T-34(85) wasnt Red Army's only tank... - Page 3

May 12th, 2004  
But germans admitted that their classification was not wery right, because in beginning of a war, they met KV-1 which was armed with 76mm gun, and from the german point of view was medium, but KV-1 had heavy armor and was invincible to PzKpfw-3( the main tank of germans in 1941/42, had average armor and weak weapon, 37mm) and Pz-4(75mm cannon, otherwise same to Pz-3) had to come close to penetrate KV's heavy armor. So after 1943 they canged classification, and i've seen sites that refer to Panther as heavy, and medium-heavy tanks. Also, after 1943 germans had short supply of chemicals to produce their armor, so they began using less quality armor on their tanks.
May 12th, 2004  
Originally Posted by rovai
2 sherman : Germans classified their tanks by gun power, and any tank that had main gun with caliber under 90-80mm was considered medium"Panther" had 75mm KwK gun, which was slightly better than 76mm gun o T-34 "Tiger" had 88mm KwK, and was considered heavy. Allies took armor and speed into consideration. For example, "Matilda" may be considered a medium tank by german classification, because it had weak cannon. Modern tanks definitions are different, there are no light or heavy tanks today. Russians use ERA armor on their tanks, so although their tanks are ligh, they still have same armor protection(if not better) than western tanks.
Correct although I'm not sure about your last point - any links to support it?

Originally Posted by rovai
2 Doppleganger : dont forget about moscow battle, which had huge psychological impact(the first major defeat of German army). Stalingrad and Kursk are two most famous because kursk was the biggest tank(ant other stuff too) battle in the world's history. Stalingrad was bloodiest battle ever and also there is movie about it. There are other battles, less known but still important. Leningrad blockade, crimea and kerchen battle, sevastopol(battle for sevastopol was almost like stalingrad)just to name a few.
I don't think you can place any of those battles you mentioned as having the same influence as Stalingrad. None were what you what call a turning point where Stalingrad most certainly was.

The Battle of Moscow ended up being a defeat for Germany true, but it was just as much to do with the weather, the lack of winter preperation for the Wehrmacht and delays to Operation Typhoon as to anything the Red Army did. And it was never anything other than a minor victory for the Soviet Union as the Germans rallied and held a defensive line deep in European Russia.

The Leningrad blockade or 'siege' was hardly a defeat for the Wehrmacht. The Germans decided that it wasn't worth risking a high casulty rate and the guns of the Soviet Baltic Fleet also made it difficult for them to get a foothold in the city. So instead they invested it.

It's true that Army Group South took longer than expected to capture the Crimea and resistance was fierce. In fact, the Soviet soldiers fought very bravely in many places, this being one of them. It was a battle of attrition rather than Blitzkrieg but the Germans conquered the Crimea so again you can't call it a defeat before Stalingrad.

After Kursk though the Red Army swept through the German forces and it was only a matter of time before they reached Berlin.
May 12th, 2004  
I never said that these battles were dececive, but they were important nevertheless. Leningrad drew German forces, and they had to keep several divisions around it all the time. Battle of Moscow was more of ideological victory, and germans lost not only because of the weather. They lost, ironically, because of their fast advance. Red army destroyed most of the infrastructure while falling back. And there were many russian forces left behind the frontline simply because german pazner divisions advanced faster than red army could withdraw, and there were no enough forces to eliminate them fast enough. Also, germans needed fuel, ammo. spare parts. They needed bases for them, and it all took time. By the time they reached Moscow, even if they would have crossed volokolamsk road, they had not enough forces for the streetfights. And of course there was cold.

The amount of troops engaged in these battles were small when compared to stalingrad, they were huge compared to other war theaters. Here is amount of forces germans used in sevastopol:

11th army(10 infantry divisions)

approx 204.000 soldiers.
approx 2100 artillery pieces:
670 artillery pieces(75mm to 600mm).
655 Anti tank artillery.
720 Howitzers.
450 tanks.
600 planes.

In el alamein british had 194.000 men, about 1200 tanks and 1900 artillery pieces.

2 Doppleganger

Here is M1A1 armor data, M1A2 has the same armor.

M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)
M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe) Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
Turret 800 - 900 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis 560 - 590 510 - 1,050
Lower Front Hull 580 - 650 800 - 970
RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham) armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the same thickness.

Here is T-90

Front armor rating, mm RHA vs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-1,350mm
more on T-90 armor is here http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html

You have to remember that T-90 is much lighter,faster and has various electronic countermeasures(as Abrams does). ERA is said to work slightly better against cumulative ammunition than regular plates, but works slightly worse against APFSDS.

P.S In my opinion Merkava is the best
May 12th, 2004  

Topic: well

Well, Rovai, we are talking about WWII, so lets stay on topic. If you will look you will find we have a few threads about the current best tank....
May 13th, 2004  

Topic: Re: well

Originally Posted by sherman105
Well, Rovai, we are talking about WWII, so lets stay on topic. If you will look you will find we have a few threads about the current best tank....
Ok, just Doppleganger saked for a proof....
Anyway, lets stay on topic.
July 2nd, 2004  
what about the SMK or the T-100 programs, there had light armor for a tank, slow speed for a snail, and less firepower than most tanks, not all, but most, and it was classified as one of russia's super heavy experimental's and the germans took it out with their pre-WWII light tanks ....... it's not neccasarily how you catagorize them, or how accurately if you do, it's how you use them and if you could use them, our sherman was the equivalent of a german light tank, and our and the british's medium tank, and the us designed the T-95 that made the german tigers and koenigtigers look small and impotent, and then the russians just made the same tank outa a cookie cuter plant , everyone uses things differently, but when you have a loosing hand like slow production, and then you have severe mechanical, and weather difficulties, ontop of the fact that russian's were defended their homeland to there own deaths , and russia has a reputation of being unbeatable, no one has taken it over, they tried and failed, hitler is one of the many , so remember, whether it's a 4 mile an hour super heavy trudging along, or a 140 mile an hour light makin' dust , you have to use them very very intelegently, which means knowing what can and can't kill you and vice versa