i know military history channel is wrong alot but

[Tank-Ace]

Also we must remember that german steel sucked during the kingtiger days. It was still to thick for almost anything to penetrate the armor but when hit the steel would crack or send shards flying inside the vehicle killing people. If it was early war german steel it be a different even more unstoppable tank. But for the rocket on las and yaks topic I could def See Russians using "ratos" on planes Russians love short muddy runways (when it's not rainning).

Lol.... no, not quite. Later Tiger II's had this problem, but then again, so did every german tank. And also lets remember that Soviet quality inspection wan't the benchmark of its day either.

And I can see hitler beating Russia, but that doesn't mean its what happened in real life.

[Noir]

Yeah I'm sure they loved their short, muddy runways. *facepalm*

[SmokinLoon]

Thats getting into some sketchy comparisons, SmokinLoon, the Panther is better than the Tiger I  in many areas, but the Tiger I out preforms the Panther in others and under specific conditions. Overall, I would consider the Panther a better tank, even if the IS was a better HEAVY tank.

And I think the IS-2 was better than the Tiger I, even if just barely, and only because of its increased armor. But that a German 1942 tank is comperable to a Soviet 1944 tank is really telling.

Point taken.  I cringe every time I see or hear comparisons of the IS-2 vs the King Tiger, or Tiger I.  You're exactly right in saying the Panther (G) was superior to the Tiger I in many ways, and that the Soviets finally in 1944-45 made something on par with 1941 German Tiger is telling in itself.  Of course, there will be some knee-jerkers that will say "what about the early way T34 vs German tanks?  That was more of a case of tank doctrine than tank vs tank issues there.  Once the Pzr IV F/2 arrived, the T34/76 was left behind because from that point on all it was was sheer numbers.  Even the T34/85 was behind the curve, the Pzr IV H has a superior AP round.  Again, sheer numbers won the day for the Soviets.  Ah well... life (and the eternal debate) goes on.        

[smoe]

most first rate Russian fighters

This is a very general term. May depend on the definition "first rate" at the time of writing.

Heck most WWII fighters could go supersonic. Just that the recovering part wouldn't be to successful.

[Tank-Ace]

Loon, in regards to the T-34 in early war, I think you're confusing things. Soviets had terrible doctrine, but better tanks, not the other way around. The only reason the T-34 and KV tanks gave the Germans trouble was that the German's best gun at the time was the 50mm L'60, which could penetrate ~80mm of armor with standard PzGr. 39 ammunition.

On paper, thats adequete, but combat rarely gives you a shot at 100m.

[W7LPNRICK]

we have to remember that many russian sources are not translated and the US hates giving Russia credit for anything. i would say look at german sources for confirmation but i cant read greman. the show was secret weapons of russia/stalin (lil drunk) but they where taking about the i16 with the rocket in it and they said " it waisted to much fuel to fast and test pilot died in crash, rocket plane was abandon but many russian front line fighter were equipped with some kind of rocket booster for more speed". now i know this is some what a vague statement but there most be at least something more then an i16 rocket tests to this.

Google translate- Copy & Paste into English ie:

Jakowlew Jak-9
Typ: russisches Jagdflugzeug aus dem 2.Weltkrieg. Manche auch Jagdbomber, Panzerjäger oder Langstrecken-Begleitjäger.
Geschichte: Die Jakowlew-Jäger waren das am häufigsten verwendete russische Jagdflugzeug in Korea und dem 2. Weltkrieg, und das bekannteste war die Jakowlew Jak-9.
Auch der zahlenmäßig am stärksten vertretene Typ der Jakowlew-Jagdflugzeuge, die Jak-9, wurde in einer Reihe von unterschiedlichen Versionen bis in die 50er Jahre des vergangen Jahrhunderts hinein produziert. Die Jak-9P, die letzte und beste Version, wurde von den Nord-Koreanern zahlreich im Korea-Krieg eingesetzt.

Yakovlev Yak-9
Type: Russian fighter plane from World War 2. Some even fighter-bombers, tanks and long-range fighter-escort fighters.
History: The Yakovlev-hunters were the most frequently used Russian fighter in Korea and the second World War II, and the most famous was the Yakovlev Yak-9.
The numerically most abundant type of Yakovlev fighters, the Yak-9 was produced in a number of different versions until the 50s of last century. The Yak-9P, the latest and greatest version, was abundant from the North Koreans during the Korean War used.

It's this easy... PS I found nothing which said  Booster rockets=Booster-Raketen, or Raketenantrieb anywhere on the Yak-9/9U
http://weltkrieg2.de/Waffen/Kampfflugzeuge/Jagdflugzeuge/russische/Jakowlew/Jak-9.htm

[SmokinLoon]

Loon, in regards to the T-34 in early war, I think you're confusing things. Soviets had terrible doctrine, but better tanks, not the other way around. The only reason the T-34 and KV tanks gave the Germans trouble was that the German's best gun at the time was the 50mm L'60, which could penetrate ~80mm of armor with standard PzGr. 39 ammunition.

On paper, thats adequete, but combat rarely gives you a shot at 100m.

No, I was correct in saying what I said.  The T34 only had armor going for it in the EW, that is it.  So I hesitate to give the Soviets the nod for having "better tanks", they certainly had better armor but that is only 1 attribute.  Most people forget the Soviets had a pathetic AP round for its 76mm gun, it was even less effective than the US M4/75mm.  The German's tank doctrine was still divided when they invaded the Soviet Union, they STILL used separate tanks to engage the enemy.  The Panzer III's 50mm Kw.K. 39 L/60 had to get too close in order to be effective vs the T34.  Once the Pzr IV F/2 arrived on scene the T34 was behind the curve.  There certainly is a gray area for when the Germans completely switched from the infantry support tank/anti-tank tank to the "MBT" doctrine, too bad for them it took too long.

The Ost Front offered sort of a circus for both side when it came to tank doctrine.  Both sides had shot themselves in the foot in multiple ways.  Each went different ways to correct their problems.  Tank for tank, the Germans were better for a multitude of reasons.  The Germans just couldn't replace the losses like the Soviets could.         

[Tank-Ace]

Looking at it that way, I guess its a matter of doctrine. I thought you were talking about the tacticle doctrine, as in the actual tactics and manuvers used in combat, where the germans were years ahead of the soviets.

[bangsbox]

Lol.... no, not quite. Later Tiger II's had this problem, but then again, so did every german tank. And also lets remember that Soviet quality inspection wan't the benchmark of its day either.

And I can see hitler beating Russia, but that doesn't mean its what happened in real life.

it is known that because of lack of certain metals the germans were not able to make steel of same quality by the end of the war. there are many reports of enemy shells not penetrating the tiger 2 and panthers armor, but the armor would crack or big flacks of steel would fly of inside the tank killing people. in either case allied investigations into these occurrences determined it was inferior steel   do to lack of chromium if i recall correctly

[Tank-Ace]

Spalling (this is what you're refering to) will still occure even with good steel. The Afrika Korps noted that even though their 50mm weapons wouldn't always penetrate the British tanks, hitting them was usually sufficent to either incapacitate the crews, or make them bail out, due to spalling.

My point is that spalling isn't a phenomenon unique to the late war German tanks. It was more of a problem, yes, but it was not isolated to just them. Odds are the only reason you don't hear more about spalling in allied tanks was that the German guns just usually penetrated the armor.

[Jabberwock]

On German armour and cracking in the late war (post 1943):

Tank Net had an interesting discussion on the subject, with lots of photos of wholesale cracking and/or large areas of plate scabbing (not just spalling) of German high hardness face-hardened armour.

There is a 1945 analysis of the armour of a Panther done by the Waterton Arsenal Laboratory (the armour piece was cracked off by a 75 mm HE round...). It goes a long way to supporting the proposition that German armour quality degraded in the later part of the war.

Some choice phrases from the report include:

"The cross-rolled homogenous armour was processed from steel of relatively poor quality with respect to non-metallic segregations"

"The extremely poor shock properties are traceable to the non-martensitic micorstrucuture resulting from hardenability inadequate to permit full hardening upon tempering.

"The very poor shock qualities are... traceable to the lack of hardenability occasioned by the elimination of molybendium"

"Inferior toughness as evidenced by brittle fractures and low impact resistance has been reported in several investigations of German armour that were 2" and greater in thickness"

"The impact properties... have been repeatedly found to be very poor"

"The quality of the steel is not as satisfactory as that of the average German armour previously investigated at this arsenal."

[Debrody]

Of course the quality degraded! How the hell can you mass-produce uber quality steel when your country is bombed to the dirt?

Btw t-34. That tank existed in 1941. Consider this, and you get the world's best tank of the period. (True, it wasnt on the frontline in large numbers that time)
47 mms of heavily sloped armor, 75mm main gun with about 80mm of penetration at 1km, fast like crazy... an unbeatable beast for the PanzerIIIs.
At relative close ranges, it still performs well against the Panzer4F-2. Looking at their upgrades, the 1944 Panzer4H is still inferior to the t34/85.

Also consider how incredibly simple the T34 was, easy to repair or replace parts.

Saying the t-34 was crappy is just dumb. It was the worlds very best tank when it came out. Other thing the german heavy tank designs were much better than the russians. Considering the Panther as a heavy by its weight, gun, and low production number

[Oldman731]

Saying the t-34 was crappy is just dumb. It was the worlds very best tank when it came out.

Agreed on both points.

I've often thought that even in 1945, if you were commanding an army on the offense, you wanted that army to be equipped with T-34s (the 1945 version, of course!).  The combination of range, protection, gun, mobility, reliability and ease of production was just not matched by any other tank of that war.

- oldman

[Widewing]

This is a very general term. May depend on the definition "first rate" at the time of writing.

Heck most WWII fighters could go supersonic. Just that the recovering part wouldn't be to successful.

Incorrect.... No WWII vintage fighters could get even remotely close to Mach 1. The first truly transonic fighter was the XP-86/F-86. Even the MiG-15 was incapable of attaining Mach 1.

[Tank-Ace]

Btw t-34. That tank existed in 1941. Consider this, and you get the world's best tank of the period. (True, it wasnt on the frontline in large numbers that time)
47 mms of heavily sloped armor, 75mm main gun with about 80mm of penetration at 1km, fast like crazy... an unbeatable beast for the PanzerIIIs.
At relative close ranges, it still performs well against the Panzer4F-2. Looking at their upgrades, the 1944 Panzer4H is still inferior to the t34/85.

Also consider how incredibly simple the T34 was, easy to repair or replace parts.

Saying the t-34 was crappy is just dumb. It was the worlds very best tank when it came out. Other thing the german heavy tank designs were much better than the russians. Considering the Panther as a heavy by its weight, gun, and low production number

Skill beats quality, debrody. T-34's in 1941 still got their arses handed to them because they were incredibly stupid with their tanks, and because they were undercrewed.

T-34 kept its edge for less than a year, the Tiger I, and Panther kept their edge for well over a year and a half, and 3 years respectivly.

And saying the T-34/85 is superior to the Panzer IV H is only true if you look at it from a maintinance and production standpoint as well. Its gun is inferior (without HVAP at close range, and at long range regardless of amunition), hull armor at LOS thickness is also inferior. Purely tank vs tank, the T-34/85 is only better in turret armor and manuverability.