@DonMeaker i dont know WHO gived to you thumbs up,but what did you say is completely rubbish. The sucking for engine was the big weak point of the Panzer IV...read some authenitc memories from tank crew of Pz Iv. The germans says that the sucking vent was like an invitation for enemy shell. Amen.
@OspreyCZ The PzKw IV was designed before modern antitank shot, and got some things right, others wrong. It had a large roomy 3 man turret which let it fight in nearly every WWII german battle, whereas the Pz III was obsolete in1943. In Spain the Molotov was one of the better antitank weapons (speaking to the paucity of antitank weapons there) and design to resist the Molotov was a significant design feature.
i see that the spanish speakers have got their history wrong, "DerWerhmacht" the "Maus" was only a prototype and never saw action, or any kind of operation, i think there was only 1 built.
RAZENBEL Panzerkampfwagnen T34 never existed, becaus the T-34 is russian, thus is not called Panzer(ect)
Besides, a Tiger 1 and Panther of any Mark, and a King Tiger could eat big numbers of T-34 alone.
1. I Think that there were 2 prototypes of Maus constructed without main gun.
2. Some numbers of T34 were captured and used by the germans as Panzerkampfwagnen T34(r)
3. T-34/85 could engage any heavy german tank with good chances, and russians had heavier tanks as KV and JS comparable to tigers and panthers. Crew skills and training also counts.
No, the Tigers Panthers and King Tigers, did not have trouble with the T-34's.
some Tiger units had above 12/1 K/D ratios on the eastern front.
not to mention that the T-34 could not penetrate the Tigers Panthers and King Tiger's armor at point blank range.
the T-34-85 could penetrate the front armor of the Tiger at 600 meters, while the Tiger could take T-34-85's out at 3000 meters. pretty much same with the panther.
Well, yes, but remind that after all T34 was a medium tank (faster than any german tank)... "panzer zoo" were heavy. IS-2 had a 122 mm. gun that could pierce any armour at combat ranges.
On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition in destroying 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross.
the 122 mm gun has less penetration force than the german 88.
actually the Tiger tank could penetrate the IS-2 tank at pretty much the same range as the IS-2 could penetrate the Tiger.
Gun size and type matters less, for example the 75mm HV gun on the Panther tank actually had even more penetration power than the 88 gun on the Tiger 1.
however the King Tiger had the most powerful of them all.
Nah, King Tiger hadnt tronger cannon then IS-2but 122mm cannon was accurate. The precision and reaload time were fatal, thats one of reaons why the tiger II was better. Read about 'Löwe' 'Adler' or 'Maus' these things would destroy every other tank in the battlefield.
here we go again, i just explained to another guy how the gun caliber doesnt matter.
the IS-2 122mm had less penetration power than the KT 88mm, and the 75mm HV gun on the panther, which in turn had more penetration than the first edition 88mm that were on the Tiger 1.
@Miratesus Gun caliber does matter, but it is not the only thing. KE is Mass times velocity squared (divided by 2). Mass is related to square of diameter. For a given velocity the larger diameter (for full caliber rounds) will have better energy. For a given mass, higher velocity will have have better energy. For more modern penetration modes, kinetic energy may be important, or other factors can be important.
Oh my, i did some reading on the IS-2 122 cannon, and i realised the cannon was an utter failure
German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.
the Panther tank reached speeds up to 55km/h, note that the Panther has the new tracks, pretty much like the T-34, and had exellent speed for a tank at that period.
Hey, relax, I'm not trying to prove nothing but the fact that no matter who had the better tanks (Germany or USSR), they were no far much superior than the tanks of the enemy. After al Panther design was highly inspired by T34 innovations.
the first prototype of the panther was basicly a copy of the T-34, however the one that was chosen was not so inspired by the T-34, it was bigger, better armed, and better armored, and only took the sloped armor of the T-34.
compare them next to eachother and they dont look anything like eachother.
Russian use of Shermans resolved an important problem for them. When hit by enemy fire small bits of armor broke off and injured crew men. Their Armor was inferior in the T-34, and rather than stop production of bad armor, they continued it. NKVD was convinced it was sabotage. Sherman tanks had no such problem, and eventually the quality of the armor was increased without the torture/show trials/murder associated with NKVD methods.
The recent book on the subject thinks highly of them.
All tanks had high loss rates. All tanks were prove against near miss artillery, which permitted them to advance when infantry couldn't. All tanks would suffer from a direct hit from major caliber artillery or the new shaped charges. The details differ, but they had more in common than they had to separate them.
@Miratesus The Char B had the high velocity gun right. The Matilda got levels of armor protection right. The Pz IV got the 3 man turret right. The US tanks got gun stabilization and fast electric traverse more right than others. The T-34 had sloped armor and better cross country suspension. After that, we all learned from our enemies better than we learned from our friends.
@DonMeaker Not you again, Stop haunting me I thought you were fed up actually. You do make nice pointers here on the pz4 got nothing to argue against you.
However do not come with your ridiculus claims that I am evil again, They only gave me a nice laugh seeing that you could not get your point across and nor that I would fall for your emotional arguements.
T-34s suspension wasn't widely copied... actually only british cruiser tanks, russian T-34 and BT tanks used Christie suspension but what im trying to say is that T-34s suspension movement was very limited and that caused a very rough ride. You can feel every single rock under the tracks. It was very tiring for the crew.
But actually the suspension what Tiger and Panther useda was much better because it offered a much smoother ride, only problem was the interleaved roadwheels.
@CoreMaster111 Merkava has external coil springs even today. T-34 variation of Christie used sloped coil springs, compared to Christie which used bell cranks to align the coil springs along the length of the tank, giving great length. Torsion bars like Tiger/Panther made the tank higher, and with heavy armor, heavier, which cut mobility. T-34 crew fatigue was more due to rotten transmission and commander having to act as gunner, and having no turret basket.
@CoreMaster111 - youre right, Christie suspension was old and uncomfortable even in 1939, torsion bars suspension was more more better (PzKpfw III,V,VI) and is used today in modern tanks
There were two prototypes built in germany at a testing area. Both with a turret but when the Russians came there all 2 Maus were destroyed. In a Museum near Moskwa you can see the turret of Maus 2 on the tracks of Maus 1.
si el panzer fue uno de los mejores carros de combate de la historia pero el mejor fue T-34 sovietico hasta el general von Rustend dijo que era uno de los mejores tanques y el general von Keist dijo que era el mejor,tan efectivo era que los alemanes lo usaron y lo llamaron PANZERKAMPFWANGET-34
Couldn't the Panzer IV be fitted with a flamethrower?
dsam121 1 year ago
@dsam121 yes, but they were never mande. the Panzer III 'Flamm' was specially made for that purpose.
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 year ago
Great model, i didnt know the side vents made it immune to the molotov cocktail... huh learn something every day
Molotov1943 2 years ago
Pzkw IV was unique in that it sucked its engine air through slots at the sides, making it the only tank ever fielded immune to the Molotov Cocktail
DonMeaker 2 years ago 9
@DonMeaker i dont know WHO gived to you thumbs up,but what did you say is completely rubbish. The sucking for engine was the big weak point of the Panzer IV...read some authenitc memories from tank crew of Pz Iv. The germans says that the sucking vent was like an invitation for enemy shell. Amen.
OspreyCZ 1 year ago
@OspreyCZ The PzKw IV was designed before modern antitank shot, and got some things right, others wrong. It had a large roomy 3 man turret which let it fight in nearly every WWII german battle, whereas the Pz III was obsolete in1943. In Spain the Molotov was one of the better antitank weapons (speaking to the paucity of antitank weapons there) and design to resist the Molotov was a significant design feature.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
i see that the spanish speakers have got their history wrong, "DerWerhmacht" the "Maus" was only a prototype and never saw action, or any kind of operation, i think there was only 1 built.
RAZENBEL Panzerkampfwagnen T34 never existed, becaus the T-34 is russian, thus is not called Panzer(ect)
Besides, a Tiger 1 and Panther of any Mark, and a King Tiger could eat big numbers of T-34 alone.
Miratesus 2 years ago
1. I Think that there were 2 prototypes of Maus constructed without main gun.
2. Some numbers of T34 were captured and used by the germans as Panzerkampfwagnen T34(r)
3. T-34/85 could engage any heavy german tank with good chances, and russians had heavier tanks as KV and JS comparable to tigers and panthers. Crew skills and training also counts.
gregoriokafka 2 years ago
No, the Tigers Panthers and King Tigers, did not have trouble with the T-34's.
some Tiger units had above 12/1 K/D ratios on the eastern front.
not to mention that the T-34 could not penetrate the Tigers Panthers and King Tiger's armor at point blank range.
the T-34-85 could penetrate the front armor of the Tiger at 600 meters, while the Tiger could take T-34-85's out at 3000 meters. pretty much same with the panther.
it is true that germans did use captured T-34's.
Miratesus 2 years ago
Well, yes, but remind that after all T34 was a medium tank (faster than any german tank)... "panzer zoo" were heavy. IS-2 had a 122 mm. gun that could pierce any armour at combat ranges.
gregoriokafka 2 years ago
On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition in destroying 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross.
one of the many examples.
Miratesus 2 years ago 7
Well, this prove my last point: "Crew skills and training also counts".
gregoriokafka 2 years ago
the 122 mm gun has less penetration force than the german 88.
actually the Tiger tank could penetrate the IS-2 tank at pretty much the same range as the IS-2 could penetrate the Tiger.
Gun size and type matters less, for example the 75mm HV gun on the Panther tank actually had even more penetration power than the 88 gun on the Tiger 1.
however the King Tiger had the most powerful of them all.
Miratesus 2 years ago
Nah, King Tiger hadnt tronger cannon then IS-2but 122mm cannon was accurate. The precision and reaload time were fatal, thats one of reaons why the tiger II was better. Read about 'Löwe' 'Adler' or 'Maus' these things would destroy every other tank in the battlefield.
Ixtzalit 2 years ago
here we go again, i just explained to another guy how the gun caliber doesnt matter.
the IS-2 122mm had less penetration power than the KT 88mm, and the 75mm HV gun on the panther, which in turn had more penetration than the first edition 88mm that were on the Tiger 1.
Miratesus 2 years ago
@Miratesus Gun caliber does matter, but it is not the only thing. KE is Mass times velocity squared (divided by 2). Mass is related to square of diameter. For a given velocity the larger diameter (for full caliber rounds) will have better energy. For a given mass, higher velocity will have have better energy. For more modern penetration modes, kinetic energy may be important, or other factors can be important.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
Oh my, i did some reading on the IS-2 122 cannon, and i realised the cannon was an utter failure
German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.
Miratesus 2 years ago
Its good to know that, could you send me the link of this source pls because i want read it too^^.
Ixtzalit 2 years ago
@ Ixtzalit
the 88mm L71 of the King tiger, Jagdpanther, Elephant and of the Nashorn , was able to penetrate much more than the 128mm of the IS2
one of the reasons for that is, that the 128mm was originally an howitzer and not an AT gun, like the 88mm L71 was
even the german 75mm L70 was nearly as powerfull as the 128mm was^^
RitterDerKokosnusss 2 years ago
the T-34 could drive at 53km/h
the Panther tank reached speeds up to 55km/h, note that the Panther has the new tracks, pretty much like the T-34, and had exellent speed for a tank at that period.
Miratesus 2 years ago
your arguments trying to prove that russian armor were superior is flawed.
read about the facts, the only things the russians did was to build many tanks.
yes they were good for their duties and excellent tanks, better than the American and Brittish tanks, yet sub-par vs the German tanks.
they also used new technology, like sloped armor which in the end the Germans perfected.
from 1939-1942. the best tank in the world was the T-34.
however after that it becomes unclear.
Miratesus 2 years ago
Hey, relax, I'm not trying to prove nothing but the fact that no matter who had the better tanks (Germany or USSR), they were no far much superior than the tanks of the enemy. After al Panther design was highly inspired by T34 innovations.
gregoriokafka 2 years ago
the first prototype of the panther was basicly a copy of the T-34, however the one that was chosen was not so inspired by the T-34, it was bigger, better armed, and better armored, and only took the sloped armor of the T-34.
compare them next to eachother and they dont look anything like eachother.
they only share the sloping armor.
Miratesus 2 years ago
Russian use of Shermans resolved an important problem for them. When hit by enemy fire small bits of armor broke off and injured crew men. Their Armor was inferior in the T-34, and rather than stop production of bad armor, they continued it. NKVD was convinced it was sabotage. Sherman tanks had no such problem, and eventually the quality of the armor was increased without the torture/show trials/murder associated with NKVD methods.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
yet Russians called the Sherman tank a coffin for 5 brothers, it was really unpopular.
Miratesus 2 years ago
The recent book on the subject thinks highly of them.
All tanks had high loss rates. All tanks were prove against near miss artillery, which permitted them to advance when infantry couldn't. All tanks would suffer from a direct hit from major caliber artillery or the new shaped charges. The details differ, but they had more in common than they had to separate them.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
@Miratesus The Char B had the high velocity gun right. The Matilda got levels of armor protection right. The Pz IV got the 3 man turret right. The US tanks got gun stabilization and fast electric traverse more right than others. The T-34 had sloped armor and better cross country suspension. After that, we all learned from our enemies better than we learned from our friends.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Not you again, Stop haunting me I thought you were fed up actually. You do make nice pointers here on the pz4 got nothing to argue against you.
However do not come with your ridiculus claims that I am evil again, They only gave me a nice laugh seeing that you could not get your point across and nor that I would fall for your emotional arguements.
Miratesus 1 year ago
@Miratesus Then don't be evil...
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
"The T-34 had sloped armor and better cross country suspension"
LOL it had horrible suspension.
CoreMaster111 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
T-34s suspension wasn't widely copied... actually only british cruiser tanks, russian T-34 and BT tanks used Christie suspension but what im trying to say is that T-34s suspension movement was very limited and that caused a very rough ride. You can feel every single rock under the tracks. It was very tiring for the crew.
But actually the suspension what Tiger and Panther useda was much better because it offered a much smoother ride, only problem was the interleaved roadwheels.
CoreMaster111 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@CoreMaster111 Merkava has external coil springs even today. T-34 variation of Christie used sloped coil springs, compared to Christie which used bell cranks to align the coil springs along the length of the tank, giving great length. Torsion bars like Tiger/Panther made the tank higher, and with heavy armor, heavier, which cut mobility. T-34 crew fatigue was more due to rotten transmission and commander having to act as gunner, and having no turret basket.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@CoreMaster111 - youre right, Christie suspension was old and uncomfortable even in 1939, torsion bars suspension was more more better (PzKpfw III,V,VI) and is used today in modern tanks
PalyBiker 1 year ago
There were two prototypes built in germany at a testing area. Both with a turret but when the Russians came there all 2 Maus were destroyed. In a Museum near Moskwa you can see the turret of Maus 2 on the tracks of Maus 1.
KnorpelDelux 2 years ago
si el panzer fue uno de los mejores carros de combate de la historia pero el mejor fue T-34 sovietico hasta el general von Rustend dijo que era uno de los mejores tanques y el general von Keist dijo que era el mejor,tan efectivo era que los alemanes lo usaron y lo llamaron PANZERKAMPFWANGET-34
RAZENBEL 3 years ago
El carro más potente de la 2ªguerra mundial fue el Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus (Sd.Kfz 205).
DerWerhmacht 3 years ago
you should not stop at model making only
You should make aminations too
Good work!!! Keep it up
AEROMANIA86 3 years ago
muy bueno me saco el sombrero .seig hei
camisaspardas 3 years ago
Thats pretty cool.
I love the look of the late model
mark IV's.
ringworks 3 years ago