in praise of Das Deutches Fagarbeiter....

[flyingwombat]

Originally Posted by Rupert

In Korea they were using the "Super Bazooka". It still wasn't really sufficient vs T-34s.

I read somewhere that early in Korea the bazooka used was the type in WWII. Sorry, it was a long time ago. Might be "This kind of war" or "Marine!"

[HANS]

>Compared to the T34 the Pather was expansive, slow to manufacture, had poorly designed armour (little sloping),

I agree with all these points except the last. The Panther had a LOT of sloping (not better than on the T-34, but certainly not "little sloping") and it used better steel.

Cheers

HANS

[HANS]

>The bazooka was not that great of a weapon. It was ineffectual against the armour of Tigers; a tread kill was almost impossible. The bazooka's upgraded but almost too late for WWII.

>Sadly, in Korea, early bazookas were still in use! And T-34s were very hard to knock out. This was fixed but not fast enough for those men who had to suffer the oldfer model.

The Bazooka was not upgraded during WWII -- at least not the warhead and thus its penetration. ALL Bazookas used in WWII fired the old 60mm warhead. The M20 Super Bazooka with the better 89mm warhead, while fiddled with during 1945, did not enter production and service until 1950.

Cheers

HANS

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by HANS

>Compared to the T34 the Pather was expansive, slow to manufacture, had poorly designed armour (little sloping),

I agree with all these points except the last. The Panther had a LOT of sloping (not better than on the T-34, but certainly not "little sloping") and it used better steel.

Okay. I did some checking last night, and I was wrong about the T34's vs the Panther's armour - where the Panther's armour wasn't well sloped (the mantlet, primarily) it was very thick.

I still say it was overweight and less reliable than it should've been, though.

[Z09SS]

The STEN has adjustable sights! You just take a pair of pliers and bend the rear sight where you want it...I've seen it done. This is alot like bending the barrel to zero the gun though.

The Germans had a natural flair for over-engineering things. I really like what Ian Hogg had to say about the AK vs the StG. Something to the effect of, "<Kalashnikov> took the idea and did something the Germans would have never considered, made it so a monkey could field strip it."

Once the engine/transmission issues were settled, the Panther was a fine tank. And those issues really didn't affect the A and F.

The only fundamental flaws in the design were the torsion bars were too light for the weight and the traverse mechanism was not strong enough to rotate the barrel when the tank was on a slope.

The Panther was well liked by its crews and respected by it opponents. Something the T-34 (not well liked by the crews) and Sherman (not respected) cannot claim.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Z09SS

Once the engine/transmission issues were settled, the Panther was a fine tank. And those issues really didn't affect the A and F.

The only fundamental flaws in the design were the torsion bars were too light for the weight and the traverse mechanism was not strong enough to rotate the barrel when the tank was on a slope.

The interleaved road wheels made maintainence of the suspension difficult, and tended to clog with mud and other crap, making thrown tracks all too likely. This is not a good feature in a medium tank/MBT, and when you add in a suspension that needed a lot of work (true of most models) it's quite bad.

[flyingwombat]

forget it everybody! Rupert is stubborn.

The only solution is to arrange a duel between the Panther vs T-34.

Rupert is the commander of the T-34. He and three of his closest friends get a week tank training "Dale Dye" style. Then they face the Panther team in simulated combat.

Who wants to be the commander of the panther? The panther crew will also get the "Dale Dye" treatment.

One rule, no ringers. You can't pick recently discharged tanker crews or anyone similar.

any takers?

Just one little problem: where do we get a fully functional T-34 and Panther?

------
;-)

[Staten]

I belive there are still T34's churning around in Afganistan, north Korea, and such places
The Panther is more tricky.


I agree that the VolksMP was a gross failure as quick and dirty mass production.
The praise part is that while a english or french worker will make a rough and ugly gun unless told to do so, german workers would do everything proper and thorough all by themselves.
Of course, it makes things more expensive. But they are oh so much more nice ;)

[schnuersi]

The Panther was superior compared to the T 34!
In fact it was superior to most other tanks and to all other medium tanks used during the war.
This is what it was designed to be. The problems concering the unreleability of the suspension where corrected with the improved A variant (the first and not yet combat ready variant was D). Most problems that couldn't be correced were wearout and fatigue related.
While the overall reliability of the Panther was inferior to the T 34 its combat performance was not.
The Panther has a much better gun (better ammo available, more precise, superior penetration and one of the highest rates of fire in its class), superior optical equipment, reliable radios and intercom, armor of better design and higher quality steel and a suspension with very good absorbability.
The suspention of the T 34 is quite bad this results in a very rough ride, limiting the cross country speed considerably. It also limits the ability of the gunner to observe while the tank is moveing and to observe his own shots.
Early models of the T 34 didn't have a designated loader. So the commander had to load the gun, limmiting his ability to command the vehicle. The T 34 also had several vulnerable locations in its armor. The most prominent is the drivers hatch in the front armor. Even a hit from a 3,7mm AT-Gun could penetrate it.
To understand why the Panther was build and considered a success despite its drawbacks (unreliable, tricky to maintain, high fuel consumption and high building cost) you have to look at the experiences made by the german army earlier in the war. The german army started with highly mobile but only light armored and moderate/light armed vehicles (Panzer II and III formed the backbone of the Panzerdivisonen). The operations in Poland and France succeded not because of superior equipment or superior numbers but better/more advanced tactics, leadership and planing. But the loses where considered to high (looking at limited resources of Germany) and the general staff knew if the allies would adapt and field improved equipment they would certainly loose. So the designs where centered more on (long range) firepower and surviveability. The Tiger and Panther where the direct and succesful results. The Königstiger and Jagttiger
are a different story though.

Bovington Tank Museum and Panzertruppenmuseum Munster have T34 and Panther in working condition.
I would volunteer to command the Panther. But i am an ex-tanker. Not recently discharged though.
But to keep it realistic the T 34 crew shouldn't get e week of training but just a one or two day crashcourse while the Panther crew should get about 6Month of training and an experienced commander. Like it was in WW2.
Remember the life expectancy of a T34 was about a week. Build on monday, transported to the frontline until friday, prepared for battle until sunday morning - a burning wreck around dinnertime.

[flyingwombat]

I don't think it would be fair, or fun, to have combat vets on either side. As for the week of training it's more to get an idea on what a tank crew does and to prevent accidents, not to train a crack crew.

The history channel's series "Heavy Metal" uses re-enactments, and in the ep on the T-34, the real thing.