Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Thanks Flak-
I stand by what I said jig- Panthers by reputation were much tougher cookies than a mkIV.
The MkIV may have been a '43 tank (did it really take until '43? thought they were around in '42 as well) but it's design was early war and it's armor was never better than mid war despite when it served. Both Il-2, Spits and Typhoons had good success punching through their roof with 20mm, and destroying engines. And by far I think with the Il-2 when 20mm went through the roof it was catastrophic inside. Think tin can hammerred through the roof with a .22 cal. Whats left of the mice in the can? juice! 
(don't ask me how I know that... )
And though I can't find any solid references Il-2 seemed to be having success against MkIV with just the 20mm ShVAK as well. Engines could be destroyed and multiple hits could split turrets if "concentrated". I think some folks overestimate the effect of 10mm of armor against a high velocity 20mm shell
OTOH I do feel that the damage modeling on the front plate etc etc will change things. Currently there seems far too much ease in effectiveness of low approaches. They really should have to come in steeper and concentrate fire to accomplish things. in the future we should see more engine kills and less kerblooie kills.
Sigh. The Panzer IV was not a early war design or a based on an early war design. For it's time it was built to replace the aging Panzer II and Panzer III series of main battle tanks. The turrent rings on those classes could not hold a higher caliber weapon turrent in most cases. So a modernized chassy was developed to incorperate a better suspension system and wider tracks, and to serve as a main battle tank with the 75mm Pak. Keep in mind the Panther is a late mid 43 tank and the Tiger was a 1942 and the King Tiger was a very late '43 tank.
There is a very large difference in the situations that the Panther and Mark IV saw combat. While the Panther was present at Kursk, it was the worst version, the D. Now I bring this up because the Panzer IV and Panzer VI were used in the offensive actions in Russia, with little cover and alot of moving through open country. Here the VVS could wreak havoc on the tanks because they had no where to hide, and there was a much higher chance of the tanks being spotted and multiple sorties being carried out on one formation. Now the Panther came into it's own after the Normandy invasions on the defense, when the Panther A series was already fighting and Panther G's were being made. These tanks stayed under cover and had the dense woodlands of the French and German country side to hide from allied air cover.
All that means is the Panzer was more exposed during it's combat service before it went on the Western (and eastern for that matter) defense, and statisically it will show to have been knocked out by more enemy air action. Look up the VVS's ATG kill stats...they saw more and killed alot more tanks, of any kind.
Yah, Typhoons were effective tank killers, but it wasn't JUST because they carried 4X HS 20mm cannons. They were assigned to ground attack roles, so they had at least some intellegence reports where tanks and thus the chance of encountering tanks to kills was much more common. Obviously the Typhoon pilots weren't carrying the 3 inch rockets by choice...probably some mandate by the high command...since cannons are so effect right? Anyway...
The engine compartment on the German tanks (and most others for that matter) is seperated from the crew compartment by a fire wall. Most damage to the rear hull of the tank won't affect the crew unless it's a large or extremely high velocity cartridge that continues through the engine compartment and into the turrent bell. Shells such as the AP tank shells (for the most part APCBC rounds, AP rounds with explosive cores) that can cause fuel ignition with the explosion that can catch the ammunition on fire if the crew has no way to prevent the fire from spreading.
Sure 10mm isn't alot of armor. But don't think that the 20mm round isn't going to be signifigantly slower after passing through a solid object. It takes alot of energy to get through a cast iron engine block too.
And and part of the turrent is the least likely to be penetrated. Many turrents are solid cast which makes them very very strong, along with the thickest armor on the tank because it is usually exposed to fire most often (at least with a good commander) When you get away from the 1939, 1940, and even 1941's almost purely rivited hulls and turrents, the turrent becomes the most durable part of the tank to damage, with the engine decking ("roof") being the weakest because it needs to be removed often and easily for servicing. Even the turrent hatchs on the Panzer IV had 2 inchs of armor. The Panther had close to 4.
It's been posted before...but aircraft cannons on the western front was very seldomly the reason the tank was lost to actions. Most often enemy tanks, infantry attacks, artillary, rockets and other HE devices and sometimes cannons.
Just think of the angle needed to pass through the engine decking, (without ANY deflection from the armor) and then connect with the engine itself. (the radiator is normally protected well enough, at the expense of decreased preformence. Tanks were often prone to overheating, especially German heavies) It would need to be over 60 degrees in most cases. Very hard to concentrate guns there, and still pull out.
Perhaps the main thing lacking is damage to road wheels and linkage equipment. Blowing tracks isn't very hard...enough US .50's would even be good in that respect.
Rockets work pretty good in AH f your accurate with them...mostly engine kills which is about right...a hit to the side hull probably isn't going to do much but hitting the engine venting on the roof or rockets exploding underneath have a good chance of blowing trough the floor decking of the engine compartment because of the relative lack of armor (and why mines were so very effective vs tanks)
Blah
- Jig
