Was the T-34 all that?

[Rich46yo]

I watched a history channel interview with the commander of one of these half-tracks.  His had a 75mm cannon on it.  He said they were deathtraps.  They drew enemy fire because they looked like tanks, but didn't have armor to stop anything but small arms.  Flawed design philosophy.  He went on to say how his whole squadron was wiped out.

Yeah thanks for the input Dave. Ive been drawing a blank. Im not surprised by the comments because the 251, by late war, was kind of a death trap itself if not properly supported by true armor. A fine motorized transport yes, and maybe the first of its kind, but tacking a Pak 40 on it by 1944 kinda sounds like desperation.

[PR3D4TOR]

Desperation or practicality? The whole point of a TD is that it's a mobile AT gun. They used to tow AT guns with half-tracks. Then they figured why not just put it on the vehicle itself. On the vehicle the AT gun is far more mobile and can retreat quickly, saving the gun crews the time to set up and pull down the gun between engagements. Most tank destroyers, Allied and German, were rather lightly armored. Some TDs in German service were exceptions like the later StuG and Jagdpanzer III/IV series (and the very rare Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger), but there were other fully tracked German TDs that were lightly armored, open topped affairs.

Panzerjäger I


Panzerjäger Marder series I-III






Nashorn

[Bodhi]

"Spain to Germany"? Do you mean France?

Anyway, as a former US Army tanker for the me the big question is that of accuracy. the T-34/85 had some awesome design features.

1. It was super easy to operate, which is important when the primary operator not highly educated.
2. It was fast, which made for a difficult target to hit. And speed 'cross country' is the biggest factor in open combat
3. Sloped armor made for 'thicker' armor, which provided protection at longer rangers. Inside X yards everything is dead.

This adds up to a fast tank, hard to hit, and when hit, sloped armor provided great protection. What I suspect is the accuracy of the main gun, while a great gun was mediocre at best. I suspect the T-34 won by simply swarming German armor and killing them at shorter ranges. I've read many, many accounts of German armor killing T-34s by the dozens, beginning at 1,500 plus meters, and simply not being able to kill enough before the Commies closed in for the kill. I've never read of T-34s making kill shots at 1,500 meters. I'm guessing it happened, I've not read it.

If this is the true then the "Rule of Professionals" holds true. That is, 'amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.' If you can field tanks at a ratio of 10 to 1, and have the supply train to get them on the battlefield, you will win.

If this is true, the tank itself is inconsequential. The fact that the Soviets built tens of thousands of them won the contest. And the mystique of the T-34 is a facade. just as the Sherman won by overwhelming German armor, the T-34 did the same.

T-34, M-4 inferior to Panther, Tiger
American, Soviet production dominated German production

boo

PS Side note, I've read many places that America did not reach armor parity until they field the M-26 Pershing.

This

[MiloMorai]

A break down of German AFC production

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/05/german-afv-production-1939-45_7.html

[FBKampfer]

Desperation or practicality? The whole point of a TD is that it's a mobile AT gun. They used to tow AT guns with half-tracks. Then they figured why not just put it on the vehicle itself. On the vehicle the AT gun is far more mobile and can retreat quickly, saving the gun crews the time to set up and pull down the gun between engagements. Most tank destroyers, Allied and German, were rather lightly armored. Some TDs in German service were exceptions like the later StuG and Jagdpanzer III/IV series (and the very rare Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger), but there were other fully tracked German TDs that were lightly armored, open topped affairs.

Panzerjäger I
(Image removed from quote.)

Panzerjäger Marder series I-III
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Nashorn
(Image removed from quote.)

Lightly armored German TD's were either stop gap measures, or specifically built to engage at standoff range on the Russian steeps (Nashorn).


It is entirely fallacious to assume that because they built light TD's cobbled together from various tanks and guns, that that is exactly what they wanted.

The T-34, though killable by a Panzer III, gave the Germans fits early in the war. They were desperately trying to get more firepower to the front, even going so far as to actively try to capture Russian 76.2mm AT guns, since they could be rechambered to accept German PzGr. 39/40 ammunition, or left chambered in 76.2mm and still provide acceptable performance.

While the Sd.Kfz. 251/22 met with some success when properly employed, in the same manner as a towable AT gun, it should be noted that this was really the only way they found any success. Point being it's not really fair to include them with tanks.

They were built to function in the same way as towable AT guns, as you yourself noted. And mostly that's how they were used.

[PR3D4TOR]

Then you should have used a more specific term than "AFV's of all types" - Armored Fighting Vehicle. A term that encompasses all sort of vehicles that have armor and is designed to fight.

Germany managed to produce just over 32,000 AFV's of all types...

[PR3D4TOR]

And yes, the light TDs was "exactly what they wanted". The soldier in the field wanted nothing but Tigers I'm sure, but the Wehrmacht wanted something they could use their already established Pz I/II production lines for. Something cheap and readily available, and that could use some of the vast quantities of Soviet guns they'd captured during Barbarossa. Or other guns that were less in demand by their primary vehicle types.

[MiloMorai]

[FBKampfer]

And yes, the light TDs was "exactly what they wanted". The soldier in the field wanted nothing but Tigers I'm sure, but the Wehrmacht wanted something they could use their already established Pz I/II production lines for. Something cheap and readily available, and that could use some of the vast quantities of Soviet guns they'd captured during Barbarossa. Or other guns that were less in demand by their primary vehicle types.

They built them out of necessity with what was available. They wanted all new vehicles, but that just wasn't practical.

The fact is the Marder wasn't what they wanted, but it was adequate, and it was what they could build at the time. What they wanted was essentially the Hetzer, but designing a new superstructure and retooling takes time, which was something not available.

And you are right, I should have been more specific.

[PR3D4TOR]

I think you're missing the point. The Hetzer was the natural and direct evolution of the Marder III (same chassis). Like the heavily armored Jagdpanzer IV was the natural evolution of the StuG in the TD role. The Marders and other light TDs were for all intents and purposes "free" additional vehicles to the Wehrmacht. Their production didn't negatively affect production of the main types. So a German commander could get a company of StuGs and a company of Jagdpanzer IVs. Or he could get a company of StuGs and a company of Jagdpanzer IVs and a company of Marders/Hetzers.


Few people realize just how tiny the Hetzer was. (Postwar Swiss version pictured.)

[FBKampfer]

I'm fully aware of their lack of impact on main production.  But that doesn't mean they were anything other than stopgap measures.

Were they anything else, they would have continued production until their more developed cousin was designed. However, once the Wehrmacht got sufficient numbers of Panzer IV FB's and StuG F's into service, production was halted.

They were built solely because Germany needed heavier firepower, needed it right now, and because they took essentially no effort to produce. Not because they were the paragon of armored vehicle design, perfectly filling the role Germany needed filled.

[PR3D4TOR]

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The Marder III was in production right up to when they switched to the Hetzer in March-April 1944, and remaining Marders continued to serve until the end of the war. To say that it was a stopgap measure is just nonsensical. It's a natural evolution of vehicle design. Just like Tiger I production stopped when the Tiger II was ready. That does not mean the Tiger I was a stopgap measure.

[FBKampfer]

It appears you are partially correct. I'm not quite so familiar with the Marder series as I am with the Panzers and StuG's.

The Marder III was not a stop gap per say. However the initial Marder series was very much intended as a stop gap,  and I simply assumed the same applied to all vehicles in the series. This was incorrect of me to do so.

It appears that the thinking was very much as you outlined, and they were built to extend the usable life of obsolete chassis, at little cost.

[PR3D4TOR]

The Panzerjager series (including Marder) were made as you say to "extend the usable life of obsolete chassis, at little cost." However, other lightly armored TDs were purpose built with little armor to increase mobility. The Nashorn for example was built on the Geschutzwagen III/IV using Pz III/IV parts so it actually cut into the production of Pz III and IV based vehicles like the StuG. The Allies and Soviets also made some lightly armored TDs like the M18 Hellcat. Again the idea was that mobility and firepower was more important than armor as these vehicles are essentially ambush platforms. Shoot and scoot.

[PR3D4TOR]