CMBB v CMAK

[Nikita]

What can I say. You are poping up post-war myths for folk-history.
Again: there are statitics and notes about the volumes of tanks, killed by tanks/AT guns/other guns/planes/infantry weapons. And artillery remained an absolute leader up to 1945.

The backbone of Soviet tank force in 1941 were T-26 and BTs, and Germans had complete quality superiority. T-34s were not that nnumerous due to technical and training reasons and were not much noted in border battles. About KV Germans made a note, pointing, that they are too heavy for bridges and vulnerable for divisional arty of cal. 105 and above basically on all distances.
Talks about Russian super tanks started, when field commanders had to explain their tactical faults, like during Mtzensk battle, when Germans did not organize their march properly. If you can not perform, you should always explain you faults by undefeatable weapons, used by the enemy.
If you consider T-34 (especially early model) as an uberweapon, maybe you should read early war American reports on it?

About sources:
Yes, Chuikov was producing fairy tales on certain occasions, both for propaganda and self-esteem. And he was publicly rebuked on one occasion after special commission was called to check his statements. You should know, what I am speacking about.

Yes, Manshtein was also producing myths on various occasions. I almost laughed for tears, reading his sel-esteem boosting tales related for, ex. to Sevastopol siege, when he was describing Soviet "forts" and heroics of German infantry, crossing the bay in boats under heavy Russian fire.

Yes, Zhukov was also making occasional false statements in his book. His conversation about absence of AP rounds for KVs was referred to a single occasion, when he was replying to one of the local reports. Please refer to your source, stating that from Baltics to Black sea Russian tank units, equipped with T-34s and KV-1s had problems with supply of AP rounds.

As for tanks, I prefer to read books, referring to official reports of engineers and officers, responsible for comparative testing and analysis of related first-eye reports from the front. Things look very different, than in general memoirs. And one should also remember that tank is not only gun and armor.

Germans NEVER asked to produce copy of T-34 in their factories: this is Guderian's post-war lie. Germans could easily copy T-34, but regarded it as unsiutable engineering sollution, due to design flaws. They had technical specification for 35 tones tank to replace PzIII and PzIVs as universal tank, having acceptable power aganst soft targets and being able to penetate heavily armored targets (considering forecasted development of enemy tanks at distances over 1000meters), but finally it evolved to 45 tones Panther. Panther has absolutely no similarities with T-34s, except for armor slopes. BTW slopped armor in its turn is not Russian, but French idea, which was mass produced.

Again to essentials:
Tanks should have capacity to fight and defeat enemy tanks, but this is not their primary war role. It might become their primary target only if you are defending and tanks (AT SP guns) become your primary mobile AT means. If you hold initiative, you choose the place for striking and usually you strike where infantry is defending, only later, after the breakthrough, you have to face enemy's mobile reserves and tank battles may occur. But for attacking side, ability to withstand ATG fire and supress soft targets becomes even more important, than ability to defeat the enemy tank. This was the reason for increasing caliber of tank guns. Russian decision for maingun of IS-2 was also based on this logic, although other gun (100mm) showed better armor penetration results.

If you would like to dispute about American view on right proportion between infantry and tanks, please read Robert A. Doughty's book on the subject and American doctrine of use of tank divisions, based on WWII experience. You should learn, that those tank divisions were notplanned to use independently.

[Mad Russian]

Your comments are drifting a bit off subject here.

My premise was and still is that T-34's and KV-1's with more AP rounds would have killed more German tanks. That in turn would have had an impact on the German forces almost immediately. That too would have an impact on the CMBB early war games we play.

If I want to discount all the biographies of the higher ranking generals of the war as fairy tales why then would I accept the very same information coming from the sources you quote:

I prefer to read books, referring to official reports of engineers and officers, responsible for comparative testing and analysis of related first-eye reports from the front. Things look very different, than in general memoirs. And one should also remember that tank is not only gun and armor.

Things certainly do look different on the battlefield instead of on a testing ground. That I will agree with you on.

More than one German commander sent a request that the German factories build T-34's. That's not a fantasy but a fact.

You seem to think that the Germans were supermen without the ability to lose an early war fight. That all Soviet equipment and tactics were junk and worthless.

The statement that T-26's and BT's is also incorrect. Those were the bulk of Soviet tanks not the backbone. There were, in 1941, a grand total of 0, yes, that's right zero, T-26's and BT tank versions were produced. The Soviets were not using them as the backbone of their forces but replacing them. The only tank types to be produced in 1941 were T-34, T-40, T-50, T-60, KV-1 and KV-2 models.

The backbone were the new tanks. They were not missing on the battlefield, as you surmise, because of a lack of training but because of a lack of availability. The more of these tanks simply didn't exist. The Soviets had just started production of them as their main tank force and the production rates hadn't given them sufficient time to equip their entire forces yet. This is also the reason for the lack of AP ammo for the tanks in the early war months. The gun was so new that the factories producing the AP rounds had not produced enough of them to meet with the demands of the war.

I think you miss the point again with tank guns. Yes, tank guns got larger. But if the sole purpose was to kill infantry why were they guns of ever increasing velocity? Why would they need a gun that would have better armour penetration if the sole purpose was to just put a shell on an infantry position. As you pointed out earlier you don't need velocity for that. You need velocity to punch through armour plate and that only means one thing. To kill tanks.

The 122mm gun on the JS-2 was chosen because of the avialability of the gun. The design team wanted the 100mm gun that equipped the SU-100 but it wasn't being made in enough numbers to support that. So they went with the 122mm gun that it finally received.

What can I say. You are poping up post-war myths for folk-history.

The post-war myths and folk-history I see in this thread is that the Germans were an almighty force that couldn't be beaten in 1941 by the ill-lead, ill-equipped subhuman forces of the Soviet Union. That German tanks were better and nothing the Soviets had was that good. That it was an unfortunate set of circumstances that lead the Germans to not defeat the Soviet Union. Now that's what I call post-war myths and fairy tales.

The reality of the situation was much different. The Soviets were in the process of changing over their tank forces with much superior armor. They had already stopped all manufacture of inferior types before the war even started.

I suppose you consider the Soviet inspection of German tank factories before the war when they were shown the PzIV as the German heavy tank and they got upset. They wanted to see the REAL German tanks. Why? Because the T-34 was that much more advanced than what they were being shown and they thought the Germans couldn't possibly have taken out whole countries with those.

Are you aware that every single Soviet gun, whether a tank gun, an antitank gun or an artillery piece was supplied with AT rounds? Now multiply the numbers out. There were multiples more AT and artillery, both higher level and infantry support, than there were tanks. It's easier to produce a gun than a tank. Of course more tanks were put out of action by guns than tanks. Same is true with all nations.

Again, what I'm saying, is. that the backbone of the Soviet armored forces would have forced a different result if they had been fully equipped with AT rounds in the early months of the war. That also will make a difference in CMBB games you play.

And you even agree. You claim that the Germans often had to resort to the use of 105mm guns to destroy the Soviet tanks. Then you go right back to the, they weren't so good, stance. You move back and forth from they were very good to they were practically worthless. Which is correct but not for the reasons you quote.

They were very good because at the time they were the most advanced tanks in the world. They were practically worthless because they were so new that the crews sometimes had as little as 10 hours training on them before being thrown into battle. They were so new that the crews/leaders/commanders hadn't been able to train in upper level tactics with them to know their capabilities. They were so new that most were loss to mechanical breakdowns or simply by being abandoned by their crews.

They were so new they threw the German attack formations into a complete tailspin the first time they were encountered by them. You should read some of the German divisional reports of their first encounters with the T-34's and KV-1's. The KV-2 doesn't figure into this discussion except to say that the first few times it was used it created the tank panic in BOTH German and SOVIET units! That thing was so big that Soviet troops even ran from it.

The Germans were not supermen. The equipment they were producing was inferior to the equipment the Soviets were producing. Their response was to build the Panther, because Hitler refused to think, that untermensch had made a tank better than Germans could. It was his decision not to reproduce the T-34 in Germany. Just another post-war myth, folk history and fairy tale I guess.

I have never seen, in any literature, your assessment that the Panther was a natural progression vehicle. I have only ever read where it was designed in direct answer to the T-34 threat.

It seems I might not be the only one in need of some additional reading.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

About sources:
Yes, Chuikov was producing fairy tales on certain occasions, both for propaganda and self-esteem. And he was publicly rebuked on one occasion after special commission was called to check his statements. You should know, what I am speacking about.

Yes, Manshtein was also producing myths on various occasions. I almost laughed for tears, reading his sel-esteem boosting tales related for, ex. to Sevastopol siege, when he was describing Soviet "forts" and heroics of German infantry, crossing the bay in boats under heavy Russian fire.

Yes, Zhukov was also making occasional false statements in his book. His conversation about absence of AP rounds for KVs was referred to a single occasion, when he was replying to one of the local reports. Please refer to your source, stating that from Baltics to Black sea Russian tank units, equipped with T-34s and KV-1s had problems with supply of AP rounds.

As for tanks, I prefer to read books, referring to official reports of engineers and officers, responsible for comparative testing and analysis of related first-eye reports from the front. Things look very different, than in general memoirs. And one should also remember that tank is not only gun and armor.

What self propoganda value and self esteem value is gained by admitting that the enemy has better capabilities than you do?

The only one I know if is the one played over and over.....The Russians were bigger, better, badder but we still beat them.

Biographical sources are interesting to say the least. At times you have to apply the common sense factor. You have to ask yourself, does that make sense? You have to be careful using that too often. What makes no sense today, often, made perfect sense back then. In addition, they were inventing armored warfare at the spur of the moment, while we have the benefit of hindsight.

It is a good idea to cross reference what is in the biographies with other sources. BUT when those match more than one source they cease to be fairy tales and folk history. They then become facts and actual history.

So, when a general like Zhukov mentions that there were instances of KV's not having AP rounds you immediately dismiss that statement as a local supply issue. While I see it as a supporting statement made by other researchers about critical ammunition shortages.

My main source of Soviet Armor, of all kinds, are the books written by Steven Zaloga. I have several written by him and since his source materials were the Soviet archives I see no reason to discount his facts and figures.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

For anyone interested in seeing what I think 1941 battles look like see my HSG B series of scenarios at The Scenario Depot II.

HSG Barbarossa Scenarios

Take a good hard look at HSG B Each In Turn.


3 July 1941, Near Lipki Russia

The 18th Panzer Division is about to meet the Soviet heavy tanks. Each Panzer Division in their turn have all met them!

The 1st Moscow Motor Rifle Division has over 100 heavy tanks assigned to it. Their orders are to retake the bridgehead that 18th Panzer Division forced across the Berezina River near Borisov.

Can the 18th Panzer Division, the only Panzer Division in the invasion to be predominately equipped with the PzIII equipped with the 37mm gun, stop the Russian unit?

HSG B Each In Turn

Here you are going to meet the Red Army of July 1941. Certainly not a toothless tiger. But not a fire breathing monster that cannot be beaten with good tactics.

This is what I think combat in 1941 is all about. Green/Conscript vs Veteran /Crack. A few very tough Soviet tanks to deal with. Most of them not so tough but still capable of killing German armor. The difference is maneuver. The big deciding factor is how well you maneuver your forces.

Can you win? Yes. Can you lose this fight as the all powerful German invader? Yes.

For me this is a typical early war engagement. Try it and see what you think.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nikita]

My words:

"I prefer to read books, referring to official reports of engineers and officers, responsible for comparative testing and analysis of related first-eye reports from the front. Things look very different, than in general memoirs. And one should also remember that tank is not only gun and armor."

Yours:
"Things certainly do look different on the battlefield instead of on a testing ground. That I will agree with you on."

Please read up once more what I have stated, especially the bolded section and reconsider your irony.

Please read up once more, how many new model tanks and how many older model tanks were present in Soviet Army in June 1941. I will help you: from 10349 up to about 11000 in 19 mechanised corps in Western regions of USSR according to different sources. You can add on top tanks from cavalry divisions and (according to June 1, 1941) you will receive figure of 12 782. So I suggest you should revise your statements about the backbone of Soviet tank forces avalibale at the front.

I think you are also unaware, that Russians had only 150 (one hundred fifty) well-prepared crews for T-34s by June 1, 1941, using only 38 tanks out of more than 800 available. Figures have changed by the 22nd, but only slightly. (reports were roduced on monthly basis and all other figures may be inaccurate, presumably, 135 tanks could have been supplied additionally).

Now back for the front accounts:
Battle of Dubno, the biggest early war tank battle, included Soviet 8 and 15 Mech. Corps. Those units had totally 2156 tanks, out of which 181 T-34 and 140 - KV. But up to 50% of those new tanks did not participate in the counterstrike due to poor repair and evacuation services for new tanks. The results for Soviet forces was almost complete annihilation of tanks in both units, although tey were able to achieve some tactical successes. I saw no reports of AP ammo deficit. Neither for those units, nor for, say 4 MC, headed by infamous Vlasov, which had 313 T-34s and 101 KV.

On the beggining of August, 1941, Soviets were able to have 235 T-34s battle ready, plus 116 T-34s in reserve units. Lack of tanks forced to keep OOB mixed. But even relatively well equipped tank brigades, which had even "hunter tanks" with 57mm maingun, like 21st tank bridage, although had some successes, were finally overcame by German infantry and tank units (they reported inflicting about 1000 infantry, 34 tank, 210 cars, 25 guns losses) but brigade was almost annihilated in the process (you can see related CMBB scenario Kalinin Raid).

During Moscow battle, volumes of T-34s were low: for examle in the beggining of October 1941 the western Front had 483 tanks, out of which only 45 were T-34s and KVs. Things remained rather similar in 1942. They were present in bigger numbers during beggining of Stalingrad battle, due to obvious reasons: presence of Stalingrad tank factory.

T-34 became the main workhorse of Soviet army only in 1943, comprising about 2/3ds of the soviet produced tanks, present in Kursk battle.

As you understand, technical specifications and idea of producing Panther was already realised. As I stated previously, ideas to bild Tiger and Panther were not influenced by presence of T-34 as such. It was planned as a response for future developments in tanks of all states, fighting Germany. Surely, T-34 was considered as one of the most dangerous opponents Germans have met, but it was not the only one. Finally, the only feature, that Panther shared with T-34, was slopped armor.
BTW PzIV with long 75mm maingun was able to defeat T-34 and proved itself as extremely dangerous opponent during Manstein's drive to Stalingrad.

If you speak about soviet impression of PzIV in 1940, I understand again, that you have read some high ranking memoirs. But I suspect you are unaware about Soviet impressions from PzIII and origins of T-50, because this fact is not in the popular history. Soviet amazement of "heavy PzIV" was caused by the fact, that several countries (including USSR) were building up heavier and better armored tanks at the moment.

As for 100-122mm for IS-2: my statements basically repeat discussion of meeting of GKO as of October 31, 1943, when resolution No 4479cc stated, that 122mm should be used, because it has not only acceptable anti-tank capacity, but is also better siutable for "soft targets". However, this decision was still questioned and resolution of GKO as of Dec. 27, 1943 No. 4851cc again returned to armament of IS-2, allowing to test improved 85mm and 100mm guns. Finally it was decided, that although 100mm D-10 has better ROF, theoretically has better penetration and is more accurate, overall performance of 122mm was considered being more siutable. Both 100mm guns (D-10) and 122mm (D-25) were mass produced.

The main problem with CMBB engine, depicting Soviet tanks, especially T-34, is spotting abilities, which in game engine, although considering absence of commander cupola, is far superior to real life.

As for general views, I would advice you and everybody interested, to read David Glantz and Newton books on the subject of overall performance of both Red and German armies. Newton is more keen to research separate operations, Glantz covers strategy as well. Newton is very good at critical in-depth review of German commanders and their command decisions, while Glantz was always specialising on Soviet side.

[raz_atoth]

Quite an interesting read gentlemen!A green clicky for both of you

[Mad Russian]

I know full well what the Soviets had on day one.

Let's take a look at the mighty host that you think so invincible and have such high regards for....

Panzers in Barbarossa
22 June 1941


1 Panzer Division
1st Panzer Regt.
43 Pz II
71 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

3 Panzer Division
6th Panzer Regiment
58 Pz II
29 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
81 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
32 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

4 Panzer Division
35th Panzer Regiment
44 Pz II
31 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
74 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)


6 Panzer Division
11th Panzer Regiment
47 Pz II
155 Pz35t
30 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

7 Panzer Division
25th Panzer Regiment
53 Pz II
167 Pz38t
30 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

8 Panzer Division
10th Panzer Regiment
49 Pz II
118 Pz38t
30 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

9 Panzer Division
33rd Panzer Regiment
8 Pz I
32 Pz II
11 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
60 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)




10 Panzer Division
7th Panzer Regiment
45 Pz II
105 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

11 Panzer Division
15th Panzer Regiment
44 Pz II
24 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
47 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

12 Panzer Division
29th Panzer Regiment
8 Pz I
32 Pz II
109 Pz38t
30 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

13 Panzer Division
4th Panzer Regiment
45 Pz II
27 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
44 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H),
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

14 Panzer Division
36th Panzer Regiment
45 Pz II
15 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F& G)
56 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

16 Panzer Division
2nd Panzer Regiment
45 Pz II
23 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
48 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

17 Panzer Division
39th Panzer Regiment
12 Pz I
44 Pz II
106 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
30 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

18 Panzer Division
18th Panzer Regiment
6 Pz I
50 Pz II
99 Pz III (37mm gun, Models E & F & G)
15 Pz III (long barrel 50mm gun, Model G & H)
36 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

19 Panzer Division
27th Panzer Regiment
42 Pz I
35 Pz II
110 Pz38t
30 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

20 Panzer Division
21st Panzer Regiment
44 Pz I
31 Pz II
121 Pz38t
31 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

100 Flamm Panzer Battalion
25 Pz II
42 Flamm Panzers (Pz II models)
5 Pz III

101 Flamm Panzer Battalion
25 Pz II
42 Flamm Panzers (Pz II models)
5 Pz III


Panzer Divisions sent to Russia after Barbarossa started

2 Panzer Division (arrived September 1941)
3rd Panzer Brigade
63 Pz II,
105 Pz III (long 50mm gun, Model J)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)

5 Panzer Division (arrived September 1941)
31st Panzer Brigade
55 Pz II
105 Pz III (long 50mm gun, Model J)
20 Pz IV (short 75mm gun, Models D, E & F)


Would you care to notice how many of these tanks were PzI's?
Or PzII's? What about PzIII's with the short barreled 50mm gun that couldn't penetrate a T-34 except at close ranges? Then there are the Pz35(t)'s and the Pz38(t)'s not even German tanks!!
Don't forget the great and powerful PzIV with the short barreled 75mm low velocity gun that you have already pointed out were not tank killers.

How many T-34 capable tanks does that give the Germans at the start of Barbarossa?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Lets count them shall we....

PzI's - 144

PzII's - 889

Pz35(t) - 155

Pz38(t) - 738

PzIII(37mm gun) - 259

PzIII (50L42/50L60) - 927

PzIV (75L24) - 449




The entire tank force for the German Army, on June 1st 1941, was as follows:

PzI - 877

PzII - 1074

Pz35(t) - 170

Pz38(t) - 754

PzIII(37mm) - 350

PzIII(50mm) - 1090

PzIV(75L24) - 517

The way I read that is, that in the entire German inventory they had only 1090 tanks capable of taking on a T-34 in anything like an even exchange.

Even then only 927 of those were on the Russian Front on opening day.

So, let's drop the mighty German tank superiority fairy tale shall we?

When the German attacked Russia they had more than twice as many tanks armed with a 37mm gun or less than they did PzIII's of all types. That doesn't make them a tank terror to be reckoned with. No wonder the German tactic was to fall back on the anti tank guns. The tanks couldn't do it.

Interesting don't you think?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Now then, let's take a look at the Soviet tank force.

Modern Soviet tanks...well let's just take what was produced in 1940 as being new and not in need of major repairs. While that is not 100% accurate it should suffice to show the number of tanks that were pretty much battle worthy without any issues in June 1941.

Production figures for 1940 are:

T-26 - 1,549

BT-8 - 706

T-28 - 12

T-34 - 117

KV-1 - 141

KV-2 - 102

for a 1941 tank total of 2627. All of which would have to be considered modern and in reasonable mechanical shape. All of them capable of killing anything below a PzIII which was roughly 2/3 of the German invading tanks.

Well prepared crews as you call them mean nothing if when they hit a German tank it was with an HE round instead of an AP round.

As you point out, there were in the Soviet inventory around 800 T-34 and KV tanks available, in June of 1941. I understand that they went to war often untrained. Please explain to me what difference it makes if a tank with a trained crew or an untrained crew gets a hit on an enemy tank?

None.

What does matter is if the round that hits that tank is an HE round or an AP round. The Soviets were extremely restricted in their effectiveness by the fact, that the new guns, on the new tanks, were missing their AP rounds.

Through your meandering posts you keep getting away from that point. That was what my point has been all along. We can debate the facts and figures of tank production, preparedness, effectiveness all day long, and I'll be happy to do that with you, but the fact still remains that the Russians went to war with the backbone of their armored forces being hampered with a severe shortage of AP rounds and that is often not shown in CMBB.

Again, you prove my point. The Soviets were able to do some very impressive things with very low numbers of T-34's. What more could have been accomplished if those same tanks had been fulled equipped with their AP rounds?

I agree that the books on Glantz are good. But they deal almost exclusively with higher level Soviet operations, which earlier you disdained as being unreliable for source information about the tactical deployment of tank warfare. You wanted then to use the

"I prefer to read books, referring to official reports of engineers and officers, responsible for comparative testing and analysis of related first-eye reports from the front. Things look very different, than in general memoirs. And one should also remember that tank is not only gun and armor."

You are moving back and forth between source material as it suits you. Which is okay. That's how you figure what the closest thing we will ever define the truth to be. What makes sense and what is quoted by more than one person in more than one place. What I find interesting when you move back and forth though is your opinion sometimes changes as you go.

There are multiples of volumes on the German operations that are good. There are some good histories on Soviet operations as well, the John Erickson series on the Soviet operations to mention just one. His are classics.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Now for the real show of strength. Only the PzIII armed with the 50L60 had an even up chance against a T-34. The PzIII's armed with the 50L42 had to get very close to kill a T-34. Much closer than the T-34 needed to kill them. Of the 1090 PzIII's involved in Operation Barbarossa 960 were models E through J with the 5cm KwK38 L/42 (50L42). Only 130 were armed with the 50L60 gun that Hitler had deemed necessary for the tank force to be armed with before going to war with Russia. The German tank force was anything but overwhelming technologically. It was a very small shark with a couple of sharp teeth. But it was fast and had powerful jaws. When it did bite it bit hard and held on.

Your figures on available T-34's and KV's don't hold up to inspection.

Let's take a look at the Soviet situation on 22 June 1941.

Baltic Military District:

XII Mech Corps - 1,031 tanks as TO&E. had available 651 tanks.

III Mech Corps - 500 tanks available.

Baltic Front had operationally available 1150 tanks and of those 105 were new models.

Western Military District:

XI Mech Corps - 290 tanks operational. 24 T-34's and 3 KV's.

VI Mech Corps - 1,000 tanks operational.
4th Tank Division - 355 tanks operational, which included 21 T-34's and 10 KV's.

XIV Mech Corps - TO&E establishments called for 1,025 with 420 T-34's and 126 KV's. Actual strengths were 508 T-26.

XIII Mech Corps - Similar establishment to XIV Mech Corps.

Kiev Military District:

XXII Mech Corps -

VIII Mech Corps - 600 operational tanks. 170 T-34 and KV's included in this number.

XV Mech Corps - had 133 T-34 and KV operationally.

XIX Mech Corps -

IX Mech Corps -

This shows an operationally available strength of 466 T-34 and KV-1's available on the opening day of the war.

The PzIV long barreled gun tank was not introduced until 1942 and it was a direct result of the T-34 threat as well. But according to your main arguement that shouldn't have happened since tanks were not designed to fight other tanks but AT guns were. Why up-gun the PzIV if it was already capable of firing a 75mm shell at infantry if not to kill tanks???

Please quote me a source that claims the Panther was a progression tank instead of a direct response to the T-34. I have never seen that in print in over 30 years of armored combat research.

Good Hunting.

MR