|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(31 of 42)
Jul 8, 2009 12:19 PM
|
after reading my post which offers: "...The hull offered far better protection than the turret which, according to one veteran, would not stop ANY high velocity round shot at it...even small caliber AA rounds.
Now, if you can't read and clearly understand what I wrote why should I believe you understood anything else you've read?
I am sorry can you please explain to me what makes you think I have not clearly understood what you have written. You have merely posted the same quote about the vulnerability of the armor. I have no problem with the notion it provided little protection against high velocity rounds, its the small caliber AAA rounds that give me pause because both guns statistically were not rated to penetrate even the 4cm thick rear armor, let alone the side armor or front armor, especially the turret which was constantly upgraded through the three marks of 76mm armed tanks.
You want to ignore the fact that our own tests at Aberdeen on the T-34 the armor was found to be surface hardened only and soft underneath.
What am I ignoring? I have said flawed armor was always a possibility for allowing small caliber AAA to penetrate a T-34. The Watertown Arsenal report on that same T-34 and KV-I at Aberdeen clearly came to the conclusion the armor plate on the T-34 and KV-I varied in quality from very poor to very good. So yeah as I said 20mm or 37mm AAA rounds would not penetrate if the armor was up to snuff. That they caused spalling is hard surprising if the armor quality was poor, and given the US recieved two tank examples with flawed armor you can take what you want for those results. Does two flawed tanks mean all T-34s were suspeptible to small caliber AAA rounds?
The report also refers to the high hardness level the Soviets hardened their armor too, 450-500 BNH on the outside that caused shells which were undermatched to shatter. This hard armor proved disadvantaged against shells which overmatched the armor, but still it seems to suggest it worked well enough against small caliber rounds.
You want to ignore the fact that in the heat of battle a soldier will fire the weapon he has without stopping to check on armor penetration tables to see if it will be effective. You want to ignore the fact that through the course of the war there are numerous cases of weapons being used for purposes other than their initial design.
Why you do assume I am ignoring that. If anything you seem to ignore the notion that a battlefield contains multiple units and are somehow against the notion more than one weapon was being directed at said tank. Why is it so hard to leave open the possibility more than one gun was firing at that T-34 and it caused the spalling? I am not discounting the possibility the Veteran is right, I have never said he was a lair that could not be believed, but when data brings up questions I certainly leave open the possibility of other scenarios, that being flawed armor under performing and the possibility of other AT guns engaging the same T-34 as the AAA gun was.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,507
From:
southern bc
Registered:
11/12/07
|
|
(32 of 42)
Jul 8, 2009 1:28 PM
|
My current read is Panzer Battles of the Waffen SS by Will Fey.
You will find an interesting battle he has with Canadian infantry and he describes having to blow up his own tank because of significant battle damage. Interestingly, in The South Albertas 29 CAR they describe finding a Tiger with its turret blown up in the very town Will Fey blew his up in. I have tried to find some evidence that it is the same tank but have been unsuccessful thus far.
Fey describes many times over how he would have liked to have taken the Canadians prisoner, but they wouldn't surrender so he had to keep killing them.
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(33 of 42)
Jul 8, 2009 4:23 PM
|
I didn't say that. I said it was no more magnificent than a club. T-34's were crude (or simple, if you prefer) machines. As with any crude weapon, if employed carefully or in sufficient nunbers, it could be quite effective. There were many flaws with the T-34 in both design and construction. The veterans in T34 IN ACTION mention only a few of these flaws which can be found in other sources.
My apologies I misread.
If an American Stuart's 37mm gun could froce a Tiger out of combat by penetrating through the turret ring, as occured in Tunisia, 20mm AA could do the same to a T-34.
I agree the turret ring was quite vulnerable on the T-34 and some 37mm AAA rounds could probably do quite a number on it.
I think JBark is right in terms of me overarguing the issue though and I think I have burried my original argument under a load of other arguments I put forward. I didnt mean to claim you cant trust the veterans account, what I meant is that small caliber AAA was generally not the most effective way of dealing with T-34s from any angle, and I dont think its unfair given the fact battlefields contain multiple enemies its not impossible something else was taking shots at him as well as the AAA gun.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(34 of 42)
Jul 8, 2009 7:07 PM
|
Probably the part where you were writing about front and side armor, angled, and not being penetrable by 20mm rounds. This was not what I wrote about and felt you took the discussion off path with a discussion about something I clearly had not written about.
You want to ignore the fact that in the heat of battle a soldier will fire the weapon he has without stopping to check on armor penetration tables
Why you do assume I am ignoring that.
Let's see, because that seems to be what you are writing. Despite not being there you want to make any excuse possible to say it didn't happen. I trust the vet that recalled it and the writer that put it in the book after doing a good amount of research on the T-34 vets.
I realize that this is not the norm, that one should not come away thinking the T-34 was made of soda cans with no ability to stop armor piercing rounds. This is just a discussion of the tank and the throwing out of some anecdotal evidence has a place.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,803
Registered:
10/30/07
|
|
(35 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 5:19 AM
|
|
One more thing on AA fire vs T-34s. It is my understanding that the doctrine on the Eastern front included firing on disabled tanks with mgs and or artillery to try and kill the crew if the abandoned the tanks. This would tend to support the simultaneous or near simultaneious engagment of tanks with AT guns and mgs or auto cannons.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,701
Registered:
10/13/03
|
|
(36 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 5:58 AM
|
I think that the tank did save Russia from defeat in 41 and 42 because it was far superior to any German tanks in those years. Without the tank Russia could have lost the war in 1941. Just when the Germans were ready to conquer Moscow in December Stalin brought in his Siberian divisions armed with the tank which was able to operate in cold weather as opposed to the German equipment. The Siberians were able to push the Germans back hundreds of miles and inflict nearly one million casualties.
The superiority of the tank ended when the Germans introduced the Tigers and Panthers in the summer of 43 at the battle of Khursk.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(37 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 7:17 AM
|
> One more thing on AA fire vs T-34s. It is my
> understanding that the doctrine on the Eastern front
> t included firing on disabled tanks with mgs and or
> artillery to try and kill the crew if the abandoned
> the tanks. This would tend to support the
> simultaneous or near simultaneious engagment of tanks
> with AT guns and mgs or auto cannons.
I was pondering the question of how a tanker would know what gun took out a tank and as I read more of the book I'm on right now it occurred to me how often one tank witnesses the destruction of another and takes out the source of fire, either with HE rounds or rolling over the gun (unless it is another tank, of course.) In this scenario the tanker will get a very clear idea of what gun took out a friendly tank.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(38 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 7:19 AM
|
The Siberians were able to
> push the Germans back hundreds of miles and inflict
> nearly one million casualties.
One million? KIA and WIA...one million?
|
|
|
Posts:
17,023
Registered:
12/9/02
|
|
(39 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 10:35 AM
|
Interesting. Sounds like the T-34 was really overrated.
That would would mean that the Mk-V Panther was the best overall tank in every category.
It had great armor protection that few Allied Tanks could penetrate except at close range if even that.
It had a longbarreled 75mm that outranged all except the Sherman with the 17pdr gun and some Russian tanks that didn't have the same performance as the Panther.
It even had a slight speed advantage over the Sherman.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,803
Registered:
10/30/07
|
|
(40 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 10:58 AM
|
> That would would mean that the Mk-V Panther was the
> best overall tank in every category.
Not really.
> It had great armor protection that few Allied Tanks
> could penetrate except at close range if even that.
Only in front and at close range it looks to me like both the US 76mm gun and the Soviet 85mm could penetrate it from the front.
> It had a longbarreled 75mm that outranged all except
> the Sherman with the 17pdr gun and some Russian tanks
> that didn't have the same performance as the
> Panther.
How about the Pershing?
> It even had a slight speed advantage over the Sherman.
It was also notoriously unreliable. Less mobile that the Sherman and the T-34 in at least some terreign. Didn't have a stabalized gun like the Sherman. Was much more of a problem to work on than either the T-34 or the M-4. Etc
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(41 of 42)
Jul 9, 2009 1:48 PM
|
> > That would would mean that the Mk-V Panther was
> the
> > best overall tank in every category.
>
> Not really.
>
> > It had great armor protection that few Allied
> Tanks
> > could penetrate except at close range if even
> that.
>
> Only in front and at close range it looks to me like
> both the US 76mm gun and the Soviet 85mm could
> penetrate it from the front.
>
> > It had a longbarreled 75mm that outranged all
> except
> > the Sherman with the 17pdr gun and some Russian
> tanks
> > that didn't have the same performance as the
> > Panther.
>
> How about the Pershing?
>
> > It even had a slight speed advantage over the
> Sherman.
>
> It was also notoriously unreliable. Less mobile that
> the Sherman and the T-34 in at least some terreign.
> Didn't have a stabalized gun like the Sherman. Was
> much more of a problem to work on than either the
> T-34 or the M-4. Etc
On paper the Panther is at the top of the list but so many problems in the field that it drops down very quickly. even when many of the initial bugs were worked out the later models still had many issues that take it down a few notches on the "Best" list. Excess maintenance, fuel consumption, cost of production all have to factor in to rating a tank...the mano a mano slugfest between two tanks does not make for a realistic evaluation, in my book.
|
|
|
Posts:
262
From:
Arizona
Registered:
10/18/07
|
|
(42 of 42)
Jul 12, 2009 12:40 PM
|
I guess we have switched over to the Panther.
> > That would would mean that the Mk-V Panther was
> the
> > best overall tank in every category.
Every category? Not a chance. The Panther was a sniper, the Sherman was a brawler. The Panther's few advantages were disappearing by War's end.
>
> > It had great armor protection that few Allied
> Tanks
> > could penetrate except at close range if even
> that.
>
Gunners of the 2nd AD reported knocking out Panthers and Tigers at around 1600 yards using HVAP; Sgt. Poole, 3rd AD, knocked out a Panther from the side at 1500 yards (ammo type not reported).
> > It had a longbarreled 75mm that outranged all
> except
> > the Sherman with the 17pdr gun and some Russian
> tanks
> > that didn't have the same performance as the
> > Panther.
>
For one, the 17 pounder had superior anti-armor performance to the Panther's 75mm. So did other guns.
>
> > It even had a slight speed advantage over the
> Sherman.
>
Again, this is road speed and only applied to the early-mid war Shermans. The last model Sherman had road speed comparable to the Panther and better ground pressure. In the lower gears where combat occurs, the Sherman danced around the Panther. At high speed, the Panther could not take turns very well. At Aberdeen, while a Panther and a Sherman were being driven on a road with lots of curves, the Sherman left the Panther in its dust. By the way, tanks rarely use their max road speed, so, such comparisons don't mean a lot.
> It was also notoriously unreliable. Less mobile that
> the Sherman and the T-34 in at least some terreign.
> Didn't have a stabalized gun like the Sherman. Was
> much more of a problem to work on than either the
> T-34 or the M-4. Etc
One of my favorite examples of how over-engineered the Panther was occured in Normandy. A pebble was caught in a Panther's inner roadwheel tearing up the tire. The crew had to remove NINE roadwheels to repair the damage. Their only spare roadwheel was designed for the outside, not the inside. Only by use of a sledgehammer were they able to force that wheel on (I'm sure they had a few choice words when it came time to remove it). It took them all night to get that tank running again just because of a single roadwheel.
|
|
|
|
|
