CMBB v CMAK

[Mad Russian]

Please, no Wikipedia as a source. I will try to find out German documents available. I have already said and will repeat once more: by the time it appeared, and even earlier, by the end of 1942, Panther was great overkill for any T-34, including future model. And specifications for Panther, especially its gun, are exceeding requirements, needed to defeat even best armored T-34/85, that appeared later, than Panther.

I've given you two sources now that show the Panthers development was a direct result of the T-34. I have more but of course you will dismiss those too. So again, I ask you to show me even ONE SINGLE SOURCE that shows that the Panther was in the pre-production planning phased BEFORE July 1941.

Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that slopped armor is French idea, which was realised in their mass produced tank.

What value does this have in this conversation? The Germans didn't invent armored warfare either. Depending on who you talk to it was either the British or the Russians that did. What's that got to do with the actual fighting and application? I don't see where you are trying to go with this.

Russian engineers were very much alarmed at improvements of German armor on late PzIII and PzIV models and thought, that Germans will continue modernising them. Guns of PzIV were considered more than adequate against KVs and T-34s. It was only IS-2, that was planned to be a though nut for PzIVs. Up to now, there is a debate, that Panther was a mistake, since it was too complicated, not extremely well armored (it had greatly differentiated armor, unlike the Tiger) and too expensive, while Germans needed numbers.

We can still go back to the fact that the Germans thought the war was over and had stopped ALL tank production for a period in 1941. If the guns on a PzIV were considered adequate to kill a T-34 why was that gun being continually upgraded? The PzIV was almost always behind the curve in weapons development as a tank killer. It was never more than barely adequate and just about equal at best.

About Matilda: it is still infantry support tank with its transmission, speed and armament. They were supposed to act with their MGs. Russians did found out, that this was the only role, they were rather successful, any other tasks, like tank hunting, produced poor results.

Then please tell me why the Matilda had a main gun only capable of firing AT rounds if it wasn't intended to destroy other tanks? They were not tank hunters. They were supposed to move along with the infantry and protect them from other tanks. That's why the called them infantry support tanks.

The British for a period made all their armored vehicles specialized. They had one clearly defined task and were for the most part not dual purpose vehicles. Same is very true of Matilda.

Another interesting fact: Russians considered British Valentines as rather good tank hunters, because they were low, had gun, capable of penetration of Tiger's sides from about 500 meters (that is what reports from the front are stating, but I am not sure, if they do not mix tigers up with late PzIV models) and because it was silent: in fact it was not louder, than a truck, when driving.

The Soviets liked the Valentine enough to request them after the British were going to stop production on them.

Good Hunting.

MR