Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: botkins on March 15, 2008, 02:17:41 PM
-
Another vehicle we need is the German Panther. Yes it has the same size gun as the panzer but its armor is thicker and was sloped(atleast what ive seen and read about).It just looks like a very solid tank to me and i think it would be awsome to have on AH.
-botkins
-
we got a "starter of threads on 1st post" here!
-
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/PantherTankColor.jpg)
I also seem to remember that although the Panther's gun's projectile was the same diameter, it actually had a larger powder charge, and the barrel was longer. That made the velocity higher and allowed better penetration.
-
Yeah, the Panther had a different 75mm cannon than the earlier Panzers. In fact, the Panther's high velocity 75mm could actually penetrate more armor than the Tiger's 88mm.
The Panther suffered the same problems as all the heavy German tanks- Suspension and transmission prone to wearing out quickly, underpowered engine, too few built. But of course it had superior armor, optics, and firepower.
-
those Germans sure are smart, them and they're big fancy tanks, only problem they gave there contracts to companies that were used to producing small numbers, instead of say the BMW plant or others.
-
those Germans sure are smart, them and they're big fancy tanks, only problem they gave there contracts to companies that were used to producing small numbers, instead of say the BMW plant or others.
[sarcasm]Yes because MAN AG is known to only produce small numbers of vehicles.[/sarcasm]
Get a clue please.
-
well most often this happened like jobs going to company's that would produce ship yard cranes example 4 a month and the Germans needed bigger, overall the big thing was hat the Germans tanks were to over engineered and to hard to produce for anyone
-
Learn spelling and punctuation. Then read some history books. Then post. Pretty please with sugar on top.
The initial production target was 250 tanks per month at MAN. This was increased to 600 per month in January 1943. Despite determined efforts this figure was never reached due to disruption by Allied bombing, manufacturing bottlenecks, and other difficulties. Production in 1943 averaged 148 per month. In 1944, it averaged 315 a month (3,777 having been built that year), peaking with 380 in July and ending around the end of March 1945, with at least 6,000 built in total. Strength peaked on September 1, 1944 at 2,304 tanks, but that same month a record number of 692 tanks were reported lost (source: T.L. Jentz (1999) Die deutsche Panzertruppe Band 2).
If the 6,000 Panthers built were pitted against the 50,000 Shermans made during WWII I would put my money on the Panthers. A Panther was easily a match for 10 Shermans (Firefly excluded) or T-34's on the battlefield. With superior gun and optics and almost impervious armor, the Panther was the finest tank of the war.
-
If the 6,000 Panthers built were pitted against the 50,000 Shermans made during WWII I would put my money on the Panthers. A Panther was easily a match for 10 Shermans (Firefly excluded) or T-34's on the battlefield. With superior gun and optics and almost impervious armor, the Panther was the finest tank of the war.
The Panther had good frontal armour, but nothing special at the sides. With crews of equal quality, I'd put my money on the Shermans; with a 10:1 advantage, some could work around to the side while others were distracting the Panther at the front. I suspect that the actual exchange rate would be more like 3:1.
As a matter of interest, the Panther's 75mm gun was about as effective as the Sherman Firefly's 17 pdr - when the 17 pdr was using standard APCBC ammo. When the Firefly used APDS its penetration was much superior, although accuracy went down.
-
If the 6,000 Panthers built were pitted against the 50,000 Shermans made during WWII I would put my money on the Panthers. A Panther was easily a match for 10 Shermans (Firefly excluded) or T-34's on the battlefield. With superior gun and optics and almost impervious armor, the Panther was the finest tank of the war.
I have a post war US Army document that states something startling. M18 Hellcats were credited with killing 134 Panthers for the loss of 17 M18s in exchange. Indeed, the M1 76mm shooting HVAP was generally lethal for a Panther at any angle. When the M36 showed up in the fall of 1944, the US had a TD that could kill anything it might encounter. The Sherman was an infantry support tank, not designed specifically to fight other tanks. That role was to filled by Tank Destroyers (that was the theory, and the theory was obviously flawed). Even though 76mm Shermans gradually arrived in the ETO and Italy, they rarely had access to HVAP ammo. Usually, they would have to horse trade with supply personnel or TD units to get few rounds.
Last year, I posted a portion of a report where an M8 armored car destroyed a King Tiger with a few 37mm rounds. At 50 yards, the 37mm could easily penetrate the rear armor of the Tiger. In this case, the M8 cornered the behemoth on a narrow road and got off several rounds at close range before the Tiger could get its turret around. Tiger go boom....
You get no guarantees in combat. Even the biggest, baddest tanks have weaknesses that can be exploited.
My regards,
Widewing
-
:rofl WW
I can just imagine the whines if someone here lost a Tiger to an M8
OMFG WTF HAX!!!!!1!1one!!!one
-
OMG HAXOR!!!! NO WEY U CCAN KILLA TIGER WITHA M8 U R A HAXOR!!!! [sic] :cry
lol can imagine it now
-
Learn spelling and punctuation. Then read some history books. Then post. Pretty please with sugar on top.
The initial production target was 250 tanks per month at MAN. This was increased to 600 per month in January 1943. Despite determined efforts this figure was never reached due to disruption by Allied bombing, manufacturing bottlenecks, and other difficulties. Production in 1943 averaged 148 per month. In 1944, it averaged 315 a month (3,777 having been built that year), peaking with 380 in July and ending around the end of March 1945, with at least 6,000 built in total. Strength peaked on September 1, 1944 at 2,304 tanks, but that same month a record number of 692 tanks were reported lost (source: T.L. Jentz (1999) Die deutsche Panzertruppe Band 2).
If the 6,000 Panthers built were pitted against the 50,000 Shermans made during WWII I would put my money on the Panthers. A Panther was easily a match for 10 Shermans (Firefly excluded) or T-34's on the battlefield. With superior gun and optics and almost impervious armor, the Panther was the finest tank of the war.
Except they weren't just facing 50,000 Shermans; Many Panthers' were sent east to stem the T-34 horde. Which is what the Panther was origanally designed to counter, anyway.
-
I found the original post...
From Official Army After Action Reports describing the battle at St. Vith, Belgium, during the Battle of The Bulge:
"While the northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (Troop A, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion; Troop E, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been when an M8 armored car from Troop B destroyed a (King) Tiger tank.
The armored car had been in a concealed position near the boundary of Troop 3, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron and Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion, when the Tiger approached the lines at right angles to move along a trail in front of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the latter slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on it. It was a race between the Americans, who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm gun would be effective on the Tiger's thin rear armor, and the Germans, who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly, the M8 closed to 25 yards and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which billowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position."
The document can be found at: http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=362&filename=351.pdf (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=362&filename=351.pdf)
See page 12.
My regards,
Widewing
-
That's awesome. Balls of steel there. :aok
-
Ive always thought the Panther was the best tank in the War. I'd love to see it in AH. :aok
-
The German Panzerkampfwagen V is considered to be the best designed tank during World War II, but the T34 is ranked as the number one tank to be built during the same time. It was easier to manufacture, massively produced and provided sloped armor for the crews. Now if I had the choice it would have to be the Panther Aus G.
Ernst Barkmann had some remarkable engagements in his Panther against Shermans. Barkman's Corner is a classic example of how superior tank crews could effectively use their vehicles to take on a much larger force.
Michael Wittman and the Battle of Villers Bocage is another example of a superior tank commander, a veteran of the Russian front, being in the right time at the right place to wreck havoc among a British armored column before they even knew what hit them. He was in late version Tiger 1 with steel roadwheels.
-
I vote for more early-war armor. Something that will help with the lack of suitable GV's for early-and Mid war, and scenarios.
-
Except they weren't just facing 50,000 Shermans; Many Panthers' were sent east to stem the T-34 horde. Which is what the Panther was origanally designed to counter, anyway.
allied Zerg rush ftw.
-
Michael Wittman and the Battle of Villers Bocage is another example of a superior tank commander, a veteran of the Russian front, being in the right time at the right place to wreck havoc among a British armored column before they even knew what hit them. He was in late version Tiger 1 with steel roadwheels.
What kind of wheels did early Tigers have? Do you mean the removal of the rubber rim?
-
I have a post war US Army document that states something startling. M18 Hellcats were credited with killing 134 Panthers for the loss of 17 M18s in exchange. Indeed, the M1 76mm shooting HVAP was generally lethal for a Panther at any angle. When the M36 showed up in the fall of 1944, the US had a TD that could kill anything it might encounter. The Sherman was an infantry support tank, not designed specifically to fight other tanks. That role was to filled by Tank Destroyers (that was the theory, and the theory was obviously flawed). Even though 76mm Shermans gradually arrived in the ETO and Italy, they rarely had access to HVAP ammo. Usually, they would have to horse trade with supply personnel or TD units to get few rounds.
Last year, I posted a portion of a report where an M8 armored car destroyed a King Tiger with a few 37mm rounds. At 50 yards, the 37mm could easily penetrate the rear armor of the Tiger. In this case, the M8 cornered the behemoth on a narrow road and got off several rounds at close range before the Tiger could get its turret around. Tiger go boom....
You get no guarantees in combat. Even the biggest, baddest tanks have weaknesses that can be exploited.
My regards,
Widewing
LOL poor tiger crew..... imagine the WTF expression on the M8 gunners face
-
The early and mid production Tiger 1 had rubber rimmed roadwheels. During the late model production all Tigers were equipped with the steel version roadwheel. The same variation of the wheel can be found on some Panther Aus G's, known as the steel wheeled version.
-
As WW has already mentioned the US did fairly well with both the upgunned shermans and the various TD's when involved in both a fluid "meeting engagement" or in a mobile defense. The primary problems the US had was in assaulting German defensive positions. The sherman was not a heavy tank and had a high silouette. The primary role of the Firelfy was in the overwatch position, it was distributed 1 per platoon and crews rotated turns. The firefly would standoff and engage anything that attacked the rest of the platoon. The US used the 76mm M4 the same way with a M4 "jumbo" utilized as colume lead whenever possible.
While the Panther was a tremendous tank it was also used in a defensive role with defined fields of fire and infantry/artillery/observation support most of the time. If you look at the bulge battles you'll see that even with no airpower, minimal artillery and very little armor or anti-tank capacity that the Germans were pretty heavily attrited in many places.
-
The early and mid production Tiger 1 had rubber rimmed roadwheels. During the late model production all Tigers were equipped with the steel version roadwheel. The same variation of the wheel can be found on some Panther Aus G's, known as the steel wheeled version.
I believe the Panther only had two sets of steel wheels on each side. If my memory serves me, it was the last two sets. Again, if my memory is right, it occured around the same time when they introduced the shocks on the first two sets of torsion bars to counter the porpoising that was experienced at speed.
-
LOL poor tiger crew..... imagine the WTF expression on the M8 gunners face
*snort*
This is news? A pilot in the silk killed my Tiger with his .45 from 2000 yards.
Any vehicle I get into automagically becomes a death trap. All you people who land vehicle kills are ch...er..cheery bastages :D
-
I believe the Panther only had two sets of steel wheels on each side. If my memory serves me, it was the last two sets. Again, if my memory is right, it occured around the same time when they introduced the shocks on the first two sets of torsion bars to counter the porpoising that was experienced at speed.
Bodhi,
There were Panthers that entire sets of roadwheels that were steel.
(http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/1898/steelwheelpantherha0.jpg)
I found this picture on the internet.
-
Druid, that photo appears to be an artists rendition or a model with a photo back drop. I'll have to dig into the Panther books I have tonight to refresh my memory. It seems that my memory remembers only two sets on each side.
-
I think you are right. But after looking at the book "Panther" by Bruce Culver and Uwe Feist, they actually did exist. There are several known photos of them in this book. Also look at the AJ Press books on the Panther and the ones by Jentz and Doyle. Only the late model G's had them. But I have seen photos of A and D models that have them mounted also. Something to do with the lack of raw materials (rubber) within the German industry during the war. I have these books but no scanner to post the pictures from them.
-
The only way I could see the panther getting into the game would be if it was perked. But I still really want it.
-
I want it.... All I got to say.
-
agreed, i unno about the perked if it was it would need to be low perk, the panzerIV and the panther and the tiger would be a great foe for the t-34 and sherman tanks and any other to come
-
Well, the Panther may be almost like the Tiger on the field. Especaily with the sloped armour and the High Velocity 75mm gun. They may need to add another tank to even things out or something.
-
Add the Panther and this 1.(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj240/bigjohn1967/IL_Armor_04_220.jpg)
Achilles the British version of the M10 with 76mm gun. This pic is a newer retrofitted one that was in the Isreali army but the vehicle and gun are correct.
-
Yeah, the Panther had a different 75mm cannon than the earlier Panzers. In fact, the Panther's high velocity 75mm could actually penetrate more armor than the Tiger's 88mm.
The Panther suffered the same problems as all the heavy German tanks- Suspension and transmission prone to wearing out quickly, underpowered engine, too few built. But of course it had superior armor, optics, and firepower.
Panther had the L/70 75mm and the Panzer iv the L/48 75mm. Completely different guns. L/70 had a one piece barrel and was much longer while the L/48 was a two piece barrel much shorter. The L/70 next to the revamped 88 was considered to be the best anti tank gun of the war. The transmission problems were worked out by the G model. Compared to other allied tanks the power to weight ratio was not close therefor considered under powered. However this didn't make too much difference towards the end of the war since they were on the defensive and tactics had changed from attack which involves much more traveling to defense. Single or 2 tank defense groups were sent out to key defensive points to slow down the allied advance. All movement being at night because of allied air superiority.
-
I have to disagree with that statement. Everyone says the Panther and Tiger's mobility problems were negated by the defensive position took at the end of the war. Well the Germans weren't just in a static defensive position. They were in a full retreat. The tanks that couldn't cover the needed ground (up to a hundred miles a day) were abandoned and captured by Allies.
-
Read "Panzer Battles of Normandy of the 1st and 12th SS panzer divisions" no panzer ever traveled 100 miles to engage in France. They were always transported by train if they had any distance to cover. Also they didn't have the time it took to travel 100miles plus they were always no less than a days travel back to the repair station. Maybe in Russia but by the time the G model was out the Germans were in retreat mode.
-
The Panther had good frontal armour, but nothing special at the sides. With crews of equal quality, I'd put my money on the Shermans; with a 10:1 advantage, some could work around to the side while others were distracting the Panther at the front. I suspect that the actual exchange rate would be more like 3:1.
As a matter of interest, the Panther's 75mm gun was about as effective as the Sherman Firefly's 17 pdr - when the 17 pdr was using standard APCBC ammo. When the Firefly used APDS its penetration was much superior, although accuracy went down.
I would put money on the Shermans too in a close up fight but that didn't happen very often. The Panther's side armor didn't need to be special, it could knock out a Sherman at range without concern of return fire. Low velocity guns like on the Sherman lost most of their penetrating power at range and was not a threat. The German tank crews were more worried about anti tank guns than Brit or American tanks
-
Back from Easter vacation.
I see a lot of comments here that are all valid since we are talking about hypotheticals and what we'd "put out money on". However I must address AquaShrimp's "hundred miles a day" statement. The distance between Paris, France and Berlin, Germany is 544 miles. It took the western Allies from June 6th 1944 (D-Day) to May 8th 1945 (VE-Day) to cover that distance. 11 months ... and they didn't even reach Berlin. If they had they would have covered 1.6 miles per day.
-
AS for the Panther vs. Sherman/T34 debate: I remember the tour guide at Berlin's war museum, an old Tiger commander (also saw him on Discovery Channel some time ago). He said, and I paraphrase: "The Tiger was a match for ten T34's ... The problem was there were always twelve of them!" :)
The Panther G had better frontal armor than the Tiger I, and the Panther's side armor was of the same thickness as the Sherman's frontal hull armor. My money is still on the Panthers.
-
Yeah bet on the Panther. Saw a show on History or Discovery or Military channel about tank battles in France after D-Day. There was a British M4 commander on and was talking about how whole companies of Shermans were being killed before they could get close enough to be effective. Generally the tactic I heard mentioned the most was a platoon of Shermans occupying the attention of whatever tank(Panther or Tiger) while another platoon of Shermans would flank the enemy tank and kill it with close flank shots that would penetrate the side or rear armor. The only problem I can see with the German tanks was lack of supplies and air cover. More Panther and Tiger were killed from air attack than from tank on tank battles. Alot of German tanks in Normandy were either tracked, ran out of fuel, or simply broke down. In the Alsce pocket where they lost most of their tanks in France it was aerial bombing and running out of fuel.
-
That a very good point, one thing that was a big problem for the Germans throughout the war was the fuel shortages. The Germans started to develop heavier tanks and this guzzles fuel and drained even more on the problem, aerial bombing and mechanical problems were a very bad feature of early tanks for the Germans. One tactic i heard the Sherman's used was, there would be 4 Sherman's, on would get hit, this would start the battle, a second would drive faster forward and get taken out, then the 3rd would go ahead and use the second as a shield and try to get a shot off. He would get killed, then the 4th one would have seen were the tiger (or panther was) drive around to out flank it, and because the turret takes a long time to move around the Sherman would get a shot off and kill the tiger or panther. I still believe that the panther would be a great addition to the game, good tankers would get 10's of kills in a sortie, the only problem is that, the panther would take of the firefly and the t-34 before they would get a good hit. (setting in open country). We need something to be the enemy to it, I do believe that the panther is a sure in to the game eventually, but we need to find something to match it.
-
This is a story on how devastating the Panther could be in the hands of a well trained tank commander and crew.
"SS-Oberscharführer Ernst Barkmann was one of the best tank commanders of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich during his service on the Eastern Front. Born on 25 August 1919, he joined the SS-Standarte Germania in 1936, and was wounded during the Polish campaign in 1939. After fighting during operation Barbarossa, he was transferred to the 2nd Panzer Regiment, 2nd Kompanie of the SS Panzer Division Das Reich. On 8 July, he scored his first kill on the Western front when a American M4 Sherman tank fell victim to his Panther's high velocity 75mm gun. On 12 July, three more Shermans were added to his score, but it was on 27 July that Barkmann earned his place as one of Germany's top panzer aces at an isolated crossroads on the St. Lo-Coutances road, which subsequently became known as "Barkmann Corner". His Panther parked in the shade of a large oak tree, Barkmann watched as a large American armored column of some 15 M4s and some other vehicles approached his position. Once they were well within range he opened fire, knocking out the first two lead Shermans. Behind them came a fuel tanker truck, and the panzer ace lost no time in taking out his choice target. As the wreckage of the Shermans and tanker truck blazed furiously, two more Shermans attempted to edge past the blockage. The first was quickly destroyed, though the second managed to get off a couple of shots. They were no match for the Panther's thick armor however, and this Sherman was also soon ablaze, as Barkmann's gunner picked off his targets.
The Panther then came under attack from Allied fighter-bombers, wounding some crew members, blowing off a track and damaging the ventilation system. Under the cover of the air strike two more Shermans approached, only to find that Barkmann's tank had not suffered any serious damage and was still more than capable of fending off their challenge. The two Shermans were soon reduced to burning hulks. Barkmann managed to destroy one more Sherman before deciding discretion was the better part of valour and ordered his driver to reverse their way back out of danger. This in itself was no mean feat in a badly damaged Panther tank. Nine out of the 15 Shermans which had attacked his lone Panther were destroyed, together with other vehicles. In addition, despite fighter-bomber attacks and his tank being severely damaged, Barkmann managed to get his vehicle and crew back safely to German lines. He was decorated with the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross on 27 August for his achievements.
Barkmann also fought in the Ardennes offensive in December 1944, and had an amazing escape near Manhay when his lone Panther encountered a large number of tanks of the US 2nd Armored Division. Despite being outnumbered Barkmann managed to knock out a few Sherman tanks. At one period in the battle his Panther collided with a Sherman and the two vehicles were locked together, the Panther's engine then cutting out. His driver managed to get the engine started and the Panther pulled itself away from the American tank and retreated with a blocked turret. He was followed by another Sherman, which was destroyed by Barkmann with a single shot. He then headed off the road and drove through snowy woods to reach his battalion."
Barkmann's fame is well known among the modern day panzer corps. His feats, along with Michael Wittman and Otto Carius, are legendary. They were men who were well trained and took advantage of every opportunity on the battlefield.
-
What a spawn camper! :mad: :lol
-
Everyone says the Panther and Tiger's mobility problems were negated by the defensive position took at the end of the war.
Well, Panther had better power to weight ratio than M4 and was also faster. Governor equipped Panthers had about same power to weight ratio and it still outran M4...
-
Another vehicle we need is the German Panther. Yes it has the same size gun as the panzer but its armor is thicker and was sloped(atleast what ive seen and read about).It just looks like a very solid tank to me and i think it would be awsome to have on AH.
-botkins
the 75 was the same size but it was better and was about equile to an 88 it was a little less
-
I found the original post...
From Official Army After Action Reports describing the battle at St. Vith, Belgium, during the Battle of The Bulge:
"While the northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (Troop A, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion; Troop E, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been when an M8 armored car from Troop B destroyed a (King) Tiger tank.
The armored car had been in a concealed position near the boundary of Troop 3, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron and Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion, when the Tiger approached the lines at right angles to move along a trail in front of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the latter slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on it. It was a race between the Americans, who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm gun would be effective on the Tiger's thin rear armor, and the Germans, who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly, the M8 closed to 25 yards and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which billowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position."
The document can be found at: http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=362&filename=351.pdf (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=362&filename=351.pdf)
See page 12.
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing -
How likely do you think this is? I mean.. the Tiger had armor thick enough everywhere to keep a 76mm gun from penetrating at any distance (the T-34/76's main gun), why would the King Tiger have armor thin enough that a 37mm round could get through?
-
Probably faulty production. The tank probably hit the engine and it caught on fire and exploded or instantly exploded.
-
Back from Easter vacation.
I see a lot of comments here that are all valid since we are talking about hypotheticals and what we'd "put out money on". However I must address AquaShrimp's "hundred miles a day" statement. The distance between Paris, France and Berlin, Germany is 544 miles. It took the western Allies from June 6th 1944 (D-Day) to May 8th 1945 (VE-Day) to cover that distance. 11 months ... and they didn't even reach Berlin. If they had they would have covered 1.6 miles per day.
I think you're off by 2.5 months ,Paris was liberated August 25 1944
-
Widewing -
How likely do you think this is? I mean.. the Tiger had armor thick enough everywhere to keep a 76mm gun from penetrating at any distance (the T-34/76's main gun), why would the King Tiger have armor thin enough that a 37mm round could get through?
Urchin, the rear armor would be the thinnest; and the 37mm AP would have it's max armor penetration at the ranges quoted. Plus, you have things' like access doors, ventilation grates, etc. which would be weaknesses' in the protection scheme of the vehicles' armor.
(EDIT:) A King Tiger, as in a Tiger II? Achtung!Panzer's website listed the rear armor thickness at 80mm's, which the 37 would most likely not penetrate at any range. Maybe it was a regular Tiger?
-
Urchin, the rear armor would be the thinnest; and the 37mm AP would have it's max armor penetration at the ranges quoted. Plus, you have things' like access doors, ventilation grates, etc. which would be weaknesses' in the protection scheme of the vehicles' armor.
(EDIT:) A King Tiger, as in a Tiger II? Achtung!Panzer's website listed the rear armor thickness at 80mm's, which the 37 would most likely not penetrate at any range. Maybe it was a regular Tiger?
Faulty production of the armor.
-
The Panther G had better frontal armor than the Tiger I, and the Panther's side armor was of the same thickness as the Sherman's frontal hull armor. My money is still on the Panthers.
It was?
link to armour, http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm
Please recheck your claim.
-
The only problem I can see with the German tanks was lack of supplies and air cover. More Panther and Tiger were killed from air attack than from tank on tank battles. Alot of German tanks in Normandy were either tracked, ran out of fuel, or simply broke down. In the Alsce pocket where they lost most of their tanks in France it was aerial bombing and running out of fuel.
Myth. Many claims were made but these, when actual wrecks were inspected, were not confirmed as air kills.
-
lets just say I if you agree that the panther should be added to the game say if it should be perked and thne say what its adversary should be. I say I!!!
-
Yeah bet on the Panther. Saw a show on History or Discovery or Military channel about tank battles in France after D-Day. There was a British M4 commander on and was talking about how whole companies of Shermans were being killed before they could get close enough to be effective. Generally the tactic I heard mentioned the most was a platoon of Shermans occupying the attention of whatever tank(Panther or Tiger) while another platoon of Shermans would flank the enemy tank and kill it with close flank shots that would penetrate the side or rear armor. The only problem I can see with the German tanks was lack of supplies and air cover. More Panther and Tiger were killed from air attack than from tank on tank battles. Alot of German tanks in Normandy were either tracked, ran out of fuel, or simply broke down. In the Alsce pocket where they lost most of their tanks in France it was aerial bombing and running out of fuel.
I think your referring to the Falaise (not spelled correct) massacre. They were decimated by attack planes caught in daylight. It's been awhile since I read about it but I believe over 200 German tanks were destroyed there.
-
It was?
link to armour, http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm
Please recheck your claim.
The Tiger's armor was thicker, but vertical; Almost all shot's were solid hits. The Panthers' armor had enough sloping to cause a number of rounds' to bounce off, without imparting much in the way of damage.
-
AS for the Panther vs. Sherman/T34 debate: I remember the tour guide at Berlin's war museum, an old Tiger commander (also saw him on Discovery Channel some time ago). He said, and I paraphrase: "The Tiger was a match for ten T34's ... The problem was there were always twelve of them!" :)
The Panther G had better frontal armor than the Tiger I, and the Panther's side armor was of the same thickness as the Sherman's frontal hull armor. My money is still on the Panthers.
Panther's frontal armor was 80mm the Tigers was 100mm although the panthers was sloped and one piece rolled steel it probably was close. The gun mantlets were 10mm apart, 100 panther, 110 Tiger
-
I think your referring to the Falaise (not spelled correct) massacre. They were decimated by attack planes caught in daylight. It's been awhile since I read about it but I believe over 200 German tanks were destroyed there.
No there wasnt.
Cutpaste from one message of mine elsewhere on same topic:
Medium / heavy tanks were NOT destroyed by .50s. End of discussion.
Even more, few tanks were destroyed from aerial attack at all.
British War Office analysis of 233 destroyed Panther tanks in 1944 revealed, that only 14 of those were destroyed by aerial attack. 11 with rockets, 3 with cannons.
During battle of Mortrain 7-10. August RAF and USAAF air forces claimed destruction of 252 German tanks destroyed. Germans only had 177 tanks and tank destroyers in that battle. Of those, 46 were lost. Nine were destroyed by aerial attacks. Seven by rockets, two by bombs.
During the German retreat to Seine, 388 AFVs were destroyed and examined. Of those only 13 were destroyed by aerial attack.
During the battle of Ardennes, of 101 destroyed AFVs only seven was destroyed by aerial attack. Claims were for 90.
During WHOLE Normandy campaign only about 100 tanks were destroyed to Allied air attacks. NONE of those were destroyed by .50s.
And this number from combination of British and American battlefield studies. No Germans tanks were destroyed by .50s during the battle of Normandy, German retreat or during battle of Ardennes.
-
I think you're off by 2.5 months ,Paris was liberated August 25 1944
I didn't say Paris was liberated June 6th.
-
I didn't say Paris was liberated June 6th.
Then why mention...
Back from Easter vacation.
The distance between Paris, France and Berlin, Germany is 544 miles.
Why not state the distance from the Normandy coast to Berlin then... hmmm?
-
@ Milo and BigPlay:
Tiger front armour
Turret: 100mm@82° = 101mm@90°
Mantlet: (up to) 110mm@90°
Superstructure: 100mm@80° = 101mm@90°
Hull: 100mm@66° = 109mm@90°
Panther front armour
Turret: 110mm@79° = 112mm@90°
Mantlet: 100mm@round
Superstructure: 80mm@35° = 139mm@90°
Hull: 60mm@35° = 105mm@90°
Clearly the Panther has the better frontal armour.
Panther side armour vs Sherman front.
Panther 50mm@60° = 58mm@90°
Sherman 51mm@34° = 91mm@90°
So in millimetres the Panther's side armour is only one millimetre short of the Sherman's front armour, but calculated for slope gives the Sherman better protection.
Sherman side armour for comparison: 38mm@90°
-
Then why mention...
Why not state the distance from the Normandy coast to Berlin then... hmmm?
Much easier to find on the net. Just a reference to show how small Europe really is.
-
Nice selectivity gScholtz, bit understable considering the poster.
Hull front
- 50-108mm@34-90° M4A3(76)W HVSS Sherman
- 64-108mm@34-90° M4A3(75)W Sherman
- 114-140mm@34-90° M4A3E2 Sherman
- 51-108mm@34-90° M4A1(76)W Sherman
- 51-108mm@34-90° M4A2 Sherman
- 51-108mm@34-90° M4A2(76)W Sherman
-
No there wasnt.
Cutpaste from one message of mine elsewhere on same topic:
Medium / heavy tanks were NOT destroyed by .50s. End of discussion.
Even more, few tanks were destroyed from aerial attack at all.
British War Office analysis of 233 destroyed Panther tanks in 1944 revealed, that only 14 of those were destroyed by aerial attack. 11 with rockets, 3 with cannons.
I never said 50cals destroyed any tanks but I do have a few books that show the carnage at the Falaise Gap and the road is littered with tanks, horses, men and trucks. If aircraft didn't destroy them than what did ....... allied tanks. I don't think so. There is also actual German accounts from said event that said it was typhoons that attacked the colum but I guess that's can't be true on account of what you read. I think first hand accounts and pictures are enough to convince me. tanks that were disabled by said attack doesn't mean they were destroyed some if not most could have been disabled enough to abandon them so maybe that's what your refrence is refering to. Regardless they were out of action.
Oh , unless you a shades name for Scuzzy there is no end of discussion .
-
Nitpicking again Milo. Don't be so pedantic. I never said which version Sherman so I'm free to choose, and I chose the standard M4.
-
Poor ol' gSchotz. I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise considering your leanings - always worst for the Allies. :D Your objectivity is slanted by your selectivity, hence my post.
Be sure, most common. :rolleyes:
6748 M4s produced out of a total production of 49,234 or 14%.
The standard Shermans were the M4A1 (6281 - 13%), M4A2 (8053 - 16%) and M4A4 (7499 - 15%) for a total of 21,933 produced.
-
Much easier to find on the net. Just a reference to show how small Europe really is.
do you notice you're off by about 100 miles ?
-
do you notice you're off by about 100 miles ?
I am?
http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Paris_FR_and_Berlin_GM.html
-
Poor ol' gSchotz. I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise considering your leanings - always worst for the Allies. :D Your objectivity is slanted by your selectivity, hence my post.
Be sure, most common. :rolleyes:
6748 M4s produced out of a total production of 49,234 or 14%.
The standard Shermans were the M4A1 (6281 - 13%), M4A2 (8053 - 16%) and M4A4 (7499 - 15%) for a total of 21,933 produced.
When did I say it was the most common?
The M4 Serman was the standard version produced until 1944, but that doesn't mean it was the most produced. The A1-A4 were modified/updated versions. Again your lack of reading comprehension has led you astray. But in any case the M4, M4A1, M4A3 and M4A4 all had just 51mm front armour, so if you pick the A2 version who is being selective? :lol
-
:pray
-
The book "Sherman - A History of the American Medium Tank" by Hunnicutt is probably the most comprehensive source on the market for information regarding the Sherman and its history. The true bible for the armored enthusiast.
-
Not me with the reading comprehension gShcholz. Armour was up to 108mm front armour.
There was 7499 M4A4s produced between Jul 42 and Sept 43 in just 1 factory. This is less than what 3 factories produced of the M4 in the same time span. Both versions began production in July 42. The M4A2 began production in Apr 42.
Just like Barbi, you only post what suits your 'Allied is crap/German is uber' agenda.
-
I am?
http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Paris_FR_and_Berlin_GM.html
if you use the distance between Paris and Berlin , your start date is 25 august 1944 end date 08 may 1945 dist : 544
if you use the distance between Caen (very close to the juno) and Berlin , your start date is 06 june 1944 end date 08 may 1945 dist : 570
http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/cities_distance_airpt2.cgi?city3=-2031765%2CC&city4=-2443848%2CB
But in all cases the distances you have used are false because it's not the real path followed by allied troops !
Caen to Berlin by Paris : 815 miles (using the current highway not avalailable in 1944 :D)
http://maps.google.fr/maps?f=d&hl=fr&geocode=&saddr=caen&daddr=48.763431,2.373047+to:berlin&mra=dpe&mrcr=0&mrsp=1&sz=6&via=1&doflg=ptm&sll=51.495065,6.657715&sspn=9.253285,26.542969&ie=UTF8&z=6
Paris to Berlin : : 654 miles
http://maps.google.fr/maps?f=d&hl=fr&geocode=6709162067143996083,48.753660,2.368900&saddr=paris&daddr=berlin&sll=51.495065,6.657715&sspn=9.253285,26.542969&doflg=ptm&ie=UTF8&z=7
-
This is really important to you Straffo? Important enough to hijack the thread?
Even if it was 1000 miles it would still prove AquaShrimp's "100 mile a day" wrong, and THAT was the point.
Milo, believe what you want. I chose the standard M4 and no matter how you twist and turn my words most Shermans only had 51mm front armour, including four of the five main production models. Your inferiority complex is irrelevant.
-
No it's not really important but had you been less peremptory I would not have posted.
Plus the 100 miles a day affirmation was debunked quite easily : VE days is not at the end of june :D
-
Milo, believe what you want. I chose the standard M4 and no matter how you twist and turn my words most Shermans only had 51mm front armour, including four of the five main production models. Your inferiority complex is irrelevant.
Poor gScholtz. I am not twisting your selective words. Frontal armour varied from 51mm to 108mm. Anyways it is all there to see by who read this thread your selectivity.
Typical gScholtz with the insults. :rolleyes: You while be getting another of your numerous PNGs soon.
A correction:
There was 7499 M4A4s produced between Jul 42 and Sept 43 in just 1 factory. This is MORE than what 3 factories produced of the M4 in the same time span. Both versions began production in July 42. The M4A2 began production in Apr 42.
-
Nice selectivity gScholtz, bit understable considering the poster.
Hull front
- 50-108mm@34-90° M4A3(76)W HVSS Sherman
- 64-108mm@34-90° M4A3(75)W Sherman
- 114-140mm@34-90° M4A3E2 Sherman
- 51-108mm@34-90° M4A1(76)W Sherman
- 51-108mm@34-90° M4A2 Sherman
- 51-108mm@34-90° M4A2(76)W Sherman
Probably why we won't really see much more of the Sherman than the firefly we have ingame now- Too many variations'.
-
Poor gScholtz. I am not twisting your selective words. Frontal armour varied from 51mm to 108mm. Anyways it is all there to see by who read this thread your selectivity.
Typical gScholtz with the insults. :rolleyes: You while be getting another of your numerous PNGs soon.
A correction:
There was 7499 M4A4s produced between Jul 42 and Sept 43 in just 1 factory. This is MORE than what 3 factories produced of the M4 in the same time span. Both versions began production in July 42. The M4A2 began production in Apr 42.
And the M4A4 had only 51mm front armour. The majority of all Shermans produced had only 51mm front armour. "Wiggle" all you want.
-
No it's not really important but had you been less peremptory I would not have posted.
Plus the 100 miles a day affirmation was debunked quite easily : VE days is not at the end of june :D
The distance I posted was quite correct. You measured it by (modern) road, I by air. If you drive via Africa I'm sure you could make it much longer if you really want! Paris - Dakar - Berlin! :aok
-
FYI : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Road
I completly forgot about this one until I passed one borne near Angers
-
Good find! So 898 miles it is then for the complete invasion route. A days drive in a fast car.
-
one day ... or more :p
(http://www.leblogauto.com/images/gendarme.jpg)
-
Straight to the Bastille! :lol
Well, not really ... 898 miles in 24 hours is only a little more than 60 km/h average speed. I think the speed limits in France are more than that? ;)
-
if u want kool tanks like panther and goof graphics check out a game called Red Orchestra :aok
-
And the M4A4 had only 51mm front armour. The majority of all Shermans produced had only 51mm front armour. "Wiggle" all you want.
How much of the front armor was 51mm? How much was 108mm? How much was in between?
-
How much of the front armor was 51mm? How much was 108mm? How much was in between?
According to the site Milo posted all of it was 51mm on the M4A4. Only the M4A2 had 51-108mm of the standard production models, and the site does not elaborate on those numbers.
See for yourself: http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/data/m4a4.htm
-
FYI : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Road
I completly forgot about this one until I passed one borne near Angers
Btw. I'll be driving much of Liberty Road late this summer. Doing a three-week drive-around-Europe vacation. :)
-
but we need to find something to match it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing)
-
The M26 would certainly be a match for the Panther. However since only a handful of them saw action in the last three months of the war in Europe the M26 would be of very limited use outside the late war MA. Better to go for one of the Russian heavies like the early-war KV series and the late-war IS series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank
-
The M26 would certainly be a match for the Panther. However since only a handful of them saw action in the last three months of the war in Europe the M26 would be of very limited use outside the late war MA. Better to go for one of the Russian heavies like the early-war KV series and the late-war IS series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank
How would that differ from certian AC already in game?
-
How would that differ from certian AC already in game?
DUH!
Tanks can't fly! :D
-
How would that differ from certian AC already in game?
The difference is that we have more than seventy planes, but only three tanks in the game. If there were only three planes modeled I would hardly think the next model should be the Ta152.
-
The difference is that we have more than seventy planes, but only three tanks in the game. If there were only three planes modeled I would hardly think the next model should be the Ta152.
4 tanks
tiger
panzer IV
t-34
firefly
-
We need something to be the enemy to it, I do believe that the panther is a sure in to the game eventually, but we need to find something to match it.
Already have Sherman Firefly in the game, which IMO is the best Western Allies opponent to the Panther, so T-34/85 would be the most worthy other Allied opponent to the Panther if it is ever added. Pershing would better match up against the Tiger II since both are "heavy" tanks (Panther was certainly not light!) and saw service in smaller numbers than the Firefly, Panther, and T-34/85.
-
4 tanks
tiger
panzer IV
t-34
firefly
Yeah, the T34 slipped my mind for some reason. My argument stands though.
-
Already have Sherman Firefly in the game, which IMO is the best Western Allies opponent to the Panther, so T-34/85 would be the most worthy other Allied opponent to the Panther if it is ever added. Pershing would better match up against the Tiger II since both are "heavy" tanks (Panther was certainly not light!) and saw service in smaller numbers than the Firefly, Panther, and T-34/85.
Not really. The Panther, M26 and IS-2 were all in the 41-46 ton range. The Tiger I was 57 tons and the Tiger II was a whopping 70 tons.
-
I think before we add another mid/late tank, we should consider filling out the Early to Mid tank set.
Churchill
Matilda
French tanks
Pz III
Pz II
M3 Lee
M5 Stuart
T-60
Cromwell
thats just a few...
-
I would put money on the Shermans too in a close up fight but that didn't happen very often. The Panther's side armor didn't need to be special, it could knock out a Sherman at range without concern of return fire. Low velocity guns like on the Sherman lost most of their penetrating power at range and was not a threat. The German tank crews were more worried about anti tank guns than Brit or American tanks
This is actually not fundementally correct. The majority of shermans had a low velocity 75mm gun, however the 76mm tube was reasonably effective, especially when proper HVADS rounds were available. One of the most documenented 1 on 1 encounters occured during the liberation of Paris when a US sherman encountered a Panther at the arch de triumph (going from memory here). The plaza was 900M long and the american gunner knew that and set his range accordingly. The panther missed and the sherman scored a straight up frontal victory. While not as effective as the 17 lbder the US tube was still deadly out to about 1500 yds...
-
With APCR (HVAP shot) rounds the US 76mm M1 was effective against the Panther at 900 yards, but not much beyond 1000 yards. APCR rounds were unfortunately only available in very small quantities to the western Allies in the latter half of 1944, being rushed into service for D-Day. The Jerries started using APCR ammo in 1942 and for comparison the Panther's 7.5 cm KwK 42 could penetrate the Sherman's front at ranges beyond 2,500 yards with the standard APCBC-HE ... beyond 3,500 yards with APCR.
-
This is actually not fundementally correct. The majority of shermans had a low velocity 75mm gun, however the 76mm tube was reasonably effective, especially when proper HVADS rounds were available. One of the most documenented 1 on 1 encounters occurred during the liberation of Paris when a US Sherman encountered a Panther at the arch de triumph (going from memory here). The plaza was 900M long and the American gunner knew that and set his range accordingly. The panther missed and the Sherman scored a straight up frontal victory. While not as effective as the 17 lbder the US tube was still deadly out to about 1500 yds...
1500 yards is not considered a standoff distance. The Panthers and most German tank designs were directed towards countering Russian armor. The Germans put these long barreled guns on their tanks for accuracy and penetrating power at distance primarily due to the vast open spaces of the Russian steppes where targets were spotted at range. Normandy was totally different with the hedge rows and small towns dotting the map tank battles were often at medium and close range where the American tanks had an advantage (shorter barrels, quicker barrel traverse, smaller more mobile and more of them). The Germans took on a more defensive or ambush role using their tanks to it's best advantage either at choke points on roads or hidden in forrest on the edge of open spaces. Only 100 or so Sherman's that landed at France had the 76MM gun on them and most were given special attention by the Germans to be knocked out as soon as possible. The point I'm trying to make is that Shermans had little or no chance in a tank verse tank battle against the Germans except at close range and with odds in their favor. Unlike the British the Americans stopped countering the Germans in tank verse tank battles and used fighter/ bombers or artillery to eliminate tank opposition. Not to say that there weren't any tank battles but documented American reports indicate that American tankers started to refuse to duke it out with Tigers and Panthers on their own.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1207275673_tiger3full.jpg)
not panther but it still kool
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1207276633_tb_7.jpg)
here some panther stats
-
heres 1 of the panther
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1207280980_red-orchestra-ostfront-41-45-20060213112007266_640w.jpg)
-
DPQ5,
these guys aren't ready for that kind of game play.although the 20$ one time fee and multiple maps servers and vehicles are the best the internet has to offer these guys are just not ready for it.
in may darkest hour comes out, then it will be on for sure.
-
straw man.
-
DPQ5,
these guys aren't ready for that kind of game play.although the 20$ one time fee and multiple maps servers and vehicles are the best the internet has to offer these guys are just not ready for it.
in may darkest hour comes out, then it will be on for sure.
Why...... How is the game anyway. Thought about checking it out.
-
The only difference I see between the graphics in RO and the new GV models in Aces High are larger .bmps, the 3d models are almost the same. That and ground textures & environments that are optimised for ground combat. But I have got a little secret for you... this game is meant for aerial combat.
-
The only difference I see between the graphics in RO and the new GV models in Aces High are larger .bmps, the 3d models are almost the same. That and ground textures & environments that are optimised for ground combat. But I have got a little secret for you... this game is meant for aerial combat.
The intesity of RO is way higher than you'll ever find in AH.Being able to hide in a building while a iS2 drives past, then popping out of that building to shoot the tank with a panzerfaust is really really fun.Setting up the MG-42 in a position and holding off the Russian's while your buddy feeds you more ammo is a total thrill for a video game.Fighting for the fountain in downtown Berlin April 5th 1945 is the best fun you will find anywhere online.
The best thing of all
It will only cost you twenty dollar's, one time.
:rock
For plane on plane combat, AH is about the best your gonna find.
-
The best thing of all
It will only cost you twenty dollar's, one time.
But it requires Steam, so you can keep it.
-
Why...... How is the game anyway. Thought about checking it out.
its a ok game, yiu should check it out :aok
*sighs and says what have i started*
-
The intesity of RO is way higher than you'll ever find in AH.Being able to hide in a building while a iS2 drives past, then popping out of that building to shoot the tank with a panzerfaust is really really fun.Setting up the MG-42 in a position and holding off the Russian's while your buddy feeds you more ammo is a total thrill for a video game.Fighting for the fountain in downtown Berlin April 5th 1945 is the best fun you will find anywhere online.
The best thing of all
It will only cost you twenty dollar's, one time.
:rock
For plane on plane combat, AH is about the best your gonna find.
I can't play first person shooters anymore. I find them extremely boring. I play video games to get as close as I actually can to doing something that I can't actually do. I get my combat pilots fix through Aces High, and my infantry fix through airsoft, which is a lot more fun than an FPS and much more realistic. If there were way that I could get my pilots fix without using a computer I would. Now, the tank simulation aspect of RO I do find fairly interesting, but I'd rather just use the neutered version we have here than buy another game and learn all over again.
-
n/t
-
The average tank to tank engagement distance on the Western front was less than 500 meters.
Source: Dirty Little Secrets of World War II (citing a post-war study).
-
With APCR (HVAP shot) rounds the US 76mm M1 was effective against the Panther at 900 yards, but not much beyond 1000 yards.
This is not true. This is from the book "M4 Sherman, Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants" " Sgt. Ross Figueroa of the 2nd AD stated in a report: This incident happened on March 2nd 1945, When I gave my gunner the order to fire at an enemy Mark V tank at the range of 1600 yards with first round which was APC and it bounced off. My second round was a HVAP which destroyed the Mark V and set it on fire." Figueroa went on in his report to describe another combat acton in Germany. "While on the right of the village of Fischein, Germany, I was placed in a firing position by the platoon leader. In my position I had a field of fire extending to a distance of 2000 yards, covering several roads. While in this position, I spotted a Mark V Panther moving across my front. For my first shot I used an APC, establishing my range, which was 1600 yards. The next round was an HVAP. It hit the tank, immediately setting it on fire. Later I had an opportunity to inspect the tank and upon seeing the size of the hole made by the projectile, I am confident in the shell and would like to have more of the ammunition. With such ammunition I wouldn't be afraid to shoot at any of the enemy vehicles, especially at ranges where our normal ammunition now ricochets off of the enemy armor."
Jag34
-
Only problem with that, jag34, is that it doesn't say where he hit the Panther. May have been a side shot (as in "moving across my front")? It would be nice to have put that little tidbit in his story to be sure.
-
Very late war German tanks had much inferior quality steel to the ones made in mid 44. It was much more brittle.
The panther seemed particularly prone to this.
Read "Faint Praise, US Tanks and Tank Destroyers in WW2"
It recounts the several independent experiments carried out by troops in the field in Normandy trying to find allied weapons that could penetrate a Panther frontally.
Even with accumulated hits against the same hull they had a sobering time trying to cleanly penetrate.
-
the panther also had some gear deisghn flaws wich wouldent alow it to go full speed, it could but the germans wee told not to.
The gears were for a smaller lighter tank :aok
-
the panther also had some gear deisghn flaws wich wouldent alow it to go full speed, it could but the germans wee told not to.
The gears were for a smaller lighter tank :aok
Where did you hear this strange story ?
-
Where did you hear this strange story ?
Any history from the Battle of Kursk will have it. Panthers were new then (Panther D model) and too many were lost due to engine and transmission failure in that battle. These deficiencies were corrected later, of course, in the Panther A model.
-
Where did you hear this strange story ?
well 1 thing i herd it from a relative who was a panther commander during ww2
and also a show called tank overhaul on military channel :aok
-
Any history from the Battle of Kursk will have it. Panthers were new then (Panther D model) and too many were lost due to engine and transmission failure in that battle. These deficiencies were corrected later, of course, in the Panther A model.
Yes, this is correct and I know that. But the other user posted something that's not related to the Panther.
The initial Panther was unreliable because it was rushed into service for Kursk, it didn't get the time to iron out this problems.
-
Definately. But I dont know crud about the Panther. Only that it may be able to kill a Tiger Tank easier then a Firefly could
-
The panther was probably the best medium tank of the Second world war. The gear problem was due to the fact that it was made for much lighter tanks, and many times the slave laborers would chicle things out in the gears. This cause many problems, the battle of Kursk didn't do justice to the Tigers of panthers destructive possibilities because they were rushed into battle, later models were very affective defensive weapons, the had the movement to attack the allies in one part of Normandy and go to another to make the impression of more tanks. One other problem that panthers had were the gas tanks being mounted on the back of the tank, easily exploded to the enemy at the rear.
-
It is all very well & good to have a wishlist for GV's but unless the damage model has some work done on it there is little point.
Russian tests proved that a Panzer had the same penetration power as a Tiger under 600 metres. Does that happen in the game? No.
Tigers out ranged T34's easily. Does that happen in the game? No.The distance that Panzer & T34 shells travel is inaccurate. Being able to get a kill at 3k plus is a joke.
GV's are just an add on for when you get bored flying but it would be good if modelling was bit more accurate. It would make for more interesting battles that required more stratergy & SA than just blast away until you kill them.
I enjoy killing Shermans in a Panzer but it takes some planning.But then I only ever up German armour.
Certainly bring on the Panther. I look forward to the addition.
-
Definately.
But the Damage model is very complicated. There is never going to be an accurate damage model. And if there is, HTC will do it.
:aok :D
-
Tigers out ranged T34's easily. Does that happen in the game? No.
Uhh.... :huh
-
There is one thing about the Panther that I like. It's got looks. One of he best looking IMHO.
-
Definately.
There is never going to be an accurate damage model.
:aok :D
there already is a accurate model....in another game.
-
Tigers out ranged T34's easily. Does that happen in the game? No.The distance that Panzer & T34 shells travel is inaccurate. Being able to get a kill at 3k plus is a joke.
That statement is a bit misleading. One would get the mistaken impression you think an AH T34 can kill a AH Tiger at 3K. That, of course, is absurd. The AH T34 cannot even scratch the paint on the AH Tiger at ranges beyond about 1K and it's foolish to fire on one at more than 500 yds. This includes HVAP.
-
That statement is a bit misleading. One would get the mistaken impression you think an AH T34 can kill a AH Tiger at 3K. That, of course, is absurd. The AH T34 cannot even scratch the paint on the AH Tiger at ranges beyond about 1K and it's foolish to fire on one at more than 500 yds. This includes HVAP.
I agree but did have a panzer take me out 1 shot face to face at 2k
-
lucky shot. I've taken out Tigers in my panzer from 2k. You just have to hit them in the right spots. Thats all.
-
not that great of a tank it uses a 75mm gun so that means it cant kill the tiger or heavy tank as well :frown:
-
not that great of a tank it uses a 75mm gun so that means it cant kill the tiger or heavy tank as well :frown:
Huh? :huh
The Panther's 75 mm gun was better than the Tiger's 88 mm at penetrating armour.
-
Huh? :huh
The Panther's 75 mm gun was better than the Tiger's 88 mm at penetrating armour.
The 75mm gun on our panzer is not the same 75mm gun
-
no thats not it the 75mm is a medium tank gun the tiger is a 102mm armor tank powerful :uhoh it once took 5 m4s to take down a tiger it self and the panther by no means was a match for the firefly :salute to the fire fly
-
I doubt it. The Tigers even had a hard time countering against T-34s. Thats where the Panthers stepped in.
I'm pretty sure a Panther would be harder to kill since it has thick armour PLUS sloped armour. Good combination for Tanks.
-
I doubt it. The Tigers even had a hard time countering against T-34s. Thats where the Panthers stepped in.
I'm pretty sure a Panther would be harder to kill since it has thick armour PLUS sloped armour. Good combination for Tanks.
Actually that's not true. The Russians had to upgun their T-34's to 85mm main guns to cope with the Tigers. The 76mm wasn't able to penetrate the Tigers armor at range. The Panthers armor also wasn't as thick as a Tiger. If you read Otto Carrius's book "Tigers in the mud" you will come to understand that the Tiger in the right hands was a feared tank even in the last days of the war. Otto Carrius had 150 confirmed tank kills and he acheived most of them in a Tiger
.The reason that the L/70 75mm gun the one on the Panther was so effective was because it had a high muzzle velocity however the 88mm gun was still able to handle most Russian tanks. The Tigers were always mixed with other more manuverable tanks on their flanks for protection against the T-34's swarms. If you do alot of reading on tank battles on the eastern front you see the same statements about the Russians as soliders and their mindset. The Russian's were intimidated very easy and often retreated faced with stiff oppisition.
-
I doubt it. The Tigers even had a hard time countering against T-34s. Thats where the Panthers stepped in.
I'm pretty sure a Panther would be harder to kill since it has thick armour PLUS sloped armour. Good combination for Tanks.
Tigers never had trouble killing T-34's. If the gunner could see it, he could kill it, including the T-34/85.
The strength of the Panther was that it was a more balanced package,
1) good solid armor protection
2) great lethality from a flat shooting high-velocity gun
3) far better mobility compared to the Tiger
One thing that (IIRC) hasn't been mentioned is the far superior optics of the German tanks. In addition to having better armor and more lethal guns, the German gunners were also much more able to land hits (and kills) on the first shot, and at very respectable ranges (much like the Abrams today). This is what truly intimidated the Russians fighting on the open steppe.
-
The German Panthers and Tigers had great stadia type reticles within their sights, which the tank commanders and gunners had to do range estimation based on target size and possible distance . The M1 Abrams' preferred sight is the thermal imaging system (TIS) which is viewed through the Gunners primary sight. The sight has an illuminated reticle which is projected into the sight by the laser range finder. The range finder along with the ballistic computer can accurately produce ranges to targets and effectively aline the main gun for the proper angle / elevation / deflection all based on current conditions. About 1 second in all. Now if the those sights go down, then there is the back up Gunners Auxillary sight (GAS), which is modeled after the 105D from the M60 series. It is similar to the sights used during WWII. To compare WWII tankers to modern day tankers, by their skill level, the older tankers had to really learn their craft in order to prevail on the battlefield. In modern day tanks it is basically -- see the target at long range, put reticle on target area, lase to target, and then fire at target. Very easy, almost like playing a video game.
-
http://www.darkesthourgame.com/febnews.html
http://forums.darkesthourgame.com/viewtopic.php?t=1416
http://forums.darkesthourgame.com/viewtopic.php?t=1363
http://forums.darkesthourgame.com/viewtopic.php?t=1796
http://forums.darkesthourgame.com/viewtopic.php?t=292
the new vehicles are out of sight.88mm anti-tank gun, Pak-43, US/British 57mm, M-10, M-4 Sherman, Sherman Firefly
the Jadgtiger, Konigstiger, JAdgpanther
the graphix are intense
the time is almost upon us.be a part of the most awesome game on the net to date!
-
Sounds cool... what is the server capacity? :)
-
Sounds cool... what is the server capacity? :)
well it depends on the server maker, can go from i think 16 to 62. But this game hasent came out yet but wit will come out in four days, June 6(D-Day)
-
Actually that's not true. The Russians had to upgun their T-34's to 85mm main guns to cope with the Tigers. The 76mm wasn't able to penetrate the Tigers armor at range. The Panthers armor also wasn't as thick as a Tiger. If you read Otto Carrius's book "Tigers in the mud" you will come to understand that the Tiger in the right hands was a feared tank even in the last days of the war. Otto Carrius had 150 confirmed tank kills and he acheived most of them in a Tiger
.The reason that the L/70 75mm gun the one on the Panther was so effective was because it had a high muzzle velocity however the 88mm gun was still able to handle most Russian tanks. The Tigers were always mixed with other more manuverable tanks on their flanks for protection against the T-34's swarms. If you do alot of reading on tank battles on the eastern front you see the same statements about the Russians as soliders and their mindset. The Russian's were intimidated very easy and often retreated faced with stiff oppisition.
Also with though, the Germans had a hard time against the Russian T-34 w/ or w/o the 85mm gun. It was b/c of the sloped armour.
-
Also with though, the Germans had a hard time against the Russian T-34 w/ or w/o the 85mm gun. It was b/c of the sloped armour.
Once again, read "Tigers in the Mud" you will read from first hand accounts how effective the Tiger's were against the T-34s. Sloped armor helps at deflecting long range shots from lets say the Panzer's 75mm gun. The Tiger's 88 and Panther's 75 were capable of penetrating all angles of the T-34's armor at range. It basically was the quantity of T-34s that made the difference.
-
Need Panther :rock
(http://www.saak.nl/panzer2/panzer99.jpg)
pleas :D
Seariously Though,, If you like the Panther look at this vid
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=German+Panthers+at+Kersk&docid=1007211708430&mid=7E784A38ACEB3766C7447E784A38ACEB3766C744&FORM=VIVR12#
The Panther was not a Super Tank by any stretch of the imagination but it was good, O I love the way they knock out enemy troops in spider holes LOL gives a new meaning to "the Dayle grind" :rofl
-
Also with though, the Germans had a hard time against the Russian T-34 w/ or w/o the 85mm gun. It was b/c of the sloped armour.
Did the Germans have a tough time penetrating the sloped front armour of the Sherman?
-
Need Panther :rock
(http://www.saak.nl/panzer2/panzer99.jpg)
pleas :D
Seariously Though,, If you like the Panther look at this vid
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=German+Panthers+at+Kersk&docid=1007211708430&mid=7E784A38ACEB3766C7447E784A38ACEB3766C744&FORM=VIVR12#
The Panther was not a Super Tank by any stretch of the imagination but it was good, O I love the way they knock out enemy troops in spider holes LOL gives a new meaning to "the Dayle grind" :rofl
Congrats on the 13 month Bump! You rock!
-
Learn spelling and punctuation. Then read some history books. Then post. Pretty please with sugar on top.
The initial production target was 250 tanks per month at MAN. This was increased to 600 per month in January 1943. Despite determined efforts this figure was never reached due to disruption by Allied bombing, manufacturing bottlenecks, and other difficulties. Production in 1943 averaged 148 per month. In 1944, it averaged 315 a month (3,777 having been built that year), peaking with 380 in July and ending around the end of March 1945, with at least 6,000 built in total. Strength peaked on September 1, 1944 at 2,304 tanks, but that same month a record number of 692 tanks were reported lost (source: T.L. Jentz (1999) Die deutsche Panzertruppe Band 2).
If the 6,000 Panthers built were pitted against the 50,000 Shermans made during WWII I would put my money on the Panthers. A Panther was easily a match for 10 Shermans (Firefly excluded) or T-34's on the battlefield. With superior gun and optics and almost impervious armor, the Panther was the finest tank of the war.
Im thinking they would run out of ammo maybe?
-
Did the Germans have a tough time penetrating the sloped front armour of the Sherman?
Only when you had both the extra tracks and some sandbags on the front :devil
-
Only when you had both the extra tracks and some sandbags on the front :devil
Possibly Angus. ;) The point was the Sherman's front armour is thicker than the T-34s.
-
Possibly Angus. ;) The point was the Sherman's front armour is thicker than the T-34s.
Ya, I'd agree with both of you.
I'd agree with both of BigPlay's posts on this page as well.
-
The Panther was a great,great tank. I say, as Ive said before, bring it on!
Dinner, needs desert.(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/ahfilm2009-08-1815-00-53-27.jpg)
-
Congrats on the 13 month Bump! You rock!
Why the negativity? It would make a worthwhile addition to the gv aspect.
-
Why the negativity? It would make a worthwhile addition to the gv aspect.
I don't make the rules of this Forum, I just abide by them.
-
Christ Karaya, don't use the rules as a basis for your comment. If it is rules you were concerned about, you would know that your not supposed to act like a back seat mod.
You really need to step back a bit and take a breather.