Germany's Panther Tank VS Russia's T34/85
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 45 of 54

Thread: Germany's Panther Tank VS Russia's T34/85

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Midland Michigan
    Posts
    4,623

    Default Germany's Panther Tank VS Russia's T34/85

    Lately we've had a US M4 Sherman VS German armor debate on here, so I decided to change the tables and look at the Eastern Front from say 1944 perspective when both the above tanks would have been in service. So Let the debate begin.

    I would say both are a pretty close match in terms of gun and armor.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,869

    Default

    Panther wins this match in every way 1:1. Superior gun that was maybe the best tank gun in the war, better optics, better radio, good armor, better crew compartment. If Panther would have been mechanically more reliable it would have been even more superior.

    T-34/85 on the other hand was attempt to update - cheaply - a design that was far from cutting edge technology in late 1943-early 1944. Attempt that did not in the end deliver all that was hoped. But again the Soviet were able to build a lot of them. It was a deacent tank. And when you have thousands of deacent tanks and air superiority what else do you need.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,638

    Default

    Wrong question

    It should be panther vs 10 T-34s

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Which was more reliable and which had a better fuel economy.

  6. #5
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McCauley View Post
    Which was more reliable and which had a better fuel economy.
    Neither was very reliable by American standards. Mainly automotive side.

    I show Panther as having a range of 155 miles and T34 as 250. T34 of course has a diesel, Panther a gasser.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Midland Michigan
    Posts
    4,623

    Default

    Just a few visual images to keep us in context with both tanks.







  8. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,667

    Default

    I think the premise of the question is flawed. The Eastern Front, and war in general, wasn't like some vintage duel, where the tanks would line up in perfect order and neatly take turns firing at each other, letting their mechanical "perfection" do the work. Tanks need fuel, ammunition, trained and experienced crew members, infantry support, reliability, ease of manufacture, proper battle strategy, good terrain, and additional backup tanks for when one gets knocked out. In this world, the T-34 "won." Just my .02

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    1,747

    Default

    Panther wins. T34/85 was deficient in gun power, armor protection and speed; the 85mm gun suffered from unreliable ammunition, what should have been equivalent to the 88mm flak 36 in power was actually little better than a 75mm gun in practice, the soviets quality control was particularly poor with respect to 85mm AP ammo.
    You know all the words and you sing all the notes but you never quite learned the song.
    I can tell by the sadness in your eyes, that you never quite learned the song.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,186

    Default

    Nice Panthers......
    The top one had early infrared night vision driving lights and IR receptor mounted for the tank commander, on his coupala, very cool "Ambush" type cammo paint job. The second looks like its leaveing the factory, the 3 one looks like its GrossDeutchland division

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Just a small point, Why is it when comparing tanks, it's always German "heavy" tanks vs. Soviet "medium" tanks ? Tiger(s) and Panthers are much heavier than their T34 counterparts. By 10-20 tons! It should be Tiger or Panther vs. similar weighted KV-85 or IS-1(never mind the IS2 or other soviet tank destroyers like the SU-152 and such) . Looking back in time, you could not pay me enough $$$ ever to take out a Panther asf D to a battle. Reliability of the 1st 2 Panther versions was horrible. Worst than the Soviet tanks even. Almost half of all Panthers auf A were taken out by mechanical failures. Sure it had a great 75mm gun. However that same gun that had great penetration vs. armor, had poor HE ability vs. non-tanks.
    My dad trained on T34/85 during the 60's when he was in the "Tankista". He ended up driving all the Soviet and a few German left over tank versions by the end of his 3rd tour. The 34/85's were faster than Panthers, especially over rough terrain and the compartment is absolutely huge compared to a regular T34/76. Also keep in mind that the soviets were 5 years into T34 production by 1944 while the Panthers were still having teething problems until the auf G version came out in late '44.
    I'd still take a Panther G version over a T34/85 one on one any day. The Panther is a great tank and my 2nd favorite tank of WW2 purely talking armchair-general. However, the other Soviet "heavy" tank/destroyers could take out a Panther a much longer ranges than the Panther could take out a Soviet heavy. Keep in mind that a hit from an SU152 would take a Tigers turret off the base and the Panthers "best 75/76mm tank gun of the war" had to get really close to a heavy Soviet tank to take it out in front head-on engagements. 500m or less while the larger tanks/destroyers of the Soviets could engage a Panther @ whatever distance they could hit it at. Kinda like saying we are all bringing the same 75/76mm gun to the war, however the german tank gets to have an additional 10+ tons of armor around his tank. I'd take the extra armor every time in this case.
    The really ironic part is that both the Germans and Soviets learned Tank tactics at the secret Kama base together during the '30s. Stalin killed or imprisoned his top tank experts while Guderian was allowed to run free with his tanks at the start of WW2.
    Last edited by Raspootyn; 06-20-2014 at 10:57 AM.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,897

    Default

    Even earlier than the 1930s... The Versailles treaty denied armored vehicle experimentation to the Reichswehr. So where to conduct ostensibly illegal experiments far from prying Western European eyes?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo_(1922)

    I don't have much to add to what's already been said, but the T34/85 gave U.S. troops trouble early on in Korea.
    Alle Kunst ist umsonst, Wenn ein Engel in das Zündloch prunst.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK, Ontario & Oregon
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raspootyn View Post
    Sure it had a great 75 mm gun.
    Proof-read.

    tac
    I am an international Gunboards patron

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Midland Michigan
    Posts
    4,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raspootyn View Post
    Just a small point, Why is it when comparing tanks, it's always German "heavy" tanks vs. Soviet "medium" tanks ? .
    To my immediate knowledge.....the German Panther tank was classified as a "medium tank"......not heavy.

    Also the SU-152 was not designed as a tank hunter, even though it could do this role. The 152mm howitzer was low velocity, and not as accurate as the 75mm Panther gun. The Panthers gun had a longer (more accurate) reach than the SU-152.

  15. #14
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Strikes me as sort of like the Sherman vs Tiger or Panther. One on one, dueling in open country, the Sherman or the T-34/85 loses, most of the time. Panther a better tank technically than either. But - tank-on-tank duels weren't (generally, there may have been the odd exception, the war went on for nearly five years and there were tens or hundreds of thousands of encounters) what settled the fight. both T-34/85 and Sherman were part of a package that, all things considered including numbers, was superior.

    By 1950, the T-34/85 had been delivered even to the NORKS and Chines Commies, and in Korea it proved decidedly superior to the M-24 Chafee, a light tank that had a somewhat mediocre 75mm. Easy 8s and M-26s would see the T-34/85 (or any other T-34 variant) off without much difficulty in terms of performance, and generally had better crews and training as well.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,897

    Default

    Panther was designed from the outset to counter the T-34... Something like 4.8 to 6k built.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...4_and_KV_tanks
    T34/85 to counter German Tiger.
    About 29.4k produced during the war years.

    So, to return to hershmeister's point:

    "Wrong question

    It should be panther vs 10 T-34s"
    Alle Kunst ist umsonst, Wenn ein Engel in das Zündloch prunst.

  17. #16
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daveccarlson View Post
    Panther was designed from the outset to counter the T-34... Something like 4.8 to 6k built.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...4_and_KV_tanks
    T34/85 to counter German Tiger.
    About 29.4k produced during the war years.

    So, to return to hershmeister's point:

    "Wrong question

    It should be panther vs 10 T-34s"
    That package thing again... 1 Panther, 10 T-34 (/85 or /76) = dead Panther. Same result vs 10 Shermans.
    Last edited by Clyde; 06-20-2014 at 05:33 PM.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Strikes me as sort of like the Sherman vs Tiger or Panther. One on one, dueling in open country, the Sherman or the T-34/85 loses, most of the time. Panther a better tank technically than either. But - tank-on-tank duels weren't (generally, there may have been the odd exception, the war went on for nearly five years and there were tens or hundreds of thousands of encounters) what settled the fight. both T-34/85 and Sherman were part of a package that, all things considered including numbers, was superior.

    By 1950, the T-34/85 had been delivered even to the NORKS and Chines Commies, and in Korea it proved decidedly superior to the M-24 Chafee, a light tank that had a somewhat mediocre 75mm. Easy 8s and M-26s would see the T-34/85 (or any other T-34 variant) off without much difficulty in terms of performance, and generally had better crews and training as well.


    Agreed Clyde. Both Sherman and T-34/85 came as part of a package that was overall superior. By the 50's the 34/85 was long in the tooth, obsolete and the Soviets had loots of them to send off elsewhere.

    The Germans and Soviets did not use the same classification for Tanks. I tend to look at actual weight of vehicle(as did the Rooskies and the US maybe). The Panther weights 45 tons. That's makes it a "heavy" compared to what any other country had for tanks. The T34/85 was around 32 tons. As you can see that's not the same thing.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daveccarlson View Post
    Panther was designed from the outset to counter the T-34... Something like 4.8 to 6k built.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...4_and_KV_tanks
    T34/85 to counter German Tiger.
    About 29.4k produced during the war years.

    So, to return to hershmeister's point:

    "Wrong question

    It should be panther vs 10 T-34s"


    Great point Dave. Never one on one.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,897

    Default

    Actually, Clyde, I did leave off the something like 35k T34/76s from the something on the order of 28k T34/85s. So instead of 5 or 6 T34s=lots of burning Soviet tanks and 1 brewed-up Panther, the math is a bit different.

    As far as the British reactions to the "Ronson" Sherman in Normandy go, there are the stories of the Russian reactions to the Sherman: "OMG! the interior is painted! There's amenities like upholstered seats! And the vinyl/naugahyde can be re-used if the tank is knocked out!" U.S. jeeps and trucks and so on motorized the road to Berlin after all, so the Soviets could concentrate on, well, T34 production.
    Alle Kunst ist umsonst, Wenn ein Engel in das Zündloch prunst.

  21. #20
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daveccarlson View Post
    Actually, Clyde, I did leave off the something like 35k T34/76s from the something on the order of 28k T34/85s. So instead of 5 or 6 T34s=lots of burning Soviet tanks and 1 brewed-up Panther, the math is a bit different.

    As far as the British reactions to the "Ronson" Sherman in Normandy go, there are the stories of the Russian reactions to the Sherman: "OMG! the interior is painted! There's amenities like upholstered seats! And the vinyl/naugahyde can be re-used if the tank is knocked out!" U.S. jeeps and trucks and so on motorized the road to Berlin after all, so the Soviets could concentrate on, well, T34 production.
    The Soviet Beasts don't like to admit it, but were it not for American transport vehicles (and a substantial number of Shermans), it would have been much more difficult (perhaps impossible) for their campaign in the East to have succeeded as early as it did. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have told the Russkis "You are on your own. Have fun".
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    The Soviet Beasts don't like to admit it, but were it not for American transport vehicles (and a substantial number of Shermans), it would have been much more difficult (perhaps impossible) for their campaign in the East to have succeeded as early as it did. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have told the Russkis "You are on your own. Have fun".


    The Russians loved lend lease trucks. My grandfather would speak very fondly about the American vehicles(non tanks) during WW2. He was an artillery commander and any time he could get a US Studebacker for his troops, it was considered good fortune during WW2. The Shermans and other lend lease tanks I don't think would have made much difference as the Germans were knocking out plenty tanks(either Soviet or lend lease)on their own. Just another tank for the 88's to "brew up". The Soviets were building and rebuilding tanks by the 10's of thousands anyway. Just for info sake, I'd like to know the actual amount of lend lease tanks that went to the USSR.

    If the "Russkis" would have been on their own and having "fun", lost Moscow the 1st year(1941), all those thousands and thousands of tanks produced would have been used against the West.... Imagine Western Europe with another 20k+ of tanks and a few million troops freed from fighting in the depths of Russia to sit in France and wait for the invasion. No way any invasion from the West would have been successful if not for the war in the East doing the majority of the fighting. Keep in mind that Germany suffered 80% of all their casualties on the Eastern Front.

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK, Ontario & Oregon
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raspootyn View Post
    Just for info sake, I'd like to know the actual amount of lend lease tanks that went to the USSR.
    A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans.

    tac
    I am an international Gunboards patron

  24. #23
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley2 View Post
    A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans.

    tac
    I know that at least some British tanks were sent under the equivalent of lend-Lease, but cannot recall which ones or numbers. Some Churchills, i know but what else?
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK, Ontario & Oregon
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    I know that at least some British tanks were sent under the equivalent of lend-Lease, but cannot recall which ones or numbers. Some Churchills, i know but what else?
    The first shipments of tanks were dispatched in 1941, amounting to 487 Valentines and Tetrarchs from the UK. In 1942, Britain provided a further 2,487 tanks and the USA 3,023 tanks. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matildas went into service in the Staraya Russa and Valdai areas in December 1941 and January 1942.

    The Russians also got Stuarts and Grants, but were less than impressed with either.

    tac
    I am an international Gunboards patron

  26. #25
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley2 View Post
    The first shipments of tanks were dispatched in 1941, amounting to 487 Valentines and Tetrarchs from the UK. In 1942, Britain provided a further 2,487 tanks and the USA 3,023 tanks. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matildas went into service in the Staraya Russa and Valdai areas in December 1941 and January 1942.

    The Russians also got Stuarts and Grants, but were less than impressed with either.

    tac
    Quick response, tac. Thank you sir. I doubt that the Russians were highly impressed by the Tetrarchs, either.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quantity has a quality all it's own! T34/85 hands down. 1 on 1 it was the Panther but that's not how the war was fought. Same thing for the Sherman on the western front.

    HDH.

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    724

    Default

    Thanks for the info Tac. Got me into research mode and I found this interesting article on WW2 lend-lease totals on the EU history forum. I tried to reformat the test so it was a little more readable for us here. Going by these #'s vehicles and air-planes were a much bigger deal for the Soviet Army than the tanks. After all, the German army was mowing down Russian tanks in huge #'s anyway.

    Full link to article with even more info and history on lend-lease.

    Lend-Lease to the USSR and their contribution to the victory.

    In the course of the war in the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act were put hundreds of thousands of tons of cargo. The military historians (and, perhaps, and all the others) the greatest interest, of course, is an allied military equipment - we'll start with. Lend-Lease Act in the Soviet Union was delivered
    from the U.S.: lung M3A1 "Stuart" - 1676 pcs.,
    Lung M5 - 5 pcs., Lung, M24 - 2 pcs.,
    Medium M3 "Grant" - 1386 pcs.,
    Medium M4A2 "Sherman" (75-mm gun) - 2007 pcs.,
    medium M4A2 (with 76mm gun) - 2095 pcs.,
    heavy M26 - 1 pc.
    From England: infantry "Valentine" - 2394 pcs.,
    Infantry "Matilda» MkII - 918 pcs.,
    Light "Tetrarch" - 20 pieces,
    heavy "Churchill" - 301 pcs.,
    Cruising "Cromwell" - 6 pcs.
    From Canada: "Valentine" - 1388. Total: 12,199 tanks.

    During the war, the Soviet-German front was supplied 86.1 thousand tanks. Thus, the lend-lease tanks to reach 12.3% of the total amount of produced / delivered to the USSR tanks in 1941-1945. In addition to tanks, the Soviet Union supplied and ZSU / ACS. ZSU: M15A1 - 100 pcs., M17 - 1000 pcs., ACS: T48 - 650 pcs., M18 - 5 pcs., M10 - 52 pcs. Total units were delivered in 1807. Total for the war in the Soviet Union produced and received 23.1 thousand units of ACS. Thus, the share received by the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease ACS is 7.8% of the total received for the war equipment of this type. In addition to tanks and self-propelled guns were supplied to the USSR and armored personnel carriers: British "Universal Carrier" - 2560 pcs. (Including from Canada - 1348 pcs.) And U.S. M2 - 342 pcs., M3 - 2 pcs., M5 - 421 pcs., M9 - 419 pcs., T-16 - 96 pcs., M3A1 "Scout" - 3340 pcs ., LVT - 5 pcs. Total: 7185 units. As the armored vehicles were not made in the USSR, Lend-lease cars were 100% of the Soviet fleet of vehicles. Criticism of the Lend-Lease often pay attention to the poor quality of supplied armored allies. This criticism really has definite reason as American and British tanks on TTX and often inferior to Soviet and German counterparts. Especially given the fact that the Allies supplied the Soviet Union did not usually the best examples of his art. For example, the most advanced modification "Sherman" (M4A3E8 and "Sherman Firefly") in Russia were not supplied.

    Where are the best situation with the supply of lend-lease aircraft. During the war, the Soviet Union had delivered 18,297 aircraft, including from the United States: the P-40 "Tomahawk" - 247, P-40 "Kitihavk" - 1887, P-39 "Cobra" - 4952, P-63 " Kingcobra "- 2400, P-47" Thunderbolt - 195; bomber A-20 "Boston" - in 2771, the B-25 "Mitchell" - 861, other types of aircraft - 813. was delivered from England 4171 "Spitfires" and "Hurricane" . Total Soviet troops during the war received 138 thousand planes. thus share in the proceeds of foreign technology in the domestic fleet was 13%. However, and here the Allies refused to supply its air force with the pride of the Soviet Union - strategic bombers B-17, B-24 and B- 29, of which the war was produced 35 thousand. And at the same time, it is in such machines is most needed the Soviet Air Force.

    Lend-Lease was delivered eight thousand anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns of 5 thousand. All in all, the Soviet Union received 38 thousand units of anti-aircraft and anti-tank artillery 54 thousand. That is, the proportion of Lend-Lease in these types of weapons are, respectively, 21% and 9%. However, if you take all Soviet guns and mortars in general (revenue for the war - 526, 2 thousand), the share of foreign guns in it will be only 2.7%.

    During the war, the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act was passed 202 torpedo boats, 28 patrol boats, 55 minesweepers, 138 submarine hunters, 49 amphibious ships, icebreakers 3, 80 transport ships, 30 tugs. There are about 580 ships. All in all, the Soviet Union during the war years was 2588 vessels. That is, the share of lend-lease equipment - 22.4%.

    The most notable were the lend-lease deliveries of cars. Total Lend-Lease was delivered 480 thousand vehicles (of which 85% - of the USA). Including about 430 thousand trucks (mostly - US 6 firms "Studebaker" and REO) and 50 thousand jeeps (Willys MB and Ford GPW). Though the total income vehicles on the Soviet-German front were 744 thousand units, the share of lend-lease equipment to the Soviet fleet was 64%. In addition, the United States was delivered 35,000 motorcycles.

    But the supply of small arms under the Lend-Lease Act were quite modest, only about 150 000 thousand units. Given that the total income of small arms in the Red Army during the war amounted to 19.85 million units, the share of lend-lease armaments is approximately 0.75%.

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    View W/bars on windows Glendale, Kali
    Posts
    4,529

    Default

    Germany had many tank Aces likes of which never seen and never will-- One was Barkmann-- He was one of the few lucky once to survive. odds are 13 to 1~ Yes He was assigned Panzer V Panther. Quantity always wins over Quality...

    http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen5.htm



    Birth: Aug. 25, 1919
    Berlin-Mitte, Germany
    Death: Jun. 27, 2009
    Berlin-Mitte, Germany

    SS-Oberscharfuhrer (basically a Technical Sergeant), Das Reich Division, Waffen-SS and recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Also known as Ernst Schmuck-Barkmann after WWII, Barkmann was born, died and buried in the town of Kisdorf, in the German State of Holstein. His father was a farmer, and after attending school in 1936, Barkmann followed in his father's footsteps and began working on the family farm. On April 1st, 1936, Barkmann volunteered to join SS-Standarte "Germania" and after three months of training, joined the III Battalion of the Standarte. Barkmann took part in the Polish Campaign of 1939 serving with the 9th Company of Germania as a machine gunner and received his first combat wound. In the Autumn of 1941, Barkmann was seriously wounded during fighting near Dnieprpetrowsk, Russia, during Operation Barbarossa and earned the Iron Cross 2nd Class. In late 1941, Barkmann was transferred to Holland as an instructor of European SS-Volunteers but in early 1942, he volunteered for service with the division's Panzer Regiment. This decision would forever change his life. Barkmann returned to the Eastern Front in the winter of 1942 and was transferred to the 2nd Company, 2nd Panzer Regiment, 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich". Barkmann's unit was equipped with the Panzer III (50mm gun) tanks, a weapon system that was outclassed by the durable Soviet T-34 tanks. In early 1943 the 2nd Panzer Regiment took part in the Battle for Kharkov, where he won the Iron Cross First Class.

    In mid 1943, Barkmann was transferred to 4th Company which was equipped with new and by far superior, Panther tanks. In early 1944, he was promoted to the rank of SS-Unterscharfuhrer (sergeant). His division was soon transferred to the Bordeaux area in southern France for rest and refitting as a Panzer division. Following the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, the 2nd SS Panzer Division was ordered to move northwards and was committed to battle. In July of 1944, Das Reich was moved to the French village of Saint Lo to try and stop the advance of the United States Army's 9th and 30th Infantry Divisions as well as the the 3rd Armored Division. On July 8th, Barkmann's Company attacked the advancing American units. He earned his first tank kill that day when he destroyed a United States Army M4 Sherman tank near St.Lo. On July 12th, he destroyed two more Shermans while disabling a third. During that engagement, Barkmann moved his camouflaged Panther into an ambush position and awaited for more Allied armor, destroying an additional three Shermans. His tank was hit by an American anti-tank gun which caused his tank to catch fire. He and his crew put out the fire and saved the tank but it had to go back to the rear to the division workshop for repairs. On July 14th, after a day of rest, Barkmann was ordered to recover four Panthers that had been cut off behind enemy lines. He succeeded in this task and added three more Shermans to his total score in the process. On July 27, 1944 outside of the village of Lerey, France, Barkmann positioned his Panther in a grove of trees and proceeded to single-handedly destroy 9 Sherman tanks as well as some support vehicles effectively stopping an American armored assault. This battle became known as "Barkmann's Corner". For this heroic stand, he was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, roughly the equivalent of the United States' Medal of Honor. The United States never confirmed this battle happened but German reports verify it did. By July 30th, Barkmann had destroyed 15 US Sherman tanks.

    During the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge), Barkmann's Panther tank drove into a group of American tanks from the 2nd Armored Division. A battle obviously began with Barkmann being greatly outnumbered. Even with the odds against him he was able to knock out a few Sherman tanks. One Sherman rammed his Panther but didn't cause much damage although both tanks got stuck together and the Panther's engine stalled. Barkmann's mechanic managed to restart the engine and the Panther broke free and retreated. Even with the damage, Barkmann knocked out another Sherman that foolishly began chasing after him. In March 1945,Barkmann was once again fighting against the Soviets in the area of a town called Stuhlweissenburg. Here Barkmann knocked out four Soviet T-34 tanks. At the time, the Das Reich division was exhausted by non-stop fighting and lack of replacement vehicles. Barkmann and the other tank crews could no longer engage in sustained fighting against the numerically superior Soviet forces and were forced to retreat. During fighting at and around Vienna, Austria, the 4th Company was to link up with the remnants of the once famous Panzer Regiment of the 1st SS-Panzer Division, the Liebstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH), commanded by SS-Standartenführer (Colonel) Joachim Peiper, who would be tried after the war for war crimes due to the execution of American soldiers at Malmedy, France. Barkmann's tank came under fire accidentally from German forces which disabled Barkmann's tank, wounding him and his crew in the process. Barkmann blew up their tank as he knew his war was quickly coming to an end. They were able to escape Russian capture and made it to the British lines to surrender to the allies. Barkmann's war record reflects he destroyed over 82 allied tanks, 136 miscellaneous vehicles and 43 anti-tank guns. Barkmann earned the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the Iron Cross 1st Class, Iron Cross 2nd Class, Wound Badge in Silver, Infantry Assault Badge (for actions in Poland) and the Panzer Assault Badge with "50" designation. After the war Barkmann returned to the village he had been born in. He would serve his community as a local fire chief and Burgermeister (mayor). Barkmann added "Schmuck" to his name, after the war.
    Burial:
    Friedhof Kisdorf-Etzberg
    Kisdorf
    Segeberger Landkreis
    Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
    Plot: Last row to the left

  30. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,938

    Default

    Always wanted to hear the American side of the story of the battles with Barkmann. If he did half of what was claimed he was truely one of the great tank commanders!
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  31. #30

    Default

    " Barkmann added "Schmuck" to his name, after the war."

    Is that a good thing in German or not a good thing in German?
    Turning relics into near-relics since 2005.

  32. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK, Ontario & Oregon
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Murvihill View Post
    " Barkmann added "Schmuck" to his name, after the war."

    Is that a good thing in German or not a good thing in German?
    It means 'jewel' in German, and is not a perjorative like it is in American English. Perhaps he married a lady who liked the sound of her name and his added together.

    And BTW, apropos RK survivors - Balthazar [Bobby] Woll, Wittmann's gunner, survived, too. I recall that he was a great star of the Hamburg BdRKT for many years.

    tac
    I am an international Gunboards patron

  33. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    View W/bars on windows Glendale, Kali
    Posts
    4,529

    Default

    Both two Dave's, they may know!

  34. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Murvihill View Post
    " Barkmann added "Schmuck" to his name, after the war."

    Is that a good thing in German or not a good thing in German?


    Schmuck is yiddish

  35. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley2 View Post
    It means 'jewel' in German, and is not a perjorative like it is in American English. Perhaps he married a lady who liked the sound of her name and his added together.

    And BTW, apropos RK survivors - Balthazar [Bobby] Woll, Wittmann's gunner, survived, too. I recall that he was a great star of the Hamburg BdRKT for many years.

    tac
    From what I understand Woll had a mental breakdown after Normandy, completely understandable. The amount of pressure and stress these Men were under must have been overwhelming. To have to go against an opponent who always has 5x the numbers of what you have, takes nerves of steel!

    HDH.

  36. #35
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hershmeister View Post
    Schmuck is yiddish
    Not just Yiddish. And NOT a good thing to call somebody in Yiddish. Following borrowed from Wiki, with more detail:

    Schmuck (pejorative)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning one who is stupid or foolish; or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person. The word entered English from Yiddish (‏שמאָק, shmok), where it has similar pejorative meanings, but its original meaning in Yiddish is penis.[1][2] Because of its vulgarity,[3] the word is euphemized as schmoe, which was the source of Al Capp's cartoon strip creature the shmoo.[4] Variants include schmo and shmo.

    In Jewish homes, the word was "regarded as so vulgar as to be taboo."[5] Lenny Bruce, a Jewish standup comedian, wrote that the use of the word during his performances in 1962 led to his arrest on the West Coast "by a Yiddish undercover agent who had been placed in the club several nights running to determine if [his] use of Yiddish terms was a cover for profanity."[6]
    Etymology

    The German word Schmuck means "jewelry, adornments";[7] In German the pejorative "schmuck" would be Schmock, closer to the original Yiddish word. The transition of the word from meaning "jewel" to meaning "penis" is related to the description of a man's genitals as "the family jewels."[8]

    The Online Etymology Dictionary derives it from Eastern Yiddish shmok, literally "penis," from Old Polish smok, "grass snake, dragon,"[9] but Leo Rosten cites Dr. Shlomo Noble of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research as saying that shmok derives from shmuck and not the other way around.

    However, according to the lexicographer Michael Wex, the author of How to Be a Mentsh (And Not a Shmuck), the Yiddish and German "schmucks" are completely unrelated. "Basically, the Yiddish word comes out of baby talk," Wex said. "A little boy’s penis is a shtekl, a 'little stick.' Shtekl became shmeckle, in a kind of baby-rhyming thing, and shmeckle became shmuck. Shmeckle is prepubescent and not a dirty word, but shmuck, the non-diminutive, became obscene."
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  37. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    The Soviet Beasts don't like to admit it, but were it not for American transport vehicles (and a substantial number of Shermans), it would have been much more difficult (perhaps impossible) for their campaign in the East to have succeeded as early as it did. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have told the Russkis "You are on your own. Have fun".

    The Soviet "beasts" as you so eloquently put it that actually fought during WWII were nothing but grateful for US aid and were well aware of its necessity.

  38. #37
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pascucci91/41 View Post
    The Soviet "beasts" as you so eloquently put it that actually fought during WWII were nothing but grateful for US aid and were well aware of its necessity.
    Individuals, yes. Not what the official histories they wrote say, though. At least not the ones i have seen translations of. May be others in Russian that are more truthful, but i don't read Russki, and nobody I know who does has mentioned them.

    The behavior of Russian (and allied groups under Soviet domination) toward their own populations and the poor bastiches in Eastern Europe and Germany east of the Elbe who failed to run far and fast enough justifies my description of them as - beasts.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  39. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    The behavior of Russian (and allied groups under Soviet domination) toward their own populations and the poor bastiches in Eastern Europe and Germany east of the Elbe who failed to run far and fast enough justifies my description of them as - beasts.
    So, I will assume you say the same of the Germans who used the population of Poland as slaves and human shields in the same way, right? Just because they had an evil government does not mean Russians were "untermenschen" as you believe.

  40. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    View W/bars on windows Glendale, Kali
    Posts
    4,529

    Default

    huh "untermenschen" sub humans!, I guess we all deserve that because we all love Mosins and Mausers.

  41. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daveccarlson View Post
    Even earlier than the 1930s... The Versailles treaty denied armored vehicle experimentation to the Reichswehr. So where to conduct ostensibly illegal experiments far from prying Western European eyes?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo_(1922)

    I don't have much to add to what's already been said, but the T34/85 gave U.S. troops trouble early on in Korea.
    That's because all they had at the time was the M24 light tank, 57mm AT Gun and the 2.6" Bazooka. When the M4A3E8, M26 heavy and the 3.5" Bazooka showed up the show was over for the T34/85.

    HDH.

  42. #41
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    92,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pascucci91/41 View Post
    So, I will assume you say the same of the Germans who used the population of Poland as slaves and human shields in the same way, right? Just because they had an evil government does not mean Russians were "untermenschen" as you believe.
    To note the misbehavior of the Russians and the primitive tribesmen they dragooned into their service is hardly the same as looking with approval on the behavior of the Germans, as demanded by THEIR government.

    Bestial behavior justifies the use of the term "beast". The Russians were not untermenschen. Even though they behaved with (like their opponents) subhuman savagery not only toward their armed enemies but toward women, children and the elderly. Neither side gets a pass on that from me.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  43. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Germans committed vast numbers of crimes outside of ordered ones too. They definitely went into Poland, Ukraine and Russia considering their enemies to be animals and treated them as such. I kind of understand why the Russian soldier might have been just a teeny bit mad about his wife being killed, daughter being gang raped and house and farm being burned to the ground solely for existing. Doesn't make their behavior excusable, but I do believe even an American would be out for blood at that point.

  44. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I thought the thread was about Tanks??? Not Soviet/NAZI war crimes! Gota love how this one went down the tubes.
    Anyone care to bring this one back on topic?

    HDH.

  45. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    xxx
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    To note the misbehavior of the Russians and the primitive tribesmen they dragooned into their service is hardly the same as looking with approval on the behavior of the Germans, as demanded by THEIR government.

    Bestial behavior justifies the use of the term "beast". The Russians were not untermenschen. Even though they behaved with (like their opponents) subhuman savagery not only toward their armed enemies but toward women, children and the elderly. Neither side gets a pass on that from me.

    untermensch was a label for communists not for peoples

  46. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Midland Michigan
    Posts
    4,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hansellhd2 View Post
    I thought the thread was about Tanks??? Not Soviet/NAZI war crimes! Gota love how this one went down the tubes.
    Anyone care to bring this one back on topic?

    HDH.
    yes, its amazing how such posts get de-railed into different sub categories dealing with topics beyond the OP.

    But throwing in my 2 cents on that issue, the Germans did bad things in Russia, and so did the Russian's on their way westward in 44/45, which was for vengeance. And in that case, two wrongs don't make a right, they could have refrained from doing that, but discipline in the soviet forces comprised of pheasant stock was not enforced when it came to looting and rape.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •