Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: JimmyD3 on August 06, 2015, 07:58:24 PM
Interesting, thanks for sharing. :salute
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: Squire on August 06, 2015, 08:28:46 PM
All WW2 AFVs had drawbacks and design issues not just the T-34.
The author completely ignores the comparative industrial capacity and raw material production of the various combatant nations. "War winning indeed". Yes it was...the T-34/76 drawbacks aside was exactly what the Soviets needed to equip their Armored Divisions. It wasn't made to last 5 years...it did not need a lot of fancy extras...it was not "the best tank of the war" it didn't have to be. They needed 1000s of them and they needed them next week. It was good enough for what was required of it.
Compare the industrial capability of the Soviet Union to the USA and Germany from 1941-45 and then see how many AFVs they made. It's an astounding figure. They made good practical combat vehicles designed to last a few months of hard service crewed by inducted men with not a lot of formal training. To do it any other way would have spelled disaster for them.
...and all the fancy Panthers, Tigers, StuGs and other expensive, labor intensive, overly complicated and over designed AFVs that Germans had, looked great after the war in Soviet Military Museums.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 06, 2015, 09:16:58 PM
He tries too hard. In late 1941 and for most of 1942 the T-34 was unrivaled as the best tank in the world, and a rude shock to the Panzerwaffe. By late 1942 the title was claimed by the Tiger, and the M4 Sherman entered service as an equal to the T-34 in most respects. 1943-1945 there was little to choose between the M4, T-34 and PzKpfw IV.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: pembquist on August 07, 2015, 12:54:07 AM
He tries too hard. In late 1941 and for most of 1942 the T-34 was unrivaled as the best tank in the world, and a rude shock to the Panzerwaffe. By late 1942 the title was claimed by the Tiger, and the M4 Sherman entered service as an equal to the T-34 in most respects. 1943-1945 there was little to choose between the M4, T-34 and PzKpfw IV.
What he said.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: Jabberwock on August 07, 2015, 02:02:11 AM
Speaking as someone who first became interest in WW2 through a love of tanks, there's been a bit of a push to denigrate the design and the performance of the T-34 in the last decade or so. There's also been a counter-argument to this.
The standard historical narrative for a long time was that the T-34 was a brilliant basic design that shocked the Germans when it first appeared, but the design had some weaknesses and was let down by these flaws, as well as poor Soviet training and tactics.
About 2006-2007, a translation of a Polish book called 'T-34 Mythical Weapon' came out. Its a very long history of the tank, but its underlying premise is that the T-34 was a terrible design that really shouldn't have made it to production/should have been replaced ASAP. Itspends a considerable amount of time attempting to substantiate this.
This started quite a bit of 'the T-34 was rubbish' band-wagon jumping, both in print and online.
Following this, there's been a bit of push-back from some serious armour historians that have pointed out that there were serious flaws with probably every WW2 tank design, getting each into production was a job in itself and that the T-34s flaws, while they were many, weren't unusual for the period and probably weren't any worse than any other design of the mid 1930s.
My take is that the T-34 was a very solid overall basic design for the late 1930s/early 1940s - good armour, mobility and firepower - that probably suffered from a lack of more aggressive development in the immediate pre WW2 period and up to around the middle of 1942. I feel that when it was introduced, it was as good as any tank in the world. When the war finished, it was middle of the pack, and fading fast.
The T-34's design and some of its flaws were also reflections of shortcomings in Soviet industrial design capacity and engineering/production philosophy of the period, as well as a reflection of Soviet command and control and armoured warfare doctrine of the period.
The tank was probably under-armed and slightly under-armoured by mid-1943, and was outclassed to a degree by the German cats and tank-hunters in the final 24 months of the war, even in its 85 mm armed version. There were better Soviet designs available - the T-34M with a bigger turret, revised engine and transmission, better ergonomics and improved visibility - but the exigencies of the war meant that they weren't introduced.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: JVboob on August 07, 2015, 05:41:11 AM
The US (i believe) captured and operated a Panther from Spain to Germany and it did outstanding something broke while it was in Germany and there were no spares for it so we (the US) left it at that point.
Ive got the story some where ill see if I can remember to post it.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: mthrockmor on August 07, 2015, 05:54:00 AM
"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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 07, 2015, 08:16:35 AM
He's probably thinking of "Cuckoo". An early Panther G the British captured in Belgium and pressed into service.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: FBKampfer on August 07, 2015, 11:35:42 AM
mthrocker/boo perfectly assessed the situation. The soviets never wanted to build the best tank, they wanted an adequate one. Because their tanks simply had to be adequate, and the 5:1 production ratio they had over the Germans would take care of the rest.
Was the T-34 But for the sake of argument? Absolutely not. Their cannons sucked arse compared to German equivalent models. Well that's not entirely accurate. Their armor penetration performance sucked. Projectile weight and muzzle velocity were roughly comparable, which leads me to believe that the failing was in the geometry of the penetrator, or in the metallurgy.
While it was well protected, driving it was a nightmare. I've heard tales of drivers needing to keep a hammer in the cockpit just to shift gears. And what with the Soviet's world renowned craftsmanship and that rear drive sprocket, I'm not terribly surprised. But the point is that the driver is probably going to collapse after a few hours of manhandleing his machine around. A German or US Sherman though? You could fight your machine all day if you needed to.
It was cramped, limiting the off road speed below what the machine was physically capable of. You might hit 25mph off road, but your driver might hit his head and get knocked out. You can reach 25mph, but you won't always stop.
No, the T-34 was not without its faults. But part of the problem with living up to its reputation is that it's reputation essentially has it as the Jesus of tanks. Way too many people hear that the T-34 was invulnerable from the front (when in reality, the 50mm Pak 38 could deal with it from the front out to around 300m), that it's cannon was death to any German tank except the Tiger (when essentially all German tanks in service when they first met the T34 had 50mm or less of armor).
Nothing can live up to an exaggerated reputation. The Panther which, minus it's drive shaft in later models, was probably the best tank of WW2, couldn't live up to that reputation. A modern M1A2 couldn't. Nothing can, because no tank is perfect.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 07, 2015, 12:17:21 PM
Production numbers tend to focus too much on tank production alone. German production priorities were different than those of the allies. Germany produced many other armored combat vehicles like the StuG and turretless tank destroyers. Germany and the UK both produced around 50,000 tanks during the war. Britain also only produced a similar number of other armored vehicles. However, Germany produced over 300,000 other armored vehicles. In this respect they even outproduced the Soviets. The Soviets produced just over 100,000 armored vehicles of which 66,000 were medium and heavy tanks.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: Rich46yo on August 07, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
Well let me ask you all this? Is it unfair to simply judge the tank on its own or should the overall philosophy behind it be judged? How do I ask this truly?
The T34 was designed to be part of a system of combined arms designed to beat the Germans. So to judge the tank itself should we also judge the support system behind it? The combined arms armor role it was designed to be part of? In other words the individual tank was designed to be part of the whole so shouldnt that "whole" be the one judged?
It seems to have been the right tank at the right time in the right place built in the right numbers and thrown against the right enemy with the right crews fighting in it. Thats what Im saying. As was the other componants of the combined arms offensives of the Soviets, trucks, planes, arty, ATGs, AA, infantry, that was able to throw back the Germans. And really, no diss to the Allies, win the war.
The German had unhappy times with the T34 starting at the beginning of the war. Luckily for them momentum was on their side and the Reds were uncoordinated. I dont remember when the two first met but German tankers and ATG crews found the T34 a rude shock even in 1941. Of course the individual tank is but a part of the whole. What good is the individual when the rest of the house is falling in?
So I think it was a great tank with faults, manned by very brave crews. I think Zhukov and his people knew exactly what they wanted and a polished Cadillac wasnt part of the plan. In the end they knew the power of combined arms offensives led by tank breakthroughs even better then their rivals, which stands to reason since they were the first to unleash the concept at Nomonhan.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 07, 2015, 05:14:51 PM
Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, and the first encountered T-34s in July at the battle of Riga, Latvia.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 07, 2015, 05:46:17 PM
These other 300K armored vehicles would be......
Some numbers from Zaloga: Germany had 13,362 armored vehicles on Jan 1 1945 of which 4,881 were on the Eastern Front. The Soviets had 16,200 armored vehicles.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: FBKampfer on August 07, 2015, 06:29:53 PM
Production numbers tend to focus too much on tank production alone. German production priorities were different than those of the allies. Germany produced many other armored combat vehicles like the StuG and turretless tank destroyers. Germany and the UK both produced around 50,000 tanks during the war. Britain also only produced a similar number of other armored vehicles. However, Germany produced over 300,000 other armored vehicles. In this respect they even outproduced the Soviets. The Soviets produced just over 100,000 armored vehicles of which 66,000 were medium and heavy tanks.
Germany managed to produce just over 32,000 AFV's of all types, including rebuilt chassis converted into StuG, and other SPG platforms, Panzer II's, and early production models of the III and IV, if I recall correctly from the tally I did.
Though this does not include Czech and French tanks captured and put into service, it does also include the Hetzer production.
The Allies, on the other hand, produced a hair under 200,000 of all types.
Granted this includes significant numbers of T-26's destroyed early in the Winter War, and in the opening acts of Barbarossa, the disparity is none the less quite daunting.
It's a testament to Soviet incompetency that they managed to get their arses kicked so severely for the first two years.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 07, 2015, 07:22:36 PM
The Pz III and Pz IV production alone accounts for over 29,000.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: FBKampfer on August 07, 2015, 09:02:00 PM
The Pz III and Pz IV production alone accounts for over 29,000.
Try 14,000. Where are you seeing these numbers?
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 07, 2015, 09:16:12 PM
I have the production figures around here somewhere. Give me a minute. Too many threads like this. :)
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 07, 2015, 10:31:42 PM
Found it. An image I downloaded from a similar discussion over at the WoT forums a few years back. Shows total German tank production broken down by type and year.
Found it. An image I downloaded from a similar discussion over at the WoT forums a few years back. Shows total German tank production broken down by type and year.
And Wiki breaks the numbers down even more, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
Note that not all numbers in the graphic posted are tanks but include other AFV that used the tank chassis.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 08, 2015, 11:42:58 AM
And those figures do not account for all the other armored fighting vehicles the Germans made. Since they were not subject to the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, Germany developed more armored half-tracks and armored wheeled vehicles than any other nation.
Just the Sd.Kfz. 250/251 adds another 20,000+ to the German AFV tally. They weighed the same as light tanks, were armored like light tanks and were armed like light tanks. In some cases they were armed like medium tanks/TDs.
Then there are the numerous 4, 6 and 8 wheeled Panzerspahwagen. Also armored and armed like light tanks, in some cases like medium tanks. The "Puma" (last picture) was also armored like a medium tank with an armor thickness of 30-100 mm. These vehicles add more tens of thousands to the tally.
In the German army these vehicles did everything the Allies used light tanks/tracked vehicles for. Like reconnaissance, communications, command/staff etc. infantry support and even artillery/TD.
Despite their dogma and propaganda the Germans weren't supermen. There's a reason it took the world five years to defeat them. Germans are nothing if not productive.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 08, 2015, 12:24:58 PM
Then there are the numerous 4, 6 and 8 wheeled Panzerspahwagen. Also armored and armed like light tanks, in some cases like medium tanks. The "Puma" (last picture) was also armored like a medium tank with an armor thickness of 30-100 mm. These vehicles add more tens of thousands to the tally.
Actually that should be 9mm to 100mm.
The front of the turret is protected by 30 mm armor set at an angle of 20° from the vertical. The sides and rear have 10 mm armor set at 25°, and the top plate is of the same thickness. The gun mantlet is rounded, and is 40 to 100 mm thick. The front of the superstructure has 30 mm armor set at a 35° angle, and the sides 10 mm at 30°. The nose plates of the hull are 30 mm thick, the upper plate being set at a 55° angle and the lower at 30°. The glacis plate is 17 mm at 70° and the sides of the hull 9 mm at 30°.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 08, 2015, 12:36:49 PM
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: Rich46yo on August 08, 2015, 01:02:37 PM
Looks like the Pak-38 gun. Werent there half tracks with the Pak-40 as well? I wonder how many of these two were built and what impact they had? Of course the 251's towed the hell out of Pak 40 ATGs but I seem to remember the 251 version with the mounted Pak 40 was encountered on the western front. Now Im drawing a blank finding info.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: FBKampfer on August 09, 2015, 01:46:51 AM
Found it. An image I downloaded from a similar discussion over at the WoT forums a few years back. Shows total German tank production broken down by type and year.
I would be highly skeptical of those numbers based on their origins alone.
And I'm not seeing any original source listing PanzerKampfWagen IV production exceeding 9000.
I suspect those numbers include all variants and recovered and refurbished vehicles.
However, I have no idea what he's using for his Panzer III numbers. They are ludicrously high, nearly three times the number of original vehicles produced.
And if we're including troop carriers and armored cars, production for the United States alone balloons to nearly 150,000 of all types.
However, I thought we were specifically discussing tanks, or at least vehicles suitable for sustained combat. Those were the criteria I used for my tally of all nations' armored vehicles.
And it's important to note that for the most part, armored cars were not in fact used for direct combat.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: artik on August 09, 2015, 02:03:54 AM
T-34 wasn't the "best" but it was one of the best that were widely produced. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Panzer III and short barrel Panzer IV 75mm guns had big problems penetrating its armor. And T-34's gun was superior to German counterparts.
You should always compare the vehicles or planes according to the period. T-34 was one of the best at the beginning also it had its problems like any other vehicle.
T-34 was easy to produce and good enough, its armor and armament was good enough and superior to German one at the beginning of Soviet German hostilities.
That's it.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 09, 2015, 04:58:54 AM
Same author as the T-34 myths, http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.ca/2013/09/wwii-myths-multitude-of-german-afv-types.html
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: DaveBB on August 09, 2015, 01:43:26 PM
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.
And those figures do not account for all the other armored fighting vehicles the Germans made. Since they were not subject to the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, Germany developed more armored half-tracks and armored wheeled vehicles than any other nation.
Just the Sd.Kfz. 250/251 adds another 20,000+ to the German AFV tally. They weighed the same as light tanks, were armored like light tanks and were armed like light tanks. In some cases they were armed like medium tanks/TDs.
Then there are the numerous 4, 6 and 8 wheeled Panzerspahwagen. Also armored and armed like light tanks, in some cases like medium tanks. The "Puma" (last picture) was also armored like a medium tank with an armor thickness of 30-100 mm. These vehicles add more tens of thousands to the tally.
In the German army these vehicles did everything the Allies used light tanks/tracked vehicles for. Like reconnaissance, communications, command/staff etc. infantry support and even artillery/TD.
Despite their dogma and propaganda the Germans weren't supermen. There's a reason it took the world five years to defeat them. Germans are nothing if not productive.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 09, 2015, 06:35:15 PM
from a British report:
The design shows a clear-headed appreciation of the essentials of an effective tank and the requirements of war, duly adjusted to the particular characteristics of the Russian soldier, the terrain and the manufacturing facilities available. When it is considered how recently Russia has become industrialized and how great a proportion of the industrialized regions have been over-run by the enemy, with consequent loss of hurried evacuation of plant and workers, the design and production of such useful tanks in such great numbers stands out as an engineering achievement of the first magnitude.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: Rich46yo on August 09, 2015, 10:39:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 09, 2015, 11:22:08 PM
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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_169-0110%2C_Russland%2C_Panzerj%C3%A4ger_1.jpg)
Panzerjäger Marder series I-III (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-297-1701-29%2C_Im_Westen%2C_Panzer_%22Marder_I%22.jpg)
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
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 10, 2015, 11:11:59 AM
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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_169-0110%2C_Russland%2C_Panzerj%C3%A4ger_1.jpg)
Panzerjäger Marder series I-III (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-297-1701-29%2C_Im_Westen%2C_Panzer_%22Marder_I%22.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 10, 2015, 07:21:09 PM
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...
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 10, 2015, 07:31:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: MiloMorai on August 10, 2015, 09:14:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 10, 2015, 11:43:45 PM
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.)
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: FBKampfer on August 11, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 11, 2015, 11:00:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: FBKampfer on August 12, 2015, 01:27:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 12, 2015, 01:51:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Was the T-34 all that?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on August 12, 2015, 11:44:40 AM