PANTHER--> please

[shreck]

 P A N T H E R !   please! 

[rapp25]

I've been to a good few museums, read a load of books like yourself (Otto Carius one was the best tanker book ive read - Tigers in the Mud) and seen pretty much all the standard tanks (t34s IS2's, panther aus G, Panzer IV, Shermans, matildas, cromwell, crusader etc) pretty much all bar the tiger in real life and also got to stand on top and got inside russian, sherman too as there are plenty to go round and they usually leave them out in the open . The is2 and t34s look like a 16 year old trainee welded them and the sherman isnt much better - I sure as hell wouldn't have liked to have been a in a sherman with that high profile and generally weak armour. The panther was a sublime piece of equipment and best looking of the tanks I've seen in reality. The optics on the mg and main gun were pretty good. Lot of historians say the germans shouldve just gone for numbers and produced the panzer IV as you could make 4 of them for every tiger.

Anyway after going off the point - the moral of the story is I'd just like to see a few extra GVs, if the wirbelwind can make it into the game anything can.

[Cajunn]

What do you think the perks would be on the Panther, I heard the gun was as effective as the 88 on the tiger....

[Boxboy]

Rapp all the things you have said are true, the main problem with the Panther in real life, aside from early mechanical problems, came from precisely what you have stated it was a very time intensive tank to build and the Americans and Russians could build 10 tanks for every Panther produced.

None of these computer games can model these types of "real life" things into a shooter so all we get are "tech spec" things armour slope/thickness, gun velosity, etc etc etc.

The facts remain that the Allies won war, and it makes one wonder how they did it up against such superior equipment?

The Panther would just add another up gunned GV to the set and we have 3 now, so for game play the Panther is not needed except for "senario" use and in that vein I would think the M4a1 would be the next tank for "Senario" use.

[Cthulhu]

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 ), given new crews, and returned to the front lines.

So the answer, which I'm sure you already know, was by sheer numbers.

[stephen]

Great idea, but it would just be another heavily perked tank for the M4's to have thier way with..

[rapp25]

What do you think the perks would be on the Panther, I heard the gun was as effective as the 88 on the tiger....

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 . 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

[BigKev03]

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

[Cajunn]

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

Yep yep, they claim it was lethal at 3000 yds.!

[rapp25]

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

Yes it was the case. The 88mm shell 10kg fired from the tiger had more weight thus more lasting velocity. whereas the 7kg shell from the 75mm long barrelled panther gun lost its velocity and dropped off more at longe ranges, the 75mm had superior armour penetration up to about 1500 yards after that it lost momentum much more rapidly than the heavy 88mm shell due to being a smaller lighter shell.....makes perfect sense.

The germans considered using the long barrelled 75mm on the tiger but found sloped armour didnt matter much when when being hit with a colossal 88mm round and it had better HE explosive radius and was more effective in general with all the ammo types. Whereas as I specifically stated before the panther was only better without question with a specific ammo type. Otherwise the tiger would've been fitted out with the same gun as the panther so as to have lighter, smaller, more compact ammo thus more storage. It was also a cheaper gun and smaller so would've lightened to weight on the tiger but they stuck with the 88mm for the above reasons.

Regarding the frontal armour on the panther yes it was superb but many were knocked out from the front by lucky or very well aimed hits by tanks not capable of defeating the panther on paper i.e. . 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.

[Boxboy]

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 ), given new crews, and returned to the front lines.

So the answer, which I'm sure you already know, was by sheer numbers.

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)

[Masherbrum]

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 . 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. 

[rapp25]

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

[Masherbrum]

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

It seems you're so hell bent on anger you mixed up your info.   The bold above states that you say the Panther has an 88mm main gun, when it has a 75mm main gun.  I never mentioned the Tiger with the exception of comparing the two categories.

I'm sorry but I know all of this information already.   The Panther was the best tank of WWII, the only sad thing about it, was the use of inadequate Final Drive gears for it's weight.   They were designed for a 30 ton weight limit, not the final weight used in the field (42-44 tons which varied on additional tracks, equipment, etc). 

As for 3000m, given the right adversary, I bet it could knock out an opposing tank at that distance.   That "smaller" but "longer barrelled" Main gun was nasty.   The lighter round used the velocity instead of mass.   Both have their pro's and con's.   But again, I'm staying on the line of the topic of the thread, not the Tiger. 

Don't bother responding.   It isn't worth it.   

[rapp25]

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 .