Panther Vs T-34 - superior hunter ?

Would the counting of slave/forced labor in Germany Skew the numbers?

 

Good point but the population differences for the country are still huge. There are still the numbers offered by Overy; why wouldn't he factor in slaves? I'd defintely like to see him back this, if he can.

 

Let's also remember that a slave labor force is not offering a "superior" or skilled addition to Germany's labor force and at times there are examples of areas where they contributed negatively to Germany's output (sabotage.)

 

JBark, this happened alot with slave labour, Nuts not tightned correctly, the wrong lubricants, washers missing and chards of metal being deliberaltly added. The vehicles would pass testing where implemented but would soon break down after heavy use. Some of the restaration projects that have been carried out have spotted these deliborate sabotages

 

re: sabotage

A few years ago, I transferred a bringback MP44 for a WW2 vet that never fired it. The new owner brought it back claiming it wouldn't fire. Long story short, the firing pin was ground down, as were a few other parts, and springs had 1 or 2 coils cut off. It took 60+ years to discover the weapon had been sabotaged! Luckily replacement parts were relatively easy to locate.

 

Deleted

 

I submitted a response earlier and deleted it. Actually, I realized I made a serious mistake in arithmetics. My original comment is to the effect that if you look at your numbers closely you would understand what I mean: According to Glantz, in most battles, the Germans were more badly out-gunned than out-numbered. But if that was true, then it follows that the Russians actually did have more weapons per capita than their adversaries. In Kursk they massed 1.8 million troops against 900,000 German soldiers but their superiority in armor and artillery guns was far in excess of 2:1. Then proportionally as well as absolutely the Russians was better armed than the Germans.

It is certainly true that the average German infantry division possessed more artillery and better AT guns than the Russian counterpart. However, operationally it is a pedantic point. Centralizing the control of heavy weapons for decisive fires and letting the infantrymen to absorb damage was how the Russians fought. Divorcing that reality from a discussion does not seem particularly fruitful.

I in fact believe Russian junior officers and NCOs were exceedingly ill-trained, while certainly not stupid or inherently inferior in mental capacities.

 

Due to the purges the officers who were lieutenants and captains in 1936 were colonels and generals in 1940. After the Winter War another purge got rid of many of those. Then more junior officers and NCOs with even less background got promoted to fill those gaps, so that by June 1941 the Red Army was reduced to helpless mass of fearful and virtually leaderless men who were so cowed by Joe Stalin's cold-blooded vindictiveness that they didn't return fire on the invading Germans because no one gave them permission. It was one of the miracles of the Russian spirit that that army was able to endure the onslaught long enough for Zhukov's Far East troops to make the long march across Asia to stop the Wehrmacht in front of Moscow. By 1943 the Red Army was beginning to get a cadre of decent officers, first by promoting NCOs and lieutenants who showed courage and skill (but not too much courage and skill lest the NKVD officer began to take an unhealthy interest) and by drafting university educated men with technical skills that bear on military matters directly into commissioned ranks. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn is a good example, trained as a mathematician he was drafted into a captaincy and commanded an acoustic ranging battery. The Red Army also created a huge number of cadet schools which by 1943 was beginning to graduate their first classes of new officers. The problem with their expediency measures was that it left the platoon and company level formation without competent leadership. Even administrative tasks were a challenge for these decapitated formations. This is the main reason why the Russians used mass tactics even when numbers just presented the enemy with a target rich environment; attacks and maneuvers at any thing below battalion level was just beyond the competence of the leadership.

 

About the number of tanks and guns per 1000 soldiers:
in june 1941:3 tanks per 1000 men,6 guns per 1000 men
in may 1942: 1 tank per 1400 men,5 guns per 1000 men
in july 1943: 1 tank per 6OO men,8 guns per 1000 men
in june 1944:1 tank per 8OO men,10 guns per 1000 men
Mortars are not included in the guns .

 

That the Far East Troops of Zhukow were stopping the Germans in front of Moscow,is a myth .

 

Really? Please explain.

 

The biggest problem with the Soviet Army of this period is that orgainzationally it lacks a robust means of communication and control. Radios in infantry formations don't exist below battalion level for the most part. Where they do they are the most simple AM sets imaginable. Field telephones are also scarce at the lower levels of command.
Even something as simple as runners are not in the TO&E. If a company commander needs a runner he has to pull a man out of a platoon and use him reducing his own combat power. Add to this the Soviet military's view of troop management. During this period (officially) enlisted spoke to officers only when told to do so and then mainly to acknowledge they understood their orders. Most veteran units at the company level were a bit more lax but, officers essentially had absolute authority over the enlisted. This compares badly with US, British or, German practices where nco's and even private soldiers were expected to show some degree of initiative and capacity for independent action.

The result is that the Soviet army fights a battle of individual units unless there is a rehersed, set piece plan in place. Defensively, they are fighting as seperate companies and battalions rather than a unified whole simply because there is little means to coordinate units in a fluid action.

 

The Russian army lacked communications and in General their weapons were outclassed by the Germans. The Russian advantage was that the weapons the Germans thought were primitive actually turned out to function better under harsh conitions thatn German equipment. Those kill ratios are really mis leading. If it were possible you would see that German soldiers who had operational equipment most likely had kill ratios well above 10:1 while Germans fighting against russian weapons that could function while theirs could not were probably something like 1:4. And the kill ratio probably just averaegd out to 5:1. If German weapons would have worked in Russian conditions Moscow would have fallen. Its like looking at the AK-47. The AK is by no means an elite performance rifle. The M-16 is more accurate and has a greater effectiveness rating. Trained Soldiers prove to be more effective with M-16's than with AK-47's. But the AK can be buried in sand, frozen, under water or whatever and it will still fire. The M-16 could not handle the jungle of vietnam. Hence American soldiers took a beating in Vietnam when their rifles werent functioning and the AK could.

 

Which Tank Gun would you reckon was the was the best Tank killer,
90mm M3 L/52 Gun
88mm KwK 43 L/71 Gun
88mm KwK 36 L/56 Gun
85mm S-53 L/52 Gun
77mm QF MK II L/50 Gun
17 Pdr QF MK IV L/55 Gun
75mm KwK 42 L/70 Gun
Regards Yan.

 

Well in terms of firepower the kwk 43 L71 was by far the most powerful. The L56 version was probably the most successful as it was on the battlefield longer. Also the 75mm kwk 40 L48 on the Panzer IV was a good weapon especially when the Panzer IV had the best optics of the war. If i had to pick a gun to use it would be the 88mm L71. That gun was devastating.

 

Really?

Which German tank out classed the T-34 in 1941? Or how about the infamous Katusha or the SU122?

The reason the Germans were so successfull in Russia was because they caught the Red Army completely by surprise and off balance. While having a larger military on paper the Russians had nrarly half of there men away from the front and thus were outnumbered on virtually every local front.



I would also love to see your sources on 10:1 ratios

PS
The numbers of frosbitten troops on either side throughout the conflict were not much different.

 

read the Panther vs T-34 duel book by osprey, hope that recommendation helps

 

At the time the T-34 direct opposition would have been the Panzer IV. Both have distinct advantages and dis advantages really making them equal. Both tanks had good protection for the time giving the T-34 a slight edge in protection against AT guns. Both had 75/76 mm guns in general as this varied depending on models. The T-34 had a slightly better gun as the Panzer had a short barrelled one better used for infantry support. The T-34's main advantage is that it was extremely reliable under the terrain and weather giving it the ability to function while the Panzer IV was often not operable. This gave the T-34 a good advantage that proved to be a problem for German forcesand is a direct factor in causing the halt in the German offensive. However the Panzer IV has very crucial advantages over the T-34 that made it more of a match to handle in combate. First T-34's had only 3 man crews while Panzers had 5. This resulted in the tank being more efficiently operated in battle. Second: Panzer IV's had the best sights of the war while the T-34's was not very good. This enabled Panzer IV's to take accurate shots at further ranges at weak points on armor and it was ultimately the great sights of Panzer IV's that keep it in the talks of being a good tank. Third: German tanks had radios that allowed German crew to co-ordinate themselves very effective during battle. T-34 communicated by flag signals before battle and had no communications during battle unless you really think a russian commander would stick his head out making him vulnerable to infantry fire in an attempt to flag another T-34 which most likely wasnt paying attention to him anyways. So in essence the T-34 was a great tank that made its impact because of its reliability but the Panzer IV was actually better in combat when it was operable. And the Panther far out classed the T-34 in areas of combat.

 

The SU 122 and katyusha was self propelled artillery i believe. not a tank. and the German STUG and Nebelwefer models were just as effective. Actually the STUG is the forefather of modern assault branch over the su 122.

 

The KV-1 was actually the best combat unit the russians had at the time though i low numbers. It was completely immune to the guns of the Panzer IV and the Tiger was rushed into production as a result. In fact teh only thing that could handle the KV-1 was the 8.8 cm flak.