myths about the panzers

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0
heres a page that deals with some myths about the panzers.
http://www.panzerworld.net/facts.html
(including the Panzer IV F2 myth.)

for more info on the panzer IV F2 myth (there was no AusF F2 thy where all AusF Gs!)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=64566
and here
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=71170


and in a some what related fastion a thread on the T-34 (well T-34 vs M4)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=23226
and here
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=90006

some things about the T-34 are aperent
Bad FC
Bad Armor (had some flaws built into it -the armor it self that is. )
pore main guns (even the 85mm was not that good.)
bad ammo.
pore relibility (engien was rated in hours)
 

Santini

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
217
0
0
Actually, it WAS called the Pz IV F2's, for the first two months of production
Reading Pz IV and it's Varients (Spielberger collection), they talk about this
That is why two period manuals exist that call it the F2
 

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0
yes however the "F2" was not a sepret make of tank. it was just a difrent name for an AusF G, most books and or games and what not will make you beleve that it was a difrent vertion rather than what realy was the case.
 

Karl Ritter

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 19, 2006
60
5
0
Belgium
thefifthsswiking.org
..And actually it was another version, because it featured enchanced armour over the PzKpfw. IV F2, as well as an improved muzzle brake for the main armament. And models from late 1942 (G models) started to leave the factories with a longer 7.5cm L/48 gun, instead of the 7.5cm L/43. German production also tried to improve several smaller features on the tank during its production run. But these are just details...from the looks, both the G and F2 versions could be twins.
 

murhis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
128
2
0
Helsinki
Nebfer said:
some things about the T-34 are aperent
Bad FC
Bad Armor (had some flaws built into it -the armor it self that is. )
pore main guns (even the 85mm was not that good.)
bad ammo.
pore relibility (engien was rated in hours)

Ehhhh did I get it right that you'r saying T34 is having these values? First of all T34 were ranked as one of the most reliable tanks in whole ww2. Infact maby the best main battle tank if you'r looking values like: firepower, armor, mobility, Rge, reliability, maintainability and production cost.
 

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
Karl Ritter said:
..And actually it was another version, because it featured enchanced armour over the PzKpfw. IV F2, as well as an improved muzzle brake for the main armament. And models from late 1942 (G models) started to leave the factories with a longer 7.5cm L/48 gun, instead of the 7.5cm L/43. German production also tried to improve several smaller features on the tank during its production run. But these are just details...from the looks, both the G and F2 versions could be twins.

the armour wasnt imrpooved untill the verry late G-Series
but all other things are right

hmm the F2 facts are nonesense :)
 

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
talking about allied tanks...if they're going to pick the T-34/85 as the russian then they could put it against the Sherman Firefly...which was imo a better tank...especially because Western tanks were better than Russians
 

110th-Eisenburg

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2006
8
0
0
The T-34/85 was in almost every respect beter than the sherman-firefly.
The majority of the western allied tanks sucked, you cant even put the shermans in the same league as the T-34.
 

Denwad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
333
0
0
32
Eglin AFB
negative, the 17lber gun kicks the 85mm gun's ass

In the Korean war the T-34/85 didn't stand a chance vs. the Sherman M4A3 HVSS ( the gun is weaker than the 17lber by the way )

the Sherman also has better armor and is ( probably ) more reliable than the T-34, it's also much quieter, because it has generally been accepted that ( beyond the Churchill perhaps ) that the T-34 was the loudest tank of WW2
 

murhis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
128
2
0
Helsinki
Load of crap...

"The T-34 was by far the best tank design in World War 2. In addition to having an excellent combination of firepower, armor, mobility, and shape, its superb technical design, which emphasized simplicity and durability, made it possible to mass produce it in enormous numbers, and gave it very high field and combat reliability, two critical attributes which the advanced German tanks lacked. It was the main war winning weapon of Russia in World War 2" http://www.2worldwar2.com/t-34-tank.htm

"The M4 Sherman tank was a winner by numbers, not by quality. When the US entered World War 2 it did not have a modern tank, even the latest existing designs were obsolete compared to the modern German tanks."

"But as I wrote, the M4 Sherman was a winner by numbers, so let's check those numbers. The total number of German Tiger and King Tiger tanks produced was 1835, that's all. They were extremely powerful and armored, but also technically unreliable and complex to produce. There were also 4800 German Panther tanks. A majority of these tanks fought against the Russian T-34s in the eastern front. The others were to fight the great majority of the more than 40,000 Sherman tanks produced (a minority fought in the Pacific), and one should remember that the sky above the battlefields were then dominated by swarms of allied fighter-bombers such as the American Thunderbolt and the British Typhoon which excelled in hunting German tanks and kept doing it whenever the sky were clear enough to fly." http://www.2worldwar2.com/sherman.htm

The biggest difference on eastern front were on quality of crewmen and battle doctrines or not speaking about communication. When Barbarossa started Russians had radios only in command tanks and only battle experience with tanks were from winter conditions at Finland or from small conflicts against Japs. So basically they had no experience on tank fighting. In later war the thing was counterway when there were T34 cracks who were used to this chassis, since it didnt changed much or at all during the war and counterway on Axis side they had new vehicles all the time and they didnt had proper or enough initiation for tanks before they got on real action.
 
Last edited:

murhis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
128
2
0
Helsinki
Denwad said:
the Sherman also has better armor and is ( probably ) more reliable than the T-34, it's also much quieter, because it has generally been accepted that ( beyond the Churchill perhaps ) that the T-34 was the loudest tank of WW2

Better armor... Maby front armor were slightly better but sides were _REALLY_ vulnerable and because its _VERY_ high profile it was like a sitting duck on field compared to T34. Also I doubt it was any or atleast not significally more reliable than T-34, since it was one the most reliable tanks in WW2. About loudness it's not matter any when you can still hear both of them from 2 km away!
 

MkH^

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 11, 2006
500
0
0
Finland
Denwad said:
the Sherman also has better armor and is ( probably ) more reliable than the T-34, it's also much quieter, because it has generally been accepted that ( beyond the Churchill perhaps ) that the T-34 was the loudest tank of WW2
Utter bull, unless we're talking about post-war M-50 Super Shermans or such. The allies weren't too convinced by craftmanship of the T-34 models sent for evaluation, corners were cut what came to crew comfortability compared to Shermans. However, saying Shermans were more reliable? No way. Besides, except for lend-lease models, the weather conditions on the Western front weren't in any way comparable to Ostfront. I also have doubts on T-34 being the loudest tank of WW2. Maybe loudest medium one, but I doubt it competes with W-12 Maybach. You are also leaving out one of the most important features: mobility, where the T-34 is completely unmatched.

The 17-pounder was more powerful than the 85mm, but the 76,2mm was then again more powerful than the 75mm. Also, while Sherman had very high profile vertical side armor, the T-34 had it sloped too, along with the turret sides. The front armor strenght is also debatable.
 
Last edited:

LordKhaine

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 19, 2005
1,008
120
0
UK
110th-Eisenburg said:
The T-34/85 was in almost every respect beter than the sherman-firefly.
The majority of the western allied tanks sucked, you cant even put the shermans in the same league as the T-34.
To be fair, at the time the Sherman was introduced in 1942 it wasn't a bad tank at all. It just didn't get the armour/gun upgrades like Russian/British/German tanks got over the war. It entered the war with a medium velocity 75mm, and ended the war with many Shermans still using a medium velocity 75mm. You have to remember the Sherman first saw action in Africa in British use, up against early short 75mm Pz4s and pz3s, when it proved more than enough of a match in tank combat.

As for the Firefly... I'd take it over the T-34/85 and indeed put it in the league above the T-34/85. The 17lber was vastly better than the 85mm. In fact the 17lber is often rated as being the best allied AT gun in the war. With APDS ammo it could penetrate 213mm at 1000m!. Not as if the increased armour of the T-34 is much use over a Sherman. Either is pretty doomed if it gets hit by any late war German tank shell. By the end of the war it was so often a case of hammers and eggshells.. and in such an enviroment I'd rather take the better gun and optics.

Though Fireflys were rare, and if you were to compared a more standard Sherman mark with a T-34.. I'd go with the T-34. While the T-34 was a bit rough around the edges, it was a good basic allround tank, ideally suited for the Soviet army.
 

kfnguy2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 11, 2005
176
0
0
LordKhaine said:
To be fair, at the time the Sherman was introduced in 1942 it wasn't a bad tank at all. It just didn't get the armour/gun upgrades like Russian/British/German tanks got over the war. It entered the war with a medium velocity 75mm, and ended the war with many Shermans still using a medium velocity 75mm. You have to remember the Sherman first saw action in Africa in British use, up against early short 75mm Pz4s and pz3s, when it proved more than enough of a match in tank combat.

As for the Firefly... I'd take it over the T-34/85 and indeed put it in the league above the T-34/85. The 17lber was vastly better than the 85mm. In fact the 17lber is often rated as being the best allied AT gun in the war. With APDS ammo it could penetrate 213mm at 1000m!. Not as if the increased armour of the T-34 is much use over a Sherman. Either is pretty doomed if it gets hit by any late war German tank shell. By the end of the war it was so often a case of hammers and eggshells.. and in such an enviroment I'd rather take the better gun and optics.

Though Fireflys were rare, and if you were to compared a more standard Sherman mark with a T-34.. I'd go with the T-34. While the T-34 was a bit rough around the edges, it was a good basic allround tank, ideally suited for the Soviet army.
He hit the jackpot. Besides guys - this thread started off talking about T34's and Panzers... How did Sherman get brought up? First off - It's unfair to say that the Americans had poor tanks. Technically they weren't as amazing as russian and german but that's because the Americans weren't focused on tank vs tank warfare. They left it to tank destroyers (and of course planes and infantry) for tank combat. And yes guys tank destroyers are not tanks. The U.S.'s tank destroyers were not bad at all.