Jump to content


Were captured PZIVs ever turned into SPGs by the soviets like the PZIII was?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

MudkipAtWar #1 Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:11 PM

    die

  • Players
  • 22137 battles
  • 1,599
  • [FL-TH]
  • Member since:
    10-30-2015
I was re-researching some things and wondered if there was a su76i or su85i but on the chassis of the iv, instead of the iii.

Hello

https://www.blitzsta.../1016605416.png

Clan list in order of join date: TBNT, 22ND, 22ND2, FSA, FSX, ZNTH, FLEET, FL-TH

 

 


TheMainframe #2 Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:27 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10541 battles
  • 465
  • [ENDDZ]
  • Member since:
    12-18-2016

The Panzer III was an outlier; it was actually used by the Soviets to a noticeable effect. Other captured tank models were only used in very small numbers. I can't find any documentation of Panzer IVs being turned into Soviet SPGs, but some were used as intended: as medium tanks. I could see the relative complexity of German armor being an issue for Soviet manufacturers. Not because they wouldn't be able to modify the tank effectively, but the cost of doing so may have outweighed the potential gains.

 

The Soviets wanted cheap, easily fixed, easily maintained vehicles. The SU-76i was even considered for use at all due to the actual SU-76 having many apparent flaws, most of which would be worked out by the time the SU-76i was ready for launch. In the end, the re-purposing of the Panzer III was more costly than the building of new SU-76s. I could only imagine re-purposing Panzer IVs would be even more costly as to not be viable to the Russians.


I love the ones that need it most.


RommelTanker #3 Posted 12 February 2019 - 03:27 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4058 battles
  • 2,648
  • [_DX2_]
  • Member since:
    09-03-2017

German tanks were too complex for Russian tastes, as Mainframe said.

 

The opposite however, was not the case. There are multiple documented cases of German units capturing KV-2s, KV-1s, and T-34s.

 

https://en.wikipedia...an_use_of_T-34s

https://en.wikipedia...lov_tank#Models

 

The second link takes some reading through, but there ARE instances of German and Finnish capture KV tanks.


Blitz Forums' resident Leopard PT A main.

I have discovered the glory of the Tiger 1. 

He who types many stupid essays and boasts about bad Leopard PT A stats.

I'm probably one of the only players in the game with over 5,500 WN8 in a Tier 1 tank. If that's not the most useless achievement ever I dunno what is.

HE does more damage than AP... in loopy land. 


Player_5773117413 #4 Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:35 AM

    Professional Tinfoil Hatter

  • Players
  • 29962 battles
  • 8,991
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014

View PostTheMainframe, on 11 February 2019 - 04:27 PM, said:

Not because they wouldn't be able to modify the tank effectively, but the cost of doing so may have outweighed the potential gains.

 

The Soviets wanted cheap, easily fixed, easily maintained vehicles. 

 

Yea, which is the exact reason why the Soviets abandoned the T-43 and took a while to settle for the "compromise" of mounting the 85mm gun on the T-34.

"HULK SMASH[er]!!!"

^ Gotta derp around in Tier 7 before the inevitable nerf! ^

Just another demo account, nothing to see here

"Say what you like, but stop pissing on my back and telling me it's raining." Blartch


EclipsePlaysX #5 Posted 12 February 2019 - 01:49 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11585 battles
  • 158
  • Member since:
    04-20-2017
the T-3 is a captured pz 3 but not the 4

My youtube channel: https://www.youtube....wJDCvgMo3qFc5EA

 

Eclipse

   I really like light tanks. The scouting, the pick ups, its amazing

 


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #6 Posted 23 February 2019 - 11:33 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View PostRommelTanker, on 12 February 2019 - 03:27 AM, said:

German tanks were too complex for Russian tastes, as Mainframe said.

 

The opposite however, was not the case. There are multiple documented cases of German units capturing KV-2s, KV-1s, and T-34s.

 

https://en.wikipedia...an_use_of_T-34s

https://en.wikipedia...lov_tank#Models

 

The second link takes some reading through, but there ARE instances of German and Finnish capture KV tanks.

No, pz IV was just dainty and fragile in suspension. So much as up gunning it to 75mm L/48 means you max out the suspension instantly. Adding armor is an effort to sabotage the tanks balance, resulting in even reinforced frontal wheels at set to maximum load at the stationary. Think if your cars front is nearly hitting the ground before it moves. That was Pz IV G/H.

 

And you want to *add a casemate* to that?

 

Speaking about technological complexity, T-34 trashes every single WW2 German tank. You know what Vk 30.01 D is? That is Germany struggling to copy T-34/76, it looks so malformed because the T-34 was beyond Germany's technological limits at the time.

 

Germany didn't even have that many tanks because of their 'efficient' economy. You know, the one bigger than the reformed agriculture society but still couldn't even hope to compete.

View PostPlayer_5773117413, on 12 February 2019 - 05:35 AM, said:

 

Yea, which is the exact reason why the Soviets abandoned the T-43 and took a while to settle for the "compromise" of mounting the 85mm gun on the T-34.

 

You must be silly.

When a country chooses a new tank, they don't settle for 'T-43', they 'settle' on a T-54. They don't take 'good for previous gen' they take 'completely new gen tank'. Unless you are technologically behind, or design mediocre tanks one after another like every single British model that so far exists.

 

Spoiler

 

T-54 could slay a Chieftain right through its best (except UFP) frontal armor at any feasible combat range. The UFP is also vulnerable if 3BK-5 HEAT or 3BK-5M HEAT shot hits the UFP & fuses. T-54 is the strength of next gen, and its D-10T isn't even seriously supported. If it was, we might have seen something like T-54 with the D-54 (modified D-10T), which is, by the way, stronger than even the U-5TS (specifically when firing 3BM3 cheapo shot, 1/10th cost of 3BM8, which is already more economical than L28) that makes 105 L7 wet its pants. You know what a U-5TS does to a Chieftain? It shoots holes through your precious British turret armor with steel 'training' shot. Do you really think a T-43 could do that with anything but HEAT? if they put T-43 into production it'd have to stick around for the next 10 years, 1943 + 10 = 1953, and then it'd be fighting what? A Centurion? An M48? 

 

Even if you are comparing T-43 to T-44 (less than 1 year later) you find out that T-44 is basically equivalent to Centurion, if not better outright. 

 

If Soviet Russia was that dumb there wouldn't have been a cold war.

 

 

 

Pz IV was hands down technologically inferior to the pz III, and in just about every respect that didn't include interior volume, inferior.

Pz IV is mediocre [edited]. Pz III is just mediocre.

 

This is why Pz III is liked by soviets, it can do the upgrades, but it doesn't have the amount of internal volume necessary to mount the radio that anyone wants, with the 75mm gun. Such a pz III model exists, but it was decided not to be worth it. Sure the Pz IV is trash, but we have it in production, why get 25 ton trash instead of 20 ton mediocrity when 25 ton trash is already in production, and 20 ton mediocrity is new.

 

 

The Germans trying to replace Pz III & Pz IV resulted in a mess of tanks that were hardly an improvement when compared to their awful logistics footprint, like assigning the maintenance crew of 3 tanks to take care of 1 Tiger. [edited], even then, if the Tiger hit a bump too hard, it'd take 24 hours to change a single road wheel. It's not over engineering, its [edited]engineering. The Chieftain could literally replace its [edited]gun by then, and it was notorious for being a difficult job.

And it shows. They weren't able to replace the pz III, Pz IV, or even the 38t, and those tanks formed the backbone of the German tank core for most of the war.

After all, what are the Panthers going to do? Achieve 50% of them being functional *before* you fight a battle?

What do you think a smaller economy is supposed to accomplish? Even if they could do it, it is just a stupid thing to do.

 

Meanwhile T-34 is relevant entire war, and into the Korean war, America thinks 75mm gun isn't enough against it. Even not easy for 76mm gun. They have to go out of their way to counter it.

Who is really the inferior tank here?



aquaman10991 #7 Posted 25 February 2019 - 06:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 7949 battles
  • 60
  • [FE4R2]
  • Member since:
    12-28-2015

Jesus that’s a lot lol./\

 

not that I want to get into it with you oicraftian, but idk what you mean by the Americans going out of their way to counter the t34. WW2 era Pershing tanks mopped the floor with WW2 era t34s. There was an instance where 4 Pershing tanks wiped out an entire column of t34s. 

Im not denying the relevance of the tank to the discussion, but that last point seemed a tad bit amiss.

                                


If there’s nothing faster than light, how’d the dark get there first?—Me

 

Tanks come in two forms: the dangerous, deadly kind and the "liberating" kind.—Robert Fisk

 


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #8 Posted 25 February 2019 - 11:57 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View Postaquaman10991, on 25 February 2019 - 06:27 PM, said:

Jesus that’s a lot lol./\

 

not that I want to get into it with you oicraftian, but idk what you mean by the Americans going out of their way to counter the t34. WW2 era Pershing tanks mopped the floor with WW2 era t34s. There was an instance where 4 Pershing tanks wiped out an entire column of t34s. 

Im not denying the relevance of the tank to the discussion, but that last point seemed a tad bit amiss.

                                

 

Pershing are from late WW2 era and barely saw combat.

http://tankarchives....on-pattons.html

'mopped the floor with' when 'claimed no more than 8'

 

LOL

 

I wasn't aware the pershing had a 76mm gun, enlighten me. I also wasn't aware America had Pershings as their standard light tank replacing the Chaffee. It is almost as if America realized they needed a bigger gun than the 75 millimeters gun on Chaffee.

 

The M46 isn't even the WW2 Pershing, the M26 is, the M46 is post war.

 

Even then

How much does Pershing weigh again? 41.7 tons. How much does T-34 85 weigh again? Oh look, under 30 tons.

 

Assuming neither side makes an awful tank, it is not much of a stretch to imagine the outcome. Its almost like '~50% material quantity advantage' makes a difference.



Player_5773117413 #9 Posted 28 February 2019 - 03:52 AM

    Professional Tinfoil Hatter

  • Players
  • 29962 battles
  • 8,991
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014

View PostOicraftian, on 23 February 2019 - 05:33 PM, said:

*snip*

 

I think you lost my point. The earliest T54 designs came about right towards the end of the war. T43 was designed a bit further back, when Germany was still capable of putting up resistance on the Eastern front. Political agenda and the economies of war dictated that changing the tooling around in the factories to produce a better quality tank (T43 vs. T34) would result in delays in the rapid and large scale production of the already satisfactory T-34. Simply put, benefit did not outweigh the cost.

 

But they did eventually decide to borrow from that design to equip T34s with the 85mm gun once it became obvious the F34 76mm didn't have enough kick against heavy armor.


"HULK SMASH[er]!!!"

^ Gotta derp around in Tier 7 before the inevitable nerf! ^

Just another demo account, nothing to see here

"Say what you like, but stop pissing on my back and telling me it's raining." Blartch


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #10 Posted 04 March 2019 - 04:26 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View PostPlayer_5773117413, on 28 February 2019 - 03:52 AM, said:

 

I think you lost my point. The earliest T54 designs came about right towards the end of the war. T43 was designed a bit further back, when Germany was still capable of putting up resistance on the Eastern front. Political agenda and the economies of war dictated that changing the tooling around in the factories to produce a better quality tank (T43 vs. T34) would result in delays in the rapid and large scale production of the already satisfactory T-34. Simply put, benefit did not outweigh the cost.

 

But they did eventually decide to borrow from that design to equip T34s with the 85mm gun once it became obvious the F34 76mm didn't have enough kick against heavy armor.

Facts dictated that the T-43 was only a minor upgrade and mediocre for the period it was designed in. Compare it to T-44 even 1 year later and it is a stomping.

You are presuming the turret passed the ergonomics test for the 85mm gun; which it didn't. And the prototype was still stuck with a 76mm gun at the time.

 

T-44 had already entered production in WW2, and numbered around 2000 at the end. Had the Soviets actually wanted the T-43 then they would have gotten it. The difference is that the Soviets weren't trash at tanks and didn't pick stupid designs.

 

No I didn't lose your point. You are still trying to say T-43 is a better quality tank. Just because it is bigger does not mean it is objectively better, and T-43 is hardly worth the effort to put it into any semblance of mass production.

What benefit?

Tell me. What benefit?

 

It improves what exactly on T-34?

Armor?

How can you justify that?



Player_5773117413 #11 Posted 05 March 2019 - 05:32 AM

    Professional Tinfoil Hatter

  • Players
  • 29962 battles
  • 8,991
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014

View PostOicraftian, on 03 March 2019 - 10:26 PM, said:

No I didn't lose your point. You are still trying to say T-43 is a better quality tank. Just because it is bigger does not mean it is objectively better, and T-43 is hardly worth the effort to put it into any semblance of mass production.

What benefit?

Tell me. What benefit?

 

It improves what exactly on T-34?

Armor?

How can you justify that?

 

You did because you just repeated what I typed and then inserted question marks asking me to repeat it again. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to teach you about the cost of war

"HULK SMASH[er]!!!"

^ Gotta derp around in Tier 7 before the inevitable nerf! ^

Just another demo account, nothing to see here

"Say what you like, but stop pissing on my back and telling me it's raining." Blartch


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #12 Posted 05 March 2019 - 08:06 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View PostPlayer_5773117413, on 05 March 2019 - 05:32 AM, said:

 

You did because you just repeated what I typed and then inserted question marks asking me to repeat it again. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to teach you about the cost of war

 

Read carefully.

T-43 didn't have an 85mm gun ready. Its only advantage over T-34 was armor, and it didn't improve on the ergonomics situation much. The turret ring was too narrow, as was the hull. Not only this, the mobility was unacceptably reduced over the T-34.

The cost of production was also increased.

Even in the armor department, T-43 failed to impress.

 

To fit the 85mm gun (per actually having decent ergonomics), the project would have to undergo a redesign.

http://tankarchives....-criticism.html

 

Ready in 1943 is just a pipe dream.

But don't worry the same report mentions producing the T-44 so yes, it is a [edited]little tank.

 

It even dares to be hard to fix.

 

 

My point is that T-43 doesn't have better quality. You are saying its a better tank? The only quality it improves *at all* is armor. 

'because of the realities of war' it doesn't enter production? What benefit does it even offer that can justify it existing?

 

It becomes trash if you consider actually trying to produce it.

 

T-34's hella higher quality than T-43 badness.



cheasesteak #13 Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:10 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19948 battles
  • 4,187
  • [COD-R]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

Still sipping the Communist Kool-Aid I see. 

 

M26s were not the only tanks that ate T-34s alive in Korea.  M4s also were shown to be superior when they met T-34s.  The only US tanks that had trouble with T-34s were Chaffees. 

 

BTW, how is that Armata production coming along.  LOL.


Edited by cheasesteak, 10 April 2019 - 08:11 PM.

 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed


Morphman11 #14 Posted 10 April 2019 - 11:56 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32 battles
  • 851
  • [2WEAK]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View Postcheasesteak, on 10 April 2019 - 08:10 PM, said:

Still sipping the Communist Kool-Aid I see. 

 

M26s were not the only tanks that ate T-34s alive in Korea.  M4s also were shown to be superior when they met T-34s.  The only US tanks that had trouble with T-34s were Chaffees. 

 

BTW, how is that Armata production coming along.  LOL.

 

The South Koreans used the same exact tanks and how did that end up for them? Are you all too thick to realize that once the US got involved that tank battles were not armor vs armor but rather air and armor vs armor which gives a terrible comparison as extreme air superiority makes it almost impossible to use large tank battle groups for the enemy. Not to mention comparing an army that has been using its vehicles for the past 10 years in the case of the Shermans vs one that barely has even adopted armor into its own doctrine. The only fair comparison was the North vs the South and that tale is very obvious.

cheasesteak #15 Posted 15 April 2019 - 08:18 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19948 battles
  • 4,187
  • [COD-R]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014

View PostMorphman11, on 10 April 2019 - 11:56 PM, said:

 

The South Koreans used the same exact tanks and how did that end up for them?

Not going to rise to the troll bait part of your post.  Its no wonder you got banned before.

 

South Koreans had no armor to speak of, and no tanks at the beginning of Korean War.  They had some by the end, but by then tanks were support weapons because we had already wiped the floor with any decent sized formation of T-34/85s.  Sherman and T-34/85 in comparison:

 

Armor - Frontal about equal.  Sides - T-34 superior. 

Silhouette - T-34 was lower to the ground.  Generally better, but did lead to the typical lack of Soviet tank gun depression that limited usefulness in the hills.

Crew survivability - Sherman far superior, especially anything that used wet ammo stowage.  After introduction of wet stowage, Shermans had a significantly smaller chance of ammo cook-off.  The myth of Sherman's being fire traps is just that, a myth.  All tanks are fire hazards to some degree, but Shermans actually caught fire less than Pz-IVs.  Shermans also had better and bigger crew hatches which enabled faster escape. 

Mechanical reliability - Sherman much better

Ergonomic - Sherman by far.  Important if you are going to be crewing a tank for hours on end.

Firepower - T-34's 85mm has slightly less armor penetration that the US 76 with regular AP.  HVAP, Sherman had much better pen than the 85mm equivalent.

Fire control - Sherman much better. 

 

All of the above makes Sherman the better tank, even taking into account crew differences. 

 

As far as superior army goes, US army heavily demobilized post WW II.  Any investigation would have told you that it was in really sad shape at the beginning of Korea.  This wasn't the case of conscript NK against elite US.  Air superiority would matter if we were talking large scale battles.  Korean War tank engagement were small scale things that happened mainly at the beginning.  In those small battles, T-34s actually did well against US light tanks, so the NK tankers could hit their targets.  Shermans manages about a 2-3 to 1 kill ratio against the T-34s.  Both sides tanks could usually make one hit kills, so it was the tanks that shot first and hit that won more often.  US ergonomic and fire control are probably what mattered most. 

 


Edited by cheasesteak, 15 April 2019 - 08:25 PM.

 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed


Player_5773117413 #16 Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:44 AM

    Professional Tinfoil Hatter

  • Players
  • 29962 battles
  • 8,991
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014

View PostMorphman11, on 10 April 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

 

The South Koreans used the same exact tanks and how did that end up for them? Are you all too thick to realize that once the US got involved that tank battles were not armor vs armor but rather air and armor vs armor which gives a terrible comparison as extreme air superiority makes it almost impossible to use large tank battle groups for the enemy. 

 

It's a beautiful thing, ain't it? Meanwhile, Russians can't even get the engines for their new Sukhoi working right. We've got some broken down planes as well, but even on the worst days they envy us.

 

And guess who's got the second most powerful Air Force? :P


"HULK SMASH[er]!!!"

^ Gotta derp around in Tier 7 before the inevitable nerf! ^

Just another demo account, nothing to see here

"Say what you like, but stop pissing on my back and telling me it's raining." Blartch





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users