Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
3,436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've seen this footage probably hundreds of times on just about any show about tanks and always thought that the turret didn't look right, especially the short height of the mantlet and the angle on the turret roof. The close-up shows the front sproket to be much smaller than a Tiger's. Also, only four bogie wheels should be visible, and there are five. Are these T-34's modified to look like Tigers?


 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
6,068 Posts
Yup. Common movie ploy.

However - do a search for the latest Russian move - 'White Tiger' the props have built a near-as-dammit PERFECT Tiger 1 based on an AT-T hull and running gear - same size, but diesel-engined. The sight of this thing coming out of the shed and thundering down the road is remarkable. I'm betting that they'll be building a few more for all the rich guys around who are also tank freak .

Like me.

Well, I'm a tank freak, anyhow. Fifty per cent qualified.

tac
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,767 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
3,436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Yeah, I know they've used T-34's in movies, like Kelly's Heroes and Saving Private Ryan. What's interesting about this is that it is old, and appears to be combat footage, obviously staged. This clip is shown in documentaries all the time. There are real T-34s burning in the background.
I wonder who filmed this, the Soviets or Germans? Or someone else? .
Yup. Common movie ploy.

However - do a search for the latest Russian move - 'White Tiger' the props have built a near-as-dammit PERFECT Tiger 1 based on an AT-T hull and running gear - same size, but diesel-engined. The sight of this thing coming out of the shed and thundering down the road is remarkable. I'm betting that they'll be building a few more for all the rich guys around who are also tank freak .

Like me.

Well, I'm a tank freak, anyhow. Fifty per cent qualified.

tac
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
I doubt that the germans would have bothered to make a replica Tiger, since they had the real thing, but not unlikely that the Soviet's did, for propaganda, instructional, or movie use.
Granted the Soviets captured quite a few Tigers during the war, but they were a mechanical nightmare when broken down, unless you knew what you were doing and had spare parts. Might have been easier just to make a replica for at least movie use.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
3,436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
That's what I was thinking, although this footage shows the Tigers dominating with knocked-out T-34s littering the battlefield in the background. Maybe later in the footage the Ruskies knock out Tigers, but it is never shown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
If I remembered correctly, this footage came from a feature-length propaganda movie made by the Soviets in the later '50s or early '60s about the Kursk battle in July 1943. This particular scene depicted the large Prokhorovka tank engagement that was, according to the Soviet narrative, the climactic battle that sealed the fate of the German offensive effort at Kursk. From what I remembered reading about this propaganda film (I read this many years back), the "Tiger tanks" you see here were actually converted T54s/T55s (not T34s as mentioned elsewhere). The dimensions of the 54/55 actually works better in portraying the size of the Tiger I, and the Soviets apparently converted many many (well over a hundred, if I remembered correctly) 54/55s from an active duty Red Army tank division into the "Tiger I's" seen here in the film. Howard F.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
3,436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Thanks Howard! That's exactly what I was looking for, and makes perfect sense.

It is funny to see this staged footage in combat documentaries all the time.
If I remembered correctly, this footage came from a feature-length propaganda movie made by the Soviets in the later '50s or early '60s about the Kursk battle in July 1943. This particular scene depicted the large Prokhorovka tank engagement that was, according to the Soviet narrative, the climactic battle that sealed the fate of the German offensive effort at Kursk. From what I remembered reading about this propaganda film (I read this many years back), the "Tiger tanks" you see here were actually converted T54s/T55s (not T34s as mentioned elsewhere). The dimensions of the 54/55 actually works better in portraying the size of the Tiger I, and the Soviets apparently converted many many (well over a hundred, if I remembered correctly) 54/55s from an active duty Red Army tank division into the "Tiger I's" seen here in the film. Howard F.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,654 Posts
Except for the Panzer I and II, all German armor (including the F4F award winner, the Panzer III) dominated the T-34.
Hardly. III Specials (with the long 5cm) needed a shot from side or rear. Mark Ivs with L/48 7.5s needed to be close to do a T-34 from the front, and were themselves vulnerable to the 76.2 or 85mm at that range. A Panther with its long 7.5, especially with Hartkern ammo, had the range on a T-34, as did a Tiger, whether a Tiger I with the shorter 8.8 or a Tiger II with the longer gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,789 Posts
Hardly. III Specials (with the long 5cm) needed a shot from side or rear. Mark Ivs with L/48 7.5s needed to be close to do a T-34 from the front, and were themselves vulnerable to the 76.2 or 85mm at that range. A Panther with its long 7.5, especially with Hartkern ammo, had the range on a T-34, as did a Tiger, whether a Tiger I with the shorter 8.8 or a Tiger II with the longer gun.
Clyde's right. German tank crews were miles ahead of Russian crews in experience, tactics, communications and training. The high kill ratio the Germans were able to attain was a result of their skill, not a better tank mechanically. In fact, the Germans were shocked when they first met the T-34 and KV-1 during Operation Barbarossa. There was one incident where a single KV-1 tank held up a German advance for three days in 1941. The Tiger was able to deal with large numbers of T-34's but most of the time it was superior tactics and training that won the day, not a better tank. (Tigers of all flavors made up ~1700 AFV's out of 50,000 total German AFV production) The Panther was a direct response to the T-34's better armor and main gun, look at the early design drawings. (IIRC the Tiger 1 went into design after the 1940 campaign, where the German tanks were inferior in armor and gun to the French tanks).

One thing about the German Army in WW2, they didn't tend to complain about their equipment as much as American and Commonwealth troops. If you look at the German tank losses in '39, '40 and '41 you'll see that the German tanks weren't wonder weapons, you just didn't see many letters to home complaining about it. That supported the myth that the German army was invincible.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,654 Posts
The 7.5cm L/71 gun on the Panther was probably the best tank gun of WWII, especially with Hartkern ammunition. And if it had had a better engine and transmission, the Panther would probably have been the best tank of WWII. As it is, the T-34 probably was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,986 Posts
Clyde's right. German tank crews were miles ahead of Russian crews in experience, tactics, communications and training. The high kill ratio the Germans were able to attain was a result of their skill, not a better tank mechanically. In fact, the Germans were shocked when they first met the T-34 and KV-1 during Operation Barbarossa. There was one incident where a single KV-1 tank held up a German advance for three days in 1941. The Tiger was able to deal with large numbers of T-34's but most of the time it was superior tactics and training that won the day, not a better tank. (Tigers of all flavors made up ~1700 AFV's out of 50,000 total German AFV production) The Panther was a direct response to the T-34's better armor and main gun, look at the early design drawings. (IIRC the Tiger 1 went into design after the 1940 campaign, where the German tanks were inferior in armor and gun to the French tanks).

One thing about the German Army in WW2, they didn't tend to complain about their equipment as much as American and Commonwealth troops. If you look at the German tank losses in '39, '40 and '41 you'll see that the German tanks weren't wonder weapons, you just didn't see many letters to home complaining about it. That supported the myth that the German army was invincible.
I don't believe the Germans were regarded as better or invincible,by any means.Not by Commonwealth troops,certainly.But there was good reason to believe their equipment was better...because it usually was.I mean the fellow I work for has a boyes rifle...and they were expected to use that against German armour?.Someone had a VERY warped sense of humour with that idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
The 7.5cm L/71 gun on the Panther was probably the best tank gun of WWII, especially with Hartkern ammunition. And if it had had a better engine and transmission, the Panther would probably have been the best tank of WWII. As it is, the T-34 probably was.
The Panther tank was probably the worst panzer on the German arsenal because of reliability of the transmission and gearbox that were of flawed design and constantly breaking down.The tank although having good sloped frontal armour was vulnerable from the sides and at close quarters fighting (which the Russian T-34 was very adept at) performed poorly. The 75mm gun was good but not as good as the 88.The Tiger 1 also had initial problems but were pretty much worked out .It was a large tank and not as fast and manueverable as some but was the King of the battlefield. What was the best tank of Germany ;ask just about any surviving German tank member and he would tell you the Tiger1.Unfortunately the Germans only produced 1,350 or so Tiger 1's .The T-34 was good because of its overall reliability and numbers but put 100 Tiger 1's against 100 t-34's and the Tigers would annihilate them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,789 Posts
I don't believe the Germans were regarded as better or invincible,by any means.Not by Commonwealth troops,certainly.But there was good reason to believe their equipment was better...because it usually was.I mean the fellow I work for has a boyes rifle...and they were expected to use that against German armour?.Someone had a VERY warped sense of humour with that idea.

And the Germans had the Pzb39, Samesame. Point is, while you'll see reports from German officers to headquarters listing the problems they're having with their equipment, you don't see the soldats writing home what pieces of crap they had.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top