The "best" tank another look

Off course it would - since the basis calculation in regards to the actual costs of a T-34 are not prooven in any way.

AFAIK German books state about 140,000 RM for a PzIV and 275,000 RM for a Panther.
So 3 T34's for 1 PzIV, and 4 T34's for a Panther obviously don't work out.

Regards
Kruska

 

Interesting. The T-34 was a great tank yet so cheap to produce.

 

No, see, the point is, if we just use the RM -> $ conversion, and ignore the T34 completely. Then if we take 20RM per dollar, then a Tiger I tank (200,000RM) costs about 10,000 dollars. In comparison, an M4 Sherman cost the US about 30,000 dollars to produce.

So either the German workers were really ubermensch, the US tank manufacturers were all secretly reallocating resources into beer and hookers, or well, that RM/$ conversion rate is wrong (or the prices themselves are based on RM from a different exchange rate). Most likely the 20RM/$ rate is artificially high, because it factors in the difficulty late in the war of finding an american willing to trade his dollars for your doomed German currency.

Okay, the explanation to this is probably that the prices given for PzIVs I used were from 1943 regarding the PzIV models used in Kursk. I don't know when the 60k RM price is supposed to be from - an early model before the gun and armour upgrades?

Using 60k RM for the PzIV gives PzIV = ~1.6 T34s

 

Panzer 3 stays a fine tank.
And second the Sherman still beats most if not all tanks from ww2.
You could put a 105mm gun in it (the m51super sherman used in Israel)
and it was just as good as the t-54...

 

The Sherman was one of the most reliable tanks of WWII not simply becaus it was mass produced, it was fast and had many variants. There was a sherman for every job. (flamethrower variant in pacific, the jumbo sherman for dealing with tiger I's, the "Easy-Eight" sherman that had a HVSS suspension system etc....)

 

Sorry my original post in regards to costings was related to US$ without weapon (Book is from 1984 - 1$=2.20 DM- I had changed it then to RM as being 140,000 and 275,000 respectivly according to a German Source from 1970.
The 1:20 applies only to the official currency exchange - it hasno say inregards to costings of german products at that time.

Example: An average German worker earned about 150-180RM/month, a skilled worker about 250RM/month - forced labour from the East about 10-25RM/month and forced labour from Western countries about 20-40RM/month. for Jews and slave-labourers the companies payed about 5-10RM/month.

As for the Russian production costs, it would be irrelevant since it is impossible to determine a price for a T-34 - as I stated before - all materials and research for free and no profit.

Regards
Kruska

 

Well, regardless of that, figures for the cost are given.

T-34/76 Medium Tank 1941-45 - Google Books

Realistically, nothing is free. Resources (human and otherwise) going into T34 production is resources taken away from other things. The Soviet government has to keep track of production costs, to ensure that the production lines are efficiently running.

 

The Centruion was produced in WWII.
You still haven't stated why you think the Panzer 3 is superior to the Sherman.
Do you have any documentation on the Pershing suspension being a copy of that of the Pzkw-III?

 

Haven't said the Sherman was inferior or I had said something wrong.
And I have read the suspension thing a while ago on this forums.

 

The "Easy Eight" Sherman had a HVSS suspension system.

 

I would go with the Sherman as per the original request for why. It was well engineered for what was needed at the time, they made gazillians of them and they were one of the most , if not the most, reliable tanks in any theater. They as all tanks of WWII had issues, but the tank was constantly upgraded and bettered. It even had a gyro stabalized gun. It was very effective when used properly as were the others, and it continued to be upgraded and morphed after the war. Any divetrain component could be swapped between the shermans without special fitting, assuming there were no major upgrade changes, and it was liked by the services crews for relative ease of servicing. Keeping a battle implement in the fight is critical to a good out come of the war. The Sherman did exactly what it was designed to do as well or better than any other tank in WWII. $.02 doesn't buy you much these days does it?

 

Yes, but these costs (200,000 Rubel/ T34) do not have any meaning as well in regards to conversion - but also shows that the material and profit was calculated totally differently
E.g. German skilled worker in 1943 250RM/month, Panzer IV = 140.000RM
E.g. Russian skilled worker in 1943 900R/month, T34 = 200,000R

So the Russian worker received numerically almost 4 times as much as a German worker the price for the German product is numerically about 30% less..

Now man/hour wise:

T34 in 1941 7400 Man/hours in 1944 3700 Man/hours
Panzer IV H in 1944 2400 Man/hours

So no matter how one puts it, I cant see a 1 PzIV = 3 T34.

Fact is however that the Russians had about 5 x the workforce of Germany and no destroyed factories from 1942/43 onward, plus billions of US$ in British and US warmaterials.

So to disqualify the German Pz (as usually done on these threads) due to technical production or $ issues is totally incorrect.

Regards
Kruska

 

During the bombing of Germany in the last few years of the war the production rate of all the factories actually increased dramatically from the bombing not drop as you are suggesting.

 

Most of the Sherman tanks that saw service in Korea were the M4A3 "Easy Eight" model which was produced and fielded during WWII, but not in huge numbers. These were good tanks. It had a superb suspension, wide tracks, quality RHA armor, good gun and improved gyro-stablizer. But, that the NK tanks got slaughtered was probably a function of training and tactics more than anything else.

What I would like to find out is how the 75mm L/40 would fair against T-34-85 glacis. For sure there would be no penetration, but what about spalling effects? I know one Chaffee KO'ed a T-34, but that's the only case I know.

 

That's true - certainly I've read some testimonials from Russian lend-lease tank users suggesting the T34 had worse spalling effects compared to the Sherman.

Do you have a source for these? I haven't seen any manhour figures, really.

 

Hello FhnuZoag,

The Man/hour figure in regards to the T-34, I retrieved from the link you had posted regarding its cost

The Man/hour figure in regards to the Pz. IV, I know from books - but it is also given/stated in Wiki under Panzer IV.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello Tomcat,

yes indeed - however you overlook some very important issues.

1. I never said that German production figures dropped - did I ?
2. The German industry only switched to full time war production in 1944
(Goebels speach - do you want the total war!!)
3. Where were the pilots, crews, oil and ammunition for the planes and tanks produced? A simple increase in output of planes and tanks didn't really address the existing problems - of having started far too late.
4. Germany's industry was targeted already from 1942 onwards. And a shortage of qualified material was already felt from 1941 onward.

In a what if thread - maybe 7-8 month ago, I forwarded the Idea of what could have happened if Hitler had ordered full war production by 1938?

Most answers were indicating an unhappy clique of industrial barons, right onto people revolting due to a sharp drop in commodities.

Well whatever, the Germans still produced the best tank in WWII (IMHO) the Panther, but confronted with all the above problems.

Regards
Kruska

 

Excellent points.

 

Has anybody here read Adam Toomes "Wages of Destruction" regarding German industrial production?

 

A bit OT but ....

Could you go into some details on these upgrades to the Shermans? Indeed I'm rather doubtful about most of this.

My recollection is that the M-4's came out ahead but I'm not sure I'd say decidedly superior. Indeed not enough engagments to make that much of a claim from what I recall.