Author Topic: Panther V and Panzer IV H armaments (Read 697 times)

IK3 · « **on:** May 15, 2005, 01:04:56 AM »

I did some quick research on panther and panzer IV.

These tanks carry the same caliber of cannons...

Which one creates more damage? (especially against T-34-76)

Ecliptik · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2005, 01:27:43 AM »

IIRC, the Panther's gun is a later model 75mm with a higher muzzle velocity than the Pz.IV. It should be more effective overall.

Edit:

Our Panzer IV Ausf G is armed with the KwK 40 L/48, which is an upgraded armament designed to counter the early T-34s. The Panther was armed with the KwK 42 L/70, considered to be the best German 75 mm gun of the war, if not the best 75mm gun of the war outright. It had very high muzzle velocity and for antitank purposes could compete with the 88mm guns of the Tiger I.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2005, 02:11:16 AM »

Panther 75mm is quite a bit more powerful than Tiger I 88mm.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2005, 05:45:35 AM »

This pic from the Ammo Photo Gallery on my website shows the German tank gun ammo of WW2. The shortest 75mm was fitted to the L/24 gun in early Pz IV, the middle one to the L/43 and L/48 guns of the later Pz IV, and the long one for the L/70 gun in the Panther.

The smaller 88mm round was for the L/56 gun in the Tiger 1, the big one for the L/71 in the Tiger 2.

The performance of these rounds (and most others under 125mm) can be found in the Ammo Data Tables on my site.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Bodhi · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2005, 06:51:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Panther 75mm is quite a bit more powerful than Tiger I 88mm.

I disagree, the muzzle velocities are almost the same, but the weight of the Tiger I round is almost 3 pounds heavier. I'd say the Tiger I rnd has far more pentrating ability.

GScholz · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2005, 06:57:52 AM »

820m/sec and 936m/sec are not "almost the same".

CPorky · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2005, 07:04:08 AM »

The Panther 75mm had a higher muzzle velocity and a better penetration Than the Tiger I 88mm, with the Tungsten cored rounds it was even higher.

Check out this site http://www.achtungpanzer.com

Urchin · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2005, 09:40:46 AM »

Remember it is MV(how the hell do you do squared?)....

3 lbs isn't such a huge difference, 100 m/s is.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2005, 09:51:06 AM »

that 100 x 3.6 is 360 km/ faster

oh damn a calculation

Tony Williams · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2005, 10:06:34 AM »

The 75mm L/70 did have better penetration than the 88mm L/56; it also had a higher hit probability, due to the flatter trajectory and shorter flight time.

However, the 88mm was good enough to deal with almost anything, and had the benefit of a bigger HE shell. As tanks tended to fire more HE than AP, and the cartridge was about the same size, the Panther would arguably have been a better all-round tank if its gun had been chambered for the 88mm cartridge.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Ecliptik · « **Reply #10 on:** May 15, 2005, 01:09:33 PM »

I think that it would have been a better decision for Germany to abandon production of the Tigers and instead dedicate all those resources to Panther production. While the Tiger tougher skinned, it was expensive, hard to maintain, and slow. The Panther is much more maneuverable and cheaper. You could probably build 3-4 late model Panthers for each Tiger I.

Bodhi · « **Reply #11 on:** May 15, 2005, 02:26:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ecliptik
I think that it would have been a better decision for Germany to abandon production of the Tigers and instead dedicate all those resources to Panther production. While the Tiger tougher skinned, it was expensive, hard to maintain, and slow. The Panther is much more maneuverable and cheaper. You could probably build 3-4 late model Panthers for each Tiger I.

while I agree to a point, Germany would have been better not building the Tiger II and screwing with the E1 and Maus. It (Tiger II) was worse than the Tiger I in mechanical reliability. It's gun was what made it better, and it's gun could have been fitted to a returreted Tiger I increasing it's lethality. That and adopting sloped fwd and side armour for the Tiger I would have made it a better all around tank. In the end though, the mechanical aspects are what doomed the Tiger in the field. Removal of the turret required to replace the transmission, amongst other problems such as the transport and battle tracks it required. All these things hurt an otherwise bad prettythang tank that was feared by all allied tankers. Shoulda, coulda, woulda... right?

As for the Panther, it was probably the best over all tank of WW2.

IK3 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 15, 2005, 03:11:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
\As for the Panther, it was probably the best over all tank of WW2.

eh shouldnt that title go to T-34?

Karnak · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2005, 03:49:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by IK3
eh shouldnt that title go to T-34?

Only until the itroduction of reliable Panthers.

The Panther V G was probably the best tank of WWII. Certainly better by a wide margin than the T-34/85.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #14 on:** May 15, 2005, 07:05:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ecliptik
You could probably build 3-4 late model Panthers for each Tiger I.

Actually, the Panther cost about half the price of a Tiger 1 (and maybe a third of a Tiger 2). It was only around 10% more expensive to build than a Pz IV.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum