in the world.
In 1942 and 1943 the Soviets put out roughly 15'000-20'000 T-34 per year which was only possible by concentration. In 1943 they looked for improvements like the T-40 which was beaten by Tiger and Panther already before introduction. Tiger and Panther led the Soviets to the JS-2 (The only russian MBT which could kill both at over 1000 m from the front). The germans in 1941 were in a disadvantage against the T-34 and KV-1 weapons and armor wise, so they caught up in 1942 with some additional margin. In 1943 the Panther and Tiger then totally dominated vs. the Soviet designs (Which led the Soviets to abandon T-40 and go into direction of JS-2 and ISU-100, ISU-152). Only in mid 1944 the Soviets then catched up with their upgunned tanks like T-34/85 (still inferior to Tiger I and Panther) and JS-2 (basically a KV-1 with a (to) big gun). Although russian doctrine called mainly for artillery to stop enemy tanks, tank vs. tank however sometimes was unavoidable.
In 1945 the Soviets then introduced the JS-3 (the ancestor of T-55) which completely outclassed any western design of the time.
The T-34 was a 1938 design whereas the odd Sherman was a 1942 design. The 75mm Sherman with it's narrow track and high center of gravity was just a helpless junk of steel in the east (one only imagine them in the mud season, lying stranded on the side like some dead praehistoric animal..). Only positive thing the later M4's had wet ammo storage and good almost luxury interior layout (in comparison to T-34) which made it liked by it's crew. Don't think the 76 mm version were more prominent up to late 1944 then in the West...

Greets
Daniel

[ October 15, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:
I'm rather skeptical that the Panther was about 80% of the cost of a Sherman, which makes me wonder about all the other figures as well. What is your source for this?You think you were skeptical, you should have seen the reaction of the SLS (Sherman Lovers Society) on Tanknet and Onwar. It was interesting that while everyone there expected the Sherman to be substantially cheaper no one had any figures proving this.

Source is Mark Harrisons 'Accounting For War'

Part of the problem could have been the 'cost plus' system that the US government setup with military manufacturing companies.

[ October 15, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]

[Bluecoat]

Don't forget that like the Sherman, the T-34 was just as adaptable - beng much upgunned - taking the 57mm, the 75 to 76mm and ultimately after 1943, in larger numbers the 85mm. This evolution rang alongside the improvment of the ergonomics of its design for its crew and mechanical efficiencies.

The Original T-34 did a colossal route march if I remember rightly - covering one helluva distance (i have the details somewhere :/)

It also provided the chasis for the other Russian Spg's.

Thats another bonus of the T-34 that in design terms matched the sherman (and thats without the aforementioned +'s of curved armour, tracks, speed etc).

[MikeyD]

If you like the Cromwells and Comets in CMBO you should like the BTs and T34s in CMBB. They're both based on the pre-war designs of U.S. inventor Walter Christie.

I can't remember precisely why the U.S. rejected his designs in favor of the Sherman type. It may have had to do with Christie suspension units intruding into the fighting compartment (or in the Brit case, double wall construction). Stuart and Sherman both have bolt-on exterior suspension, leaving the interior free.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian Rock:
I'm rather skeptical that the Panther was about 80% of the cost of a Sherman, which makes me wonder about all the other figures as well. What is your source for this?You think you were skeptical, you should have seen the reaction of the SLS (Sherman Lovers Society) on Tanknet and Onwar. It was interesting that while everyone there expected the Sherman to be substantially cheaper no one had any figures proving this.

Source is Mark Harrisons 'Accounting For War'

Part of the problem could have been the 'cost plus' system that the US government setup with military manufacturing companies.</font>[/QUOTE]Could not part of the problem have been the use of slave labour, and the hidden hyper-inflation in the Reich? I do not know how/if Harrison's book accounts for these and other problems, but I would have thought that they are rather serious when trying to do comparisons.

[MikeyD]

I recall reading of the Tiger I costing an outrageous amount and taking a staggering number of man-hours to produce. Panther may have learned from the earlier Tiger and been less complex to construct, but it does does NOT look like a $40,000 vehicle even in post-depression dollars.

I'm not entirely sure how one could compare prices of products produced from such wildly differing economic systems as the U.S. industrial free-market, Socialist command economy, and the German capitalist/slave worker economies.

[Broken]

I would be careful comparing cost figures from capitalist, fascist and communists countries. A better indicator of how easy they were to produce is the actual production figures compared to the relative sizes of the economies.

[Vipez]

Oh nice to see i'm not the only one thinking about russian tank quality.
CMBB is much differant than CMBO, since now I really have to thing what i do, especially with ruskies.

And somehow i have trouble with KV1s & T34s dealing with German Panzer3S. Somehow i think PZ3 is equal to T-34. Btw if someone has tried that mission "Katukov strikes back" it is not that easy to get the german pz3s since they do have a big chance to get the t34s, though T34s probably have great advantage from greater ranges to Pz4 early versions & pz3s...

Must have been hard atleast in the Kursk battle for the russians. Since the ZIS3 gun can kill german cats from ranges less than 300 only. Has anyone actually won that mission "von Lauchert" I have found it impossible to play with russians. German panthers allways knock out my t34s & kv1 from ranges beyond 2 km and i can't even shoot at those ranges. Even the 122 mm is not enough to deal with Panthers. :rolleyes:

sorry about typos, wrote this so quickly :eek:

[Mike]

Everything you want to know about the T34/57 is Here. (http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_57.html)

[PJungnitsch]

A few points:

Cost is not directly proportional to the size or weight of the tank, or how formidable it is. The Germans own figures show the PzIII, PzIV, and Panther at being about the same cost. The Tiger was almost three times the cost of the Panther, and it is only about 25% heavier. The Kingtiger is only slightly more expensive than a Tiger, despite being considerably more well armed and armoured.

German tank costs (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm#price)

Just because it seemed a Sherman or a T-34 seems like it should be cheap does not mean it would be so as there are many other factors involved.

About the slave labor issue that Panther costs are actually inflated to account for that. Actual cost of a Panther is closer to $32,000. The costs quoted are those of Alex Hellmunds from this thread:
Onwar tank cost discussion (http://www.onwar.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000409.html)

If you think the Shermans that the Americans used were expensive, just keep in mind they charged the British $90,000!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tmu:
Must have been hard atleast in the Kursk battle for the russians. Since the ZIS3 gun can kill german cats from ranges less than 300 only. Has anyone actually won that mission "von Lauchert" I have found it impossible to play with russians. German panthers allways knock out my t34s & kv1 from ranges beyond 2 km and i can't even shoot at those ranges. Even the 122 mm is not enough to deal with Panthers. :rolleyes:

And the unrepairable tank losses for each side during Kursk highlight how far the T-34 had slipped in the Gun/armour race vs. German 7,5cm guns and 7/8cm armour.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:
A few points:

Cost is not directly proportional to the size or weight of the tank, or how formidable it is. If Weight were the primary determinate the StuG would end up as more expensive to build than the lighter PIII.

[Brian Rock]

Thanks for the source, Paul.

I've seen figures on the net for German armour in Reichsmarks (the Achtung Panzer figures), and figures for T-34s in roubles ( http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/t3476/t3476.htm ). I haven't seen what these figures are based on, nor any information on how to convert them to US dollars (straight conversion or better still some form of purchase parity).

I'll try to get hold of Harrison's book - it may have more detail on sources and methods.

[ October 15, 2002, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

[Foreigner]

I have a problem with wartime pricing of any kind, because all belligerents employed at least some form of additional central government intervention in the economy - be it simple rationing, price/wage controls, centralized resource allocation, forced labor... In such an environment prices would not accurately reflect the relative availability/productivity of a particular resource - be it raw materials, precision tools or trained technicians, and there are no simple solutions to that problem.

For example, if the Panther and Tiger II were relatively "cheap" for their fighting capabilities, why were they not produced in greater numbers? One possible answer is "wrong decision due to stupidity/conservative thinking/inertia/political infighting..." However, a much more realistic answer would be along the lines of "scarce materials/lack of trained workforce/insufficient production capacity/the need to extensively modify existing production lines/..." And IMHO it is precisely such resource scarcity that is not adequately reflected in wartime prices (even corrected for exchange rates) - especially so for the German economy, which was in the most severe resource crunch.

Now let's assume copper is the only restricted resource, and assume that a Tiger II uses twice as much as a Panther. So by building a Tiger II you are effectively giving up two Panthers. Will accounting "cost" show the Tiger II as being twice the cost of a Panther based on the usage of copper alone? No, unless both tanks are made of copper only smile.gif . Will the battlefield "feel" the absence of two Panthers? My guess, yes. Will the benefit of one Tiger II outweigh the benefit of two Panthers? Open for debate, but not in this post.

So, IMO, to work out a really meaningful and comprehensive comparative "war economics" cost estimates for any vehicle, you need to identify the critical scarce resources for each economy, set a "fair" price for each resource and obtain reliable data on how much of each any particular vehicle used up. Throw in such indirect costs as lifetime operating costs (fuel consumption, anyone?), training, costs of adapting or expanding production...

If it looks bad already, it gets worse. Unless vehicles are so accomodating as to come up consistently better or worse in all parameters, you also need some system of rating or assigning relative weights so that you can come up with a single "cost" value.

And to top it off, you have to convince others that your prices and weights are the right ones. I suspect any argument over those would make a Peng™ thread look like a church ice-cream social. :D

Anyway, just thought the thread and the forum could use a little more confusion... ;)

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Foreigner:
For example, if the Panther and Tiger II were relatively "cheap" for their fighting capabilities, why were they not produced in greater numbers?This comes up quite a lot.

One thing to keep in mind however is that Panther production ramped up somewhat faster than the T-34 did, despite having a much shorter development time.

T-34 prototypes (developed from BT series) 1937-1939
First year of production:1940 110 made
Cancelling the T-34 completely was considered, because of the huge problems building it.
Second year of production:1941 2800 made
Third year of production things took off.
From Russian Battlefield (http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html)

First Panther prototypes (from scratch) 1942
First year of production:1943 1769 made
Second year of production:1944 3462 made despite massive Allied air raids.
Third year of production the war ended smile.gif
From The Desert Fox (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Production.html)

[Foreigner]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:
One thing to keep in mind however is that Panther production ramped up somewhat faster than the T-34 did, despite having a much shorter development time. I would agree with the longer developmental cycle for T-34, but the problem with production statistics (or any statistics, for that matter) is that it's like a bathing suit - it shows a lot, but usually hides the most important. :D

For starters, although the Soviet Union had more (potential) resources, no one would argue that the industrial development of Germany was much higher, with a much longer and stronger industrial tradition. As a result of WWI Germany (apart from human casualties) lost some territory, had some serious restrictions imposed by the Versailles Treaty, and had to pay reparations. Not to mention the political and economical turmoil of the Weimar Republic and the effects of the Great Depression. But AFAIK its territory was not occupied by foreign troops, and no signifant fighting went on on German soil (actually, until 1944), so at least the physical stock of capital was not significantly damaged. On the other hand, the Soviet Union had to deal with both a civil war and foreign intervention from 1918 till 1920 (at least). Plus, even Czarist Russia wasn't an industrial power, so the Soviets had to first rebuild the devastation, and then start industrialization in the mid to late 1920s, IIRC, "from scratch". Along the following lines, I remember a quote from a British report on the T-34 that, while noting the crude finish of the armor, specifically stated that it didn't seem to compromise the quality to the welding seams or any other critical performance features. To borrow a quote about AK-47, "...it is a crude design and finish except where it matters most..." (in AK-47's case - the barrel and action). The same British report concludes that "...for a country industrialized so recently..." T-34 was a surprisingly solid and effective design.

Another factor to note is that T-34's development started in the interwar years - when no one knew they will be "interwar". War definitely adds urgency - and lack of war always reduces the willingness of any nation to invest in military research and production. While the Panther was comissioned precisely as a means to address an urgent war problem - namely the T-34/KV combo. This article (http://achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther) gives some details on why and how the Panther came to be.

Then, from what I have read about the air war over Europe, the main industrial focus of allied attacks were first the aircraft industry, then the ball-bearing plants, but that didn't cripple the German war machine (many attribute this to the sound management approach of Albert Speer). The thing that worked was attacks on oil. So I doubt the Panther got the worst of it. And if we mention the bombing of the Reich by the Allies, it will be only fair to note that in 1941 and the first half of 1942 the Soviet's industrial capacity was not only bombed and captured, but what survived was being relocated East to the Urals, so it was at least temporarily out of comission as well. In 1942 they churned out more than 12000 - a four-fold increase over 1941, and I doubt in their third year Panters could have reached such "growth rates" (There were still 4 months to go in 1945). It is entirely subjective, of course, but reading the Desert Fox site's monthly target and production data it seems to me Panther production took off very quickly, but within a year hit a ceiling of about 380/month and flatlined afterwards.

But all these comparisons are, IMHO, harder to justify than the more relevant question - if the prices were so similar, why was the PzIV still built at about the same rate as the Panther throughout 1944, as the Panther was superior in many critical aspects? In 1944, more than 600 Tiger Is were built. At an "exchange rate" of, let's say, 2 Panthers to a Tiger, that would mean about 30% boost in Panther output - no chump change. Then why didn't it happen?

One obvious answer - "You don't change horses in midstream." But since we are talking costs, if you doubt that your current train will carry you to the other side, a more appropriate question would be - "How much would it cost me to change my horses?" And in my mind, this should include not only the sticker price (which might or might not be what you actually pay), but the oats you need to feed the horses, the immunization shots and veterinarian's fee, the price of the horseshoes and what you pay the blacksmith to nail them on, and the beer for the groom that will finally change the horses for you.

Finally, one interesting thing I only recently learned about tanks with forward drive sprockets (among others, the Sherman and the Panther) - for any significant repair or overhaul of the transmission, you had to take off the turret first. A little bit of a hassle, isn't it?

[Mike]

I believe the main problem with changing horses is that for some period of time you don't have a horse at all.

Thus you cannot take a Mk-IV factory and have it turn ouot Panthers immediately after the last Mk-IV is produced - for soem time (weeks, days, months??) the factory will produce nothing at all.

This limitation affected an awful lot of decisions during the war by both sides. Well known ones are the UK's continuing production of 2 pdr AT guns instead of switching to the 6 pdr in 1941.

Lesser known ones include (I believe) the USSR ditching improved tank mdels to stay with the T34 - such as the T43 & T50. The UK churning out Hurricane 1's and Spitfire 2's in record numbers in 1940 and thus setting back development of the Hurricane II and Spitfire V considerably, the USA retaining the Sherman when it was known to be less than optimal.

And no doubt there are others.

Note I'm not saying that thsi was the only factor in those decisinos - but it is one that was consciously considered at the time.

[zukkov]

say what you want, but it was the quantity of horses the allies had, not the quality that won that horse race. from a strictly logistical point of view the shermans and t34s were "good enough"....

[Mike]

Umm...yeah...which is precisely why they didn't ant to stop production in order to upgrade - since then they'd have lost the quality that numbers bring that ws the only one that they realy had!!

[Foreigner]

Well, to continue the horse analogy further...

If you have more than one horse in your cart, no one said you absolutely have to replace them all at once. If you have more than one tank assembly line running, you can modify them one at the time without completely stopping production of the old model until it's phased out. Sure enough, any modification to a manufacturing process or facility will decrease output initially - there's no way around it. The question is - decrease by how much and for how long and (eventually) will the benefit of the change (higher productivity or a better tank model) be worth the "cost" of the change. The extent to which you disrupt your current production will depend a lot on the tank design. Therefore, I think the "cost" estimates for a tank should take into account not only what you spend on each one after everything is up and running smoothly, but what it had cost you or will cost you to set up or increase the production (whether starting anew or converting an existing facility). If we take that into account, the Panther doesn't seem to me to be that cheap.

And going back to the beaten smile.gif "horse analogy", it is one thing to simply fit your new horse into your existing harness with relatively little hassle, and quite another to acually get a new cart because your new horse won't fit into the old buggy...