Author Topic: Observations on the Panther "G".  (Read 4175 times)

Offline TDeacon

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2010, 10:09:42 AM »
The Sherman however has a rotating cupola. This is the reason you see photos of the .50cal on a Sherman in many different positions. The commanders hatch was mounted on a ball bearing race so the gun position could be changed easily by unlocking the cupola and turning it to a new position. This was a little different than the AA mounting rings on the M7 "Priest" self propelled  105 howitzer and on 6x6 2.5 ton trucks. Those rings were well designed to swing freely to engage aircraft with the .50 cal.

One issue with the current Panther AAMG is the number of different actions you need to perform in order to traverse the MG.  These include moving the pintle position on the rail (key 5), resetting the magnification (key whatever), and traversing the gun at the new position (key 3), repeated as the target traverses the sky.  I mention this in my bugfix thread (which is still in progress). 

Anyway, you could make quite a number of game actions unplayable by introducing too many separate actions, each performed with different keys.  For example, you could make Sherman players manually traverse the cupola (key 5) and then traverse the MG over 60 degrees (key 3), as in the Panther.  Also, with more relevance to the majority of players, think of all the ridiculous complications you could introduce into the aircraft, thus making them less usable and the game less playable. 

Thus, given that we have simplified numerous real-world actions in AH in order to make the game playable, this principle should be extended to the Panthers AAMG.  Modifying all the other tank’s AAMGs to incorporate the same complexity would be a backwards step for AH, and would have play balance issues.  Attacking GVs with aircraft is already way too easy – kind of like spawn camping, but worse. 
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 10:21:08 AM by TDeacon »

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2010, 10:52:15 AM »

The Sherman however has a rotating cupola. This is the reason you see photos of the .50cal on a Sherman in many different positions. The commanders hatch was mounted on a ball bearing race so the gun position could be changed easily by unlocking the cupola and turning it to a new position. This was a little different than the AA mounting rings on the M7 "Priest" self propelled  105 howitzer and on 6x6 2.5 ton trucks. Those rings were well designed to swing freely to engage aircraft with the .50 cal.

This is only true of the early to mid production shermans.  Later in the war the 75MM shermans got a improved commanders cupola with armored glass view ports, and a small oval loaders hatch.

The first production 76MM sherman turrets had the split hatch that rotated and had the .50 mount, but the improved turret mounted the .m2 .50 on a fixed, pedestal mount between the commander and loaders hatches, and the loaders hatch got smaller and oval in shape.

The split/rotating hatch was a large weak spot in the roof armor of the turret.

Offline Blooz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3845
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2010, 11:26:36 AM »
This is only true of the early to mid production shermans.  Later in the war the 75MM shermans got a improved commanders cupola with armored glass view ports, and a small oval loaders hatch.

The first production 76MM sherman turrets had the split hatch that rotated and had the .50 mount, but the improved turret mounted the .m2 .50 on a fixed, pedestal mount between the commander and loaders hatches, and the loaders hatch got smaller and oval in shape.

The split/rotating hatch was a large weak spot in the roof armor of the turret.

SSShhhh! Yes. This is correct but I just didn't want to be the one to drop this little bomb on these guys. I mean whoa, to actually have to turn the turret to change the .50 cal gun position on the late war Sherman? If they found out about this, they'd have a fit!
White 9
JG11 Sonderstaffel

"The 'F' in 'communism' stands for food."

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2010, 12:32:45 PM »
 ;)

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2010, 01:18:01 PM »
You can see the AAMG traversing ring in the following site

1. Rob's Panther page

2. Panther Walk around gallery

3. You Tube Greatest Even tanks- The Panther.

 The mount lets the MG turn all the way around to a stopping point at the rear or the hatch. Then you must turn the gun back the other way to the same stop point. The gun can be fired almost straight up form in side the commanders hatch.  I not only have seen this ring in many publications but I have seen the ring with my own eyes. While it had no MG mounted on it at that time, you could see the gun mount and the ring it's self and how it worked.

 If you look at a lot of war time photos in many cases there is no MG on the commanders hatch at all. The gun most likely is stowed inside. That is what we did with the M-48A5 tanks while the M-60 had a MG mounted in a cupola type commander gun and the mount was a permanent gun fixture. I am retired Army and I was in an Armored Cavalry unit most of my career. I have seen a tank or two up close and personal. This includes many WWII vehicles at the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox. If you like tanks and you find yourself in Central Kentucky make a stop at this museum.

Online Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9515
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2010, 01:56:16 PM »
If you look at a lot of war time photos in many cases there is no MG on the commanders hatch at all. The gun most likely is stowed inside.

That could be, certainly, but it might just as well be that they realized the likelihood of bringing down an enemy aircraft with an MG34 or 42 was pretty slim, and the position too exposed to make it useful for anti-infantry use.

- oldman

Offline Blooz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3845
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2010, 02:35:29 PM »
I am retired Army and I was in an Armored Cavalry unit most of my career. I have seen a tank or two up close and personal. This includes many WWII vehicles at the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox. If you like tanks and you find yourself in Central Kentucky make a stop at this museum.

I'm an old 19E myself. Served M60A1's and A3's for 9th Cav/ 24th Mech Inf Div. and 3/34 Armor 1st Armored Div. and 1/221 Armor (NG) 40th Div in Nevada. Been there. Done that. Been through Knox. Been to the Patton museum. Been to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland too. Got tons of books right here behind my chair on every military subject. Been interested since I was a kid. Models, wargames, reenactments, hell even all the weapons I own are military.

But anyway, the fact is the new way they're doing the Panther AA gun is more realistic than the old way. I think you'd better get used to it because, as has already been mentioned, the older models will probably be upgraded in time to what the Panther is now.
White 9
JG11 Sonderstaffel

"The 'F' in 'communism' stands for food."

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2010, 03:26:02 PM »
I can't recall if I shoot down many planes in AH with the MG-34. But the M-2 50cal on top of the M4/76 is a another matter. I have shot down more than a few with it as well as with the M-3 and the Jeep. I always loved the Browning M-2.

Offline TDeacon

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2010, 04:18:57 PM »
I'm an old 19E myself. Served M60A1's and A3's for 9th Cav/ 24th Mech Inf Div. and 3/34 Armor 1st Armored Div. and 1/221 Armor (NG) 40th Div in Nevada. Been there. Done that. Been through Knox. Been to the Patton museum. Been to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland too. Got tons of books right here behind my chair on every military subject. Been interested since I was a kid. Models, wargames, reenactments, hell even all the weapons I own are military.

But anyway, the fact is the new way they're doing the Panther AA gun is more realistic than the old way. I think you'd better get used to it because, as has already been mentioned, the older models will probably be upgraded in time to what the Panther is now.

Well, I hope they don't perform this "upgrade", for the gameplay reasons I gave above.  In the game as currently implemented, tanks are already pretty helpless against AC, again from a gameplay perspective.  GVs can’t even hide, what with the icons.  So, I am doing my best to convince them not to in my bugfix post.  

Granted, WWII tanks were pretty helpless against WWII aircraft.  But this isn’t WWII.  It  is a game, which abstracts out of the reality of WWII a small subset of elements and dynamics intended to produce a fun gaming experience (and allow HTC to make a sufficient profit to support its fine upstanding employees).  Remember, putting something in a game merely because it seems to be “realistic”, is sometimes a bad idea, from a gameplay perspective.  (I speak from 40 plus years of experience in computer, miniatures and boardgames here).  Just think about how many ways we could screw up the air portion of Aces High by adding awkward control implementations for important game functions.  
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 04:20:44 PM by TDeacon »

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2010, 06:37:02 AM »
 I agree, if you want WWII realism than shooting down aircraft with the main gun would not happen. Other than by accident I don,t think WWII tanks shot down many planes with the main gun. The optics and turret movement and type of ammo just don't allow it. Even a modern day tank would have a major problem doing it with anti tank rds. While in fact the MG mounting ring on late war German tanks did allow the commander to fire at planes even if he had little chance on bring it down with 7.92 MG ammo. So if we are shooting down planes on a regular bases with the main gun, Why not leave the pedal guns alone too.

Offline chris3

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 690
      • http://www.ludwigs-hobby-seite.de/
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #40 on: December 24, 2010, 05:32:16 PM »
I agree, if you want WWII realism than shooting down aircraft with the main gun would not happen. Other than by accident I don,t think WWII tanks shot down many planes with the main gun. The optics and turret movement and type of ammo just don't allow it. Even a modern day tank would have a major problem doing it with anti tank rds. While in fact the MG mounting ring on late war German tanks did allow the commander to fire at planes even if he had little chance on bring it down with 7.92 MG ammo. So if we are shooting down planes on a regular bases with the main gun, Why not leave the pedal guns alone too.

moin

only one shoot down of an aircraft i knew.
otto carius, the comander of a Tiger report it in his book " Tiger im Schlam" (Tiger in the mud)
he tells us that his gunner get frustratet about the many IL2 Attacks and fired his main gun un alowed agains one IL2 and destroyed it.
so its posible with alot of luck.
and dont forget the most of us do have more houers in ouer aircrafts and vehicles than any other veteran do have ;-)

cu christian

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #41 on: December 26, 2010, 02:20:42 AM »
There have been reports of Panthers getting the turret knocked out by front hits by "lesser" tanks at 2400 yards+.  I was told by countrymen that the M4A3/76mm was able to do that to both their Panthers at that range.

Anyone else finding what they may seem to think are flaws in the armor?  Remember, the T34 was not fixed until it was in the game for how many years?     
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #42 on: December 26, 2010, 07:30:33 AM »
What flaw was in the T-34's armor? 

In real life I've read that the Germans switched to some material that was more brittle than what they were originally using on the Panther which had the effect of weakening the armor.  Before that happened the front glacis was proof against the 122mm on the IS-2, at least according to the book about Russian tanks I have.  Believe the book is called Stalins Armoured Might.

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #43 on: December 26, 2010, 08:17:45 AM »
What flaw was in the T-34's armor? 

In real life I've read that the Germans switched to some material that was more brittle than what they were originally using on the Panther which had the effect of weakening the armor.  Before that happened the front glacis was proof against the 122mm on the IS-2, at least according to the book about Russian tanks I have.  Believe the book is called Stalins Armoured Might.

You do not remember the T34's frontal turret armor being made of Swiss cheese?  It used to be that one hit to the very front of the turret with almost anything would knock it out.  On one of the updates from earlier this year, iirc, it made mention of the problem and the fix. 

I don't have any knowledge and I do not recall the reading about the less than stellar quality of the Panther armor, either from the beginning or a due to a change after being produced for the field.  Does not mean it didnt happen though.  :)
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Big Rat

  • AH Training Corps
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Observations on the Panther "G".
« Reply #44 on: December 26, 2010, 05:57:04 PM »
What flaw was in the T-34's armor? 

In real life I've read that the Germans switched to some material that was more brittle than what they were originally using on the Panther which had the effect of weakening the armor.  Before that happened the front glacis was proof against the 122mm on the IS-2, at least according to the book about Russian tanks I have.  Believe the book is called Stalins Armoured Might.

The Germans didn't switch anything, they were running low on molybendum(sp?), which made the steel bend rather then crack. So it wasn't that the Germans wanted the armor changed, so much as the composition they wanted could no longer be made. This really was only an issue with very late production tanks.  Russian tanks had a similiar issue earlier in the war.

 :salute
BigRat   
When you think the fight might be going bad, it already has.
Becoming one with the Hog, is to become one with Greatness, VF-17 XO & training officer BigRat