German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[Kraxis]

I would say that the IS-2 was better than the Panther in a one-shot situation. Better frontal armour, smaller size (though not much) and a much heavier gun (though not much better for the AP part). And that tank was definately on the scene prior to the M-48.

Also the 88mmL71 was definately superior to the 75mmL70 of the Panther. The L51 of the Tiger I was not much better, and in some cases it was slightly less effective than the 75mm of the Panther.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would say that the IS-2 was better than the Panther in a one-shot situation. Better frontal armour, smaller size (though not much) and a much heavier gun (though not much better for the AP part). And that tank was definately on the scene prior to the M-48.

Also the 88mmL71 was definately superior to the 75mmL70 of the Panther. The L51 of the Tiger I was not much better, and in some cases it was slightly less effective than the 75mm of the Panther.

Okay. I've reviewed some of my materials on this and I must concur with you about the 88L71. Though comparable at point blank ranges, the 75L70 simply didn't have the penetration of the 88 at medium and long range.

However, I would actually favor the Vg in a one-on-one with the IS-2, the Panther's frontal armor was thicker than the shell fired by the IS-2 and hence not prone to the added penetration effect. Moreover, the frontal armor of the Panther was much more sharply sloped than that of the IS-2, giving it an equivalent frontal thickness and a greater capacity to "shrug off" imperfectly placed hits. While the IS-2 was heavily armored, that armor was of inferior quality metalurgically and was more vulnerable to pentration at range than the Panther. While the match is a tight one, I would put the edge the other way.

The IS-2 and 3, as you know, did not remain in Front line service for very long. Had they borne another name, I supsect the Soviets might have switched directions even earlier.

Seamus

[Kralizec]

I don't even think the IS-3 saw actual service in the WWII, to many mechanical problems. Though otherwise Russian tanks were the least prone to mechanical failure.

The Panther btw is not a heavy tank, the Germans themselves classified them as medium tanks and deployed them as such. This tank gets my vote for best WWII tank. It could kill a T34-85 at a range of 2 kilometres, had descent mobility and excellent armour.
T34-85 could destroy a Panther when close enough, but all things considered I think it's outclassed by the Panther. The only other two tanks I can remember that have a fighting chance are the M26 Pershing and the IS-2, wich both fall into the heavy tank catagory.

Costwise though, the Panzer IV w75 is better.

[PanzerJaeger]

It may have already been mentioned, but the emphasis on superiority over production was a concious decision.

Speer and his people knew fairly early on that they could not out produce the allies.

However, the Germans did have a clear superiority in their tank crews.

So they could make a whole lot of relatively poor tanks, even though they still couldnt out produce the allies, and throw away those crews.

Or they could do what they did and focus on a lesser number of highly superior tanks that could be expected to combat several hundred allied tanks and succeed.

When German diplomacy failed, it was a lose - lose situation. However, if I was in Hitler's shoes i would have gone for quality over quantity as well. German crews were far more valuable than their tanks.

[Reverend Joe]

One of the big mistakes of the German industry was to use slave labor to propuce their tanks, so that the able-bodied men could fight at the front- even though this dramatically slowed down their production.

In my opinion, the Germans should have taken a lesson from the Russians and used Penal brigades- this would have countered the Russian human waves to a point, as well as speeding up tank production, and production in general.

[Eaglefirst]

Don't forget that there is more to tanks than how well they are 1 on 1. Would you rather have one Tiger or 10 or so T-34's? Also remember what good is a tank if when it brakes you can't fix it easily? But it seems the germans had no choice because out-producing the russians would be impossible. Still it seems the Tiger gets alot of credit. I'm no tank expert but what good is my tank if it sucks up gas at an amazing clip,is extremely difficult to fix, can't traverse harsh terrain. Seems like it has a bigger ego than use. I'm prolly asking to get ripped by some German fellow who knows what hes talking about eh...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hey, the Tiger was a Porsche, so of course its admirers are fanatics!

Seriously, to address your question, at 10-1 odds, the Tiger was probably toast if up against the T-34/85. Against the T-34-76c, it would all depend upon terrain. Those puppies had to get CLOSE to kill a Tiger. Remember, however, that Tigers were, whenever possible, deployed with Pzkw-IIIs and a batch of infantry as support forces -- precisely to stop the swarming problem you rightly emphasize.

Oh, and by the way, 10-1 in Shermans and/Cromwells all too often ended up 0-10 for the allies.

Seamus

[Kagemusha]

The Jagdtiger with its 128mm cannon was a representative of modern tank,google it.

[Kraxis]

However, I would actually favor the Vg in a one-on-one with the IS-2, the Panther's frontal armor was thicker than the shell fired by the IS-2 and hence not prone to the added penetration effect. Moreover, the frontal armor of the Panther was much more sharply sloped than that of the IS-2, giving it an equivalent frontal thickness and a greater capacity to "shrug off" imperfectly placed hits. While the IS-2 was heavily armored, that armor was of inferior quality metalurgically and was more vulnerable to pentration at range than the Panther. While the match is a tight one, I would put the edge the other way.

Well, about the metallurgy you are only half right. Beginning in the summer of 44 the German quality of steel was beginning to decline, until about the winter when it rapidly declined until the end. The tanks were still built good enough, but the quality of the materials declined sharply. In fact an internal Russian report of testing against a captured King Tiger showed that its heavy armour was strong but it would crack after a few shots, and then the armour would simply break apart after a few more. It was brittle, the mark of rushed production.
If anything the Russian steel was too soft, but in general it was never brittle. And you can be sure that the IS-2 got the better quality steel (it was still a propaganda weapon).
The only real advantage the Panther had over the IS-2 was optics. The Russian optics were not good, while the German optics were the best to be found (which is part of the German supremacy in tank vs tank battles, they simply hit more).

And it is completely fair to compare the two tanks. Just because the Germans termed the Panther a medium tank doesn't make it such. It was heavy by all standards, even German. I find it applaudable that it was made so well that it could act like a medium tank, but it simply wasn't.
An SUV like the Porche Cayenne can act like a sports car, but is it a sportscar?

I don't get your point about the Panther having heavier armour than the shell fired by the IS-2... In any case that is not right, the IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and the Panther had 90-110mm armour in front. Sloped on the hull. But the IS-2 had armour of up to 130mm in front while the Panther had a 75mm gun. But as we know muzzlevelocity was/is important so I still don't get the point.

And just to point out, the IS-2 was relatively good at cross country because of its realatively low weight. At the same time the Panther was actually superior to the Sherman in cross country, a thing almost always overlooked or directly misinformed about. Sherman tank crews complained that the Panther would cross areas they could not (the Sherman was faster though). No wonder they felt like livestock for the slaughter (outmaneuvered, outgunned, outarmoured).

[English assassin]

Artillery was not used for targetting tanks in the middle of an engagement, artillery was used to soften up the enemy before an assault.

We need Redleg here. Certainly in one battle I have read about in detail (el Alamein) one of the main tasks of British divisional artillery was to shell the forming up areas used by German tanks preparing counter attacks. To the extent that, when successful which they often were, the counter attack could not even be launched.

Firing on tanks heading at speed over open ground, no.

[Kralizec]

I remember a documentary about Montgomery, specificly a part about El Alamein. The way they deployed artillery there was most unusual, though effective in this case. I remember it because I heard a soldier saying that it was the first time that he ever saw artillery being deployed like this, and was astonished that Montgomery wasn't there to witness it himself. He went to bed early and let his commanders handle it

The crew of a tank is indeed as important then the tank itself. Early on the kill ratio of German vs Russian tanks was enormously in favour of the Germans, but later while Germany's more experienced troops got thinned out the rates dropped to almost 1 on 1.
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/prod.htm#loses
In the same documentary I mentioned above, it mentioned how British soldiers in north Africa were first outraged that German fighter pilots would kill tank crews as they left their destroyed tanks, later to learn that it was only logical. Tanks could be reproduced easily enough, it took 18 years to grow another batch of soldiers.

About the IS-2, I heard that if the armour got penetrated by a shell the armour would splinter into pieces, often killing the crew. Can anyone confirm this?

[Franconicus]

In the same documentary I mentioned above, it mentioned how British soldiers in north Africa were first outraged that German fighter pilots would kill tank crews as they left their destroyed tanks, later to learn that it was only logical. Tanks could be reproduced easily enough, it took 18 years to grow another batch of soldiers.

Poor British. I do not know about tank crews. However a crew member that left the tank is still able to fight.

I read that during the Battle of England Göring asked his squadron leaders if they would attack enemy pilots that left their planes. He explained too that the pilot is much more dangerous and irreplacable than the plane. They refused and Göring did not insist.

I also read that he Allied fighter were ordered to shoot at German pilots that had to leave the Me 262. They were all experts and killing them was very important.

[DemonArchangel]

I'm not exactly an expert at artillery, but I do know that it is possible to target a tank during the middle of a battle, especially if they are advancing as a dense armored column (fairly easy to hit, fairly linear movement). HE-FRAG shells probably won't do anything to tanks unless they hit directly though, so artillery wouldn't be that effective at destroying the tanks, although fragments would probably force the tanks to button up and sharply limit their movement and targeting abilities as well as take out the optics, radio masts, top mounted machine guns etc.

[Kraxis]

We need Redleg here. Certainly in one battle I have read about in detail (el Alamein) one of the main tasks of British divisional artillery was to shell the forming up areas used by German tanks preparing counter attacks. To the extent that, when successful which they often were, the counter attack could not even be launched.

Firing on tanks heading at speed over open ground, no.

(not going to you personally here EA)
Take note that the artillery was aimed at the stagingarea for the German tanks. That was a very effective usage of artillery against tanks, and eth Germans used it as well in Russia (late in the war the few shells of the artillery was often used for this rater than bombard advancing infantry). So why was this effective? Obviously the shells weren't too effective against the armour.
Well, in the stagingarea the tanks would be tended to by the mechanics, the crews would be out and help or in the process of loading up fuel and ammo. Lots of trucks or other softer vehicles vital to the tanks would be around. So the artillery would not affect the tanks themselves beyond a few damaged tanks and some others immobilized. But the crews, their mechanics and all the tending vehicles would be hit hard. I think it is obvious why the tanks wouldn't be able to attack right away.

About the IS-2... Hmmm... Interesting that it would be brittle. I expected it to be a continuation of the T-34 in terms of steel. And you can see the pictures of those knocked out have no breaking lines around the penetrations (a captured Jagdpanther from Normandy shows these very clearly in Bovington I think). So I expected it to be perfected with the IS-2, but perhaps the Russians went too far with the hardness, trying to overcome the softness.
So I guess the armour of either side would be fairly equal at the time when they would be expected to meet. I do not think the Panther had a marked advantage in sloping armour.

If one really has to argue about them, I would say the IS-2 has a small advantage in that it's hull is significantly lower and that it is more evenly built (upper glacis the same sice as the lower). But it is very limited how much of a difference there can be.

[English assassin]

No worries I'm not taking it personally. I'm no kind of expert on artillery or on armoured warfare.

It may well be that casualties are caused by hitting the fueling tankers, or the crews having a fag break, it might even be as basic as breaking the ground up so the tanks ground out, but I guess the point that having fewer better tanks is worse than more less good tanks would still apply, since all those factors are independent of the quality of the tank itself.

As for direct destruction, you do see pictures of tanks, inc heavy ones like the KV1, on their sides or even overturned by a shell, but whether it was common or very rare I have no idea.

[PanzerJaeger]

We are also getting too hung up on tank v tank battles. A lot of the tank's tasks were much more varied; assaulting infantry behind an AT screen, spreading out from a brealthrough, and so on. If you had to assault an AT screen, would you want 10 (fast) targets, 10 76.2mm guns chucking out HE shells and 20MGs, or one slower target, one 88 mm gun and 2 MGs? Seems a no brainer to me. OK, the Tiger or Panther is considerably harder to kill, but not THAT hard. Tigers could be taken out even by the British 6 Pdr (57mm) AT gun, if the gunners kept their nerve and held fire until the Tiger was under 500 yds or so.

This reminded me of Wittmann's adventures at Kursk. I wish the book i read it in was here so I could directly quote it.

Basically, Wittmann simply ran over a great number of German artillery pieces, destroying them instead of wasting ammo on them. He had an interesting tactic(which is in the book ) to get right up close to them without being targeted and just ran them over!

Another advantage of the Tiger.. brute strength!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, about the metallurgy you are only half right. Beginning in the summer of 44 the German quality of steel was beginning to decline, until about the winter when it rapidly declined until the end. The tanks were still built good enough, but the quality of the materials declined sharply. In fact an internal Russian report of testing against a captured King Tiger showed that its heavy armour was strong but it would crack after a few shots, and then the armour would simply break apart after a few more. It was brittle, the mark of rushed production.
If anything the Russian steel was too soft, but in general it was never brittle. And you can be sure that the IS-2 got the better quality steel (it was still a propaganda weapon).

Good point about declining quality. Who knows how well the Germans might have done with a sifficient supply of Tungsten to keep manufacturing APCR rounds. Those were key to their tank-on-tank success in '41 and '42, but they were short on a lot of critical metallurgy components as the war progressed. As to the IS-2, I had read in one source that they were brittle.

The only real advantage the Panther had over the IS-2 was optics. The Russian optics were not good, while the German optics were the best to be found (which is part of the German supremacy in tank vs tank battles, they simply hit more).

Spot on with this comment. Made the Germans a lot more effective in Naval gunnery than they had a right to be given the quality of their Naval artillery. Any gun that hits works better than a mega-gun that won't.

And it is completely fair to compare the two tanks. Just because the Germans termed the Panther a medium tank doesn't make it such. It was heavy by all standards, even German. I find it applaudable that it was made so well that it could act like a medium tank, but it simply wasn't.
An SUV like the Porche Cayenne can act like a sports car, but is it a sportscar?

The Germans attempted to deploy the Panther as a medium, but numbers and constant combat attrition rarely allowed a German Panzer division to have a full battalion of anything during '44 and later. I'd say you're comparison is valid, because any battle tank had a good chance of facing an opposing battle tank. Only recon units might not have been a fair comparison.

I don't get your point about the Panther having heavier armour than the shell fired by the IS-2... In any case that is not right, the IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and the Panther had 90-110mm armour in front. Sloped on the hull. But the IS-2 had armour of up to 130mm in front while the Panther had a 75mm gun. But as we know muzzlevelocity was/is important so I still don't get the point.

WWII pentration shots worked most effectively when the variables create a score of between 260 and 300 on the Brinell Hardness Index (BHN). This score is a product of ammo point hardness, armor angle, armor thickness, armor quality [soft is bad, but so is brittle], effective muzzle velocity, weight and diameter of shell. In general, a shell with a diameter greater than the plate it was facing had an advantage in penetration. The excellent angling of the Panther's armor gave it a greater degree of safety here than the thickness of the plate itself would indicate. This was, of course, less true for the turret than the hull.

And just to point out, the IS-2 was relatively good at cross country because of its realatively low weight. At the same time the Panther was actually superior to the Sherman in cross country, a thing almost always overlooked or directly misinformed about. Sherman tank crews complained that the Panther would cross areas they could not (the Sherman was faster though). No wonder they felt like livestock for the slaughter (outmaneuvered, outgunned, outarmoured).

Russia's emphasis on wide tread was a huge advantage off road. The Germans went to school on that for the Panther, and so did the rest of the world later. Of course, given Russia's road system at the time, designing a tank for maximum road speed would have been a bit dim.

Seamus