with over 6,500 built, I think it deserves a place here! :rock
I've got to say, we BY FAR need a standard gunned M-4 more than we need another uber-tank right now. As the last FSO showed. Firefly is too much for Panzer, but the M-8 is not an ideal stand-in for facing Panzers, and having to use stand-ins sucks anyway.
And we had the anachronism of having to use Fireflies in Tunisia, because that is the only Sherman we have, and then having to give the Axis buckets of Tigers, just to bring the field level with the Fireflies...its a mess I tell ya.
We don't need another Sherman. CHAR, Panther, Matilda would be more adequate.
Yeah. It wouldnt be uber considering the other tanks we have. I think the Panther is probably the "most needed" new GV for the game.
Want to beat it? Get to a side shot or to the rear. Am I right that frontal wise it was the hardest kill for WW-ll tanks? How do the other tanks rate, compared to it, with frontal shots?
I've got to say, we BY FAR need a standard gunned M-4 more than we need another uber-tank right now. As the last FSO showed. Firefly is too much for Panzer, but the M-8 is not an ideal stand-in for facing Panzers, and having to use stand-ins sucks anyway.
And we had the anachronism of having to use Fireflies in Tunisia, because that is the only Sherman we have, and then having to give the Axis buckets of Tigers, just to bring the field level with the Fireflies...its a mess I tell ya.
How about more planes first? There's a large gap in some of the bomber plane sets.
On topic, I love the panther, it was a very trademark tank of WWII, and should definetley be added to this game at one point or another.
More off-topic, IMO the largest gap in this game atm is the huge lacking of the very common (mass produced) early and midwar era GVs. Some of the larger latewar era tanks would be awesome too, but would contribute to the lacking early and midwar era armor in this game if they were added first.
I would also like to see the standard M4 for special even purposes. If you think about it, it's really surprising it's not allready in game
Heres the problem with adding ew tanks. Nobody plays in EW !!!!!!!!!!!! So adding EW tanks to the game is just wasting time on something that would not be used much. The gap between EW and MW tanks is that armor and guns got better. It would be like the B-25c's The only people that use them are perk farmers hitting strats or flying at 30k + to avoid contact. I see alot of people flying the H model but the C is a hanger queen.
In my opinion the stug would be the best choice since it was in action throughout the war. I would take a little bit of remodeling to achieve the stug 4 for LW. Too many people are against TD's in here. Their afraid of a turretless gv. I don't think it would be that big a deal .
I would love to see the panther added.I am a fan of german armour.The panzer is my favorite ride but in a spawn battle I am at a disadvantage.I am a prtty good shot but most often finding to have to lay in 2 or more rounds to kill a firefly.I have lost many a gunfight due to underpowered gun although I was aiming for a soft spot and beat them to the trigger.Thhe panzer is fine in an ambush situation but in a headon fast spawn war it is a disadvantage.
Talking about the "use" of any new addition in the MA is just silly, nothing but most uber will be used. We have tons of planes that hardly ever get used in the MA because they are not an uber ride.
To those that say they aren't interested in history I ask just what are you interested in? This a WWII game/sim, which is based on ,gasp, history. Many of us are in the game ONLY for the history and could care less that some Russian/Brit/US plane can dominate the MA.
The M4 sherman was one of the most produced tank in WWII, and definately has a both a need and a right to be included in the game/sim. If for nothing else the senario folks, because no matter what gets added after new wears off no one will use it unless its UBER.
From a production stand point alot of the art work and balistic work has been done to make both the M4 and Pzkp III with the 50mm gun, the M4a2 with the 76mm gun could also be added without as much work as making an entirely NEW tank like the panther. The facts are that both the Tiger and the Panther and the Tiger II for that matter were badly designed for HP/weight which caused numberous tranny failures which we do not model in AH , the Tiger and Tiger II were so large and heavy that alot of roads and terrain were impassible them (also not modeled here).
Personally I fly all planes to avoid staleness and many people do similar for the challenge for the perks etc. Its all rock paper scissors in AH there is no uber. Uber = perked.
I had, up until now, always assumed Panzer was German for Panther, hence they were the same machine.........apparently not :frown:Panzer is German for armor.
I had, up until now, always assumed Panzer was German for Panther, hence they were the same machine.........apparently not :frown:
Where I am coming from is we don't NEED another uber tank. Balance what? You have the tiger and Firefly and the next best down from those is the pzkw IV, followed I suppose by the T-34 85, and the T-34 76mm.
What is lacking is the most or one of the most produced tanks of the war the Sherman M4, and kill ratio means nothing when you have 10,000 Shermans and the other guy has 500 Panthers sooner or later numbers will tell as it did in WWII. That statement is also true of the T-34 (which if memory serves me was rated the best tank of WWII overall).
I see no balancing being needed on the upper end of the scale at all, unless you want to introduce the 90mm Pershing which saw limited action near the end of the war.
It's not that I hate the Panther I just think some others should come before it,
The T34 was the best tank of the war if you rely on the history channel, the fact it entered the war early and the 80,000+ that were produced of which I think 50k were knocked out in WW2. Sure 80k+ would win any numbers game but the "tommy cooker" sherman M4 defo is pretty much in same boat as the t34 from the economical stand point, both were cheap and quick to throw off production lines but the were outclassed in comparison to the german tanks. Ask any ex-tanker WW2 what'd he prefer to be in and all you'll hear is panther or more usually tiger (usually hits that knocked it out werent completely fatal to the tank & crew and it was recoverable)- the amount of recycled tigers is phenomenal from WW2 the germans probably put more effort into tiger recovery on battlefields unless it was a lost cause (ammo exploded) at night than they did into any other GV it was so valuable. Sending patrols of 2-4 tigers out against a horde of whatever the soviets had in store that day and coming back with cricket scores wasn't abnormal. The panther is UBER from frontal armour and gun perspective but it wouldnt be much in comparison to a tiger to defeat as to how AH tanking and gvs are modelled.
The panther only came up against allied armour in '44 in small numbers and nearly every available unit was pretty much on the eastern front anyway to combat the hordes of t34s. The P IV was considered enough for the sherman m4 and the workhorse stugs. I'm beginning to think this debate is useless anyhow on the way tanks are modelled in AH, all with same main gunsight, lack of depth with speed, hitting power & trajectory being pretty much the winner beyond who sees who first. Go google about he panther G and you'll find most sources saying it was the all round best tank but it just was more costly and difficult to produce. I reckon if the pershing had seen more combat and had an earlier introduction it would have won the title hands down in a "which tank would i prefer to sit in" or best of WW2 question.
When I talk about balance I'm generally speaking about scenarios and from a historical perspective, like you said earlier I couldnt care less if everyone was in an uber german/japanese or russian/american tank or plane. ACTUALLY WE NEED JAPANESE GVS but I suppose it wouldnt be hard to throw the american m4 sherman into the mix seen as its base is already there. ?BTW I'd consider the t34/85 ahead of the panzer IV for sure in AH with the t34/74 and IV tied.
Saying the T34 was best tank of WW2 is the same as saying the P51 was the best fighter of ww2 - we could argue it to the death.
The facts remain that the Allies won war, and it makes one wonder how they did it up against such superior equipment?I think the answer to that lies in cemetery's around the country. I met a corpsman who had plenty of ghastly stories about "hosing" the crew out of killed Shermans. The salvagable ones were welded up, painted (inside, for obvious reasons :uhoh), given new crews, and returned to the front lines.
What do you think the perks would be on the Panther, I heard the gun was as effective as the 88 on the tiger....
I would like to see the Panther as well but it would have to have a good perk put on it. I would say more than the Tiger. The frontal armor on the Panther was outstanding (about 80mm at a 55 degree angle and 100mm matlet armor) and any shot from the front would make it difficult to kill at range. The side armor would be the weak spot as it was only about 40mm-50mm. The 75mm KwK42(L/70) gun would outclass all guns in the game. Due to the long barrel and the higher powder charge gave this gun can a muzzle velocity that can kill anything in the game at range and other vehicles would have trouble penetrating the Panthers armor at that range. On a prior post it stated as the range increased it made accuracy a problem. That is not the case. The high muzzle velocity and the flat trajectory of the gun made hitting targets easier as accuracy was not sensitive to range. Bring forth the Panther!!!!!!
BigKev
On a prior post it stated as the range increased it made accuracy a problem. That is not the case. The high muzzle velocity and the flat trajectory of the gun made hitting targets easier as accuracy was not sensitive to range. Bring forth the Panther!!!!!!
BigKev
I think the answer to that lies in cemetery's around the country. I met a corpsman who had plenty of ghastly stories about "hosing" the crew out of killed Shermans. The salvagable ones were welded up, painted (inside, for obvious reasons :uhoh), given new crews, and returned to the front lines.
So the answer, which I'm sure you already know, was by sheer numbers.
It had a higher muzzle velocity and similar high accuracy but it dropped off more dramatically over the 88mm at longer ranges due to being a smaller round. Using specialised ammo APCBC-HE the panthers gun had more penetration against armour but the 88mm had better penetration and range with normal AP and HE shells again probably due to it just being a bigger calibre. The germans ran short of tungsten very quickly too so you might see a layout of 2 HVAP :P. As for the perk the value it should resemble the current firefly....as it was just more accurate when taking GV ah modeling into question.
I'm curious, where are you getting this info from? The bottom line is this, the 75mm on the Panther took out most Allied armor out to 3,000 yards. Any book, documentary, information, etc that I have EVER read, has stated this to be fact. Not only that many sources I have read have said that "The Panther is superior to the T34/85 in frontal fire." The Panther Model G could also penetrate T34/85 frontal armor at 2,000m.
Most probably don't understand the comparison between the 75mm and the 88mm. The Panther is a MEDIUM tank, not a Heavy Tank like the Tiger. However, the design of the Panther is carried over in the Leopard II and Abrams.
If the Panther was EVER implemented, it would be at almost Tiger level Perk.
What does ""The Panther is superior to the T34/85 in frontal fire." mean? For taking hits?? no watermelon sherlock. An 88 hitting a t34/85 at 96000000 degree angle would rip it apart - a panthers shell would slide nicely in between the metal molecules. Thanks for also pointing out the blatantly obvious that the panther is a medium tank, we never knew that. The panther influenced a lot of tank designs a long long time before any leopard or abrams came out. Just like most german technology did.
I'm basing this from cross referencing armour penetration tables from the german bundes war archive and allied tests pre and post war.
German 8.8cm KwK36 L/56
Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.910
Muzzle Velocity: 773 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ
German 7.5cm KwK42 L/70
Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.719
Muzzle Velocity: 925 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2909 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.88 KJ
The panther could take out ANY allied tank within 2000 yards to say 3000 would not be including late war allied tanks like the IS2 but i'm not going to say that with 100% certainty. As i said before the tigers 88m didnt suffer from as much distance falloff as the panthers lighter projectile did even though the panthers shell had a significant initial higher velocity. Mass x momentum etc potential kinetic not going there as i dont really care. Wikpedia has amazingly got something right after a quick check - the tigers 88mm gun figures are certainly correct I'm not sure about the panthers as theybare in different increments but this is probably correct on 100 to 2000m
7.5-cm KwK 42 70 Panzergranate 39/42 138 124 111 99 89
Panzergranate 40/42 194 174 149 127 106
. Its also worth noting the tigers had its sights adjusted to 4000m for AP rounds and 5000m for HE - I think the panther ranged out to 3000-4000max obviously the 5000m on tiger was for HE and the 75mm HE mm wasnt worth firing at that range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36
I like how you included don't bother responding...why because you're wrong and don't want to get shown up anymore? The tiger kwk 36 beat the 75m kwk42 at ranges exceeding 1500m end of. I mixed up no info in my prior thread, read the sentence again or how many times it takes....where does it say i said the panther had a 88m gun? If english isnt your first language your excused if it is then that was a pretty bad attempt at an attack, typos or spelling attacks died out as an art form in the 20th century.
I'm not hell bent on anger either I'm hell bent on putting facts in peoples faces attacking posts and using ridiculous information glazed from discovery or the history channels or from books that raped another books dodgy facts. But you can be my friend for realising the panther was the best tank of the war :).
Wasnt it called "Germany's Problem Child"? But I would love to have it! I would own everyone in it.
Exactly my point, but we cannot model that in AHII or anyother game, unless we make some kind of Bomberesk formations for t-34's where you launch 5 tanks to 1 Tiger (hardly possible IMHO)
The lower front gun mantel plate often deflected shots downwards into the driver/radio operators 16mm thick compartments and also the firefly was capable of defeating the mantle and gun armour but not the hull using APCBC. I dont think the panther would be more perked than the tiger at all. Its only faster and sexier looking.
This mantle problem was corrected in the G model and might have been in the A as well, I'll have to check on that. People are missing the point here . The Panther was designed to defeat the T-34 and it did that job well. When the Panther and Tigers were designed the American and British tanks were being handled by Mk IV's in the desert. These tanks were designed for the open grass lands of Russia not the hedge rows of Normandy. Side armor wasn't a concern for the type of warfare that was being conducted in Russia. Most tank battles in Russia were done at distance and in open terrain where frontal armor was the only concern. The side armor was adequate for standoff tank battles. If the Germans fought the Firefly at standoff ranges then goodbye Firefly. The German gun and armor set up would have rendered the Firefly at a huge disadvantage from the simple fact is that the Sherman tank could be knocked out at over 3000 yards head on by the Tiger and Panthers. I don't think the Firefly's gun was capable of taking out a Tiger or even a Panther's frontal armor at those ranges. Also you have to remember that German infantry and armor operated in harmony with one another. It was the Panzer Grenader's job to protect the flanks of the Panzer's and from infantry placed magnetic mines. No other army in WW2 had the type of tactics the Germans did in relation to armor and infantry unison
I am referring to the use of troops with the heaver tanks and yes during the early stages of Blitzkrieg it wasn't implamented to the extent that it was later in the war. Hedgerow fighting for the late war German tanks were successful primarily because of the consealed defensive positions it took up for fighting , hence the story of Barkmann's corner. But surprise on the flanks was always a threat because of the lack of panzer grenadiers in most cases and the close in fighting that was present with that type of fighting where in Russia it really wasn't as much a factor. I don't think the Germans even gave American or the British armor a second thought. Having fought against the Sherman and almost all the British tank set in Africa so having tanks like the Tiger and the Panther was all icing on the cake. By the time the Germans fought the American and British in Normandy even better tanks and tank destroyers were in place. Many Tigers and Panthers lost during the Normandy battles were mechanical related and the others were destroyed by air. From what I have read not many Tigers were once and for all knocked out due to damage done by another tank. Many were retrieved from the field and repaired. Ernst Barkmann speaks of how he was assigned another Panther while his was being repaired and upon climbing into the tank noticed brain matter that was still splattered on the interior of the tank. His tank was repaired and damaged again and repaired again until it was finally lost due to falling into a bomb crater and destroyed by the crew. Most if not all WW2 tanks were prone with thin side armor even todays tanks have thinner side armor in comparsion to their frontal armor.
If we got the panther in this game it would have to have a high perk on it. Even though its armor was not as thick as the tiger's its gun had more penetration due to the higher muzzle velocity. In this game we tend to see GV battles at ranges less than 2000m. Very few times do I see someone engaging from extreme range and I blame this on the terrain in this game. I
Out,
BigKev
The problems in GV'ing needs to be address'd. i.e. Shermans being bullet proof in the turret when hit dead on at 500yds from panthers, and tigers taking damage on the frontal armor from insane ranges(over 3000).
Its isnt a gripe, its an actual gulf in leathality bettween a low perk sherman and a hi perk tiger, and it just isnt fair...
I've just about taken my last Tiger out for anything other than spawn camping... the Panther is going to get the same treatment if we dont do somthing to make changes happen.
I take a Tiger out because its hard to kill, and with the low cost of the firefly that just hasnt been the case for a very long time.
The short barreld t34 was introduced 1st, and its a coffin, yet the 1st sherman is a god machine with a mantlet that even the 88 has problems getting through, let alone the turret itself..