If both were included into AH, the Panther would very likely see more action, seeing as it is, IMO, a better tank, even if it is perked. If anything, it would have to be equal or very slightly less, than the Tiger I's perk price. Faster than a Tiger I, and with a deadlier gun.
"The main gun was a 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with 79 rounds (82 on Ausf. G) with semi-automatic shell ejection. The main gun used three different types of ammunition, APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply. While it was of only average caliber for its time, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of WWII, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to range. The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56, although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate.".
Maybe a slightly higher perk price...
If you don't have the perks, chances are, people would take the T-34 out instead of the 76mm Sherman. Though I will not discredit the 76mm Sherman completely. Although slower than a T-34, I believe it has a faster turret. I am having a bit of difficulty in tracking down the turret speed of the T-34-76 and -85 variants. Someone, please tell me if I am right or wrong here.
For fighting each other, the 76mm Sherman would have to be at close range to kill a Panther.
"The higher-velocity 76 mm M1 gun gave Shermans anti-tank firepower at least equal to most of the German vehicles they encountered, particularly the Panzer IV, and StuG. However, with a regular AP (Armor Piercing shot) ammunition (M79) or APCBC (M62) shells, the 76 mm had a chance to knock out a Panther only at close range with a shot to its mantlet, or with a shot to its flank. At long range, the Sherman was badly outmatched by the Panther's 75 mm gun, which could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor from all angles. This contributed to the high losses of Sherman tanks experienced by the U.S. Army in Europe."
The Panther could pivot turn, while the Sherman could not, but the Sherman has a faster turret.
Sherman:
"The M4 was criticized by its crews for inability to pivot turn (turn in place), limiting its usefulness in urban warfare against pivot turning Panthers. This deficiency was partially compensated by the faster traverse of its turret."
Panther:
"The first Panthers, the Ausf D model, had a hydraulic motor that could traverse the turret at a maximum rate of 360 degrees in 60 seconds independent of engine speed. This slow traverse speed was improved in the Ausf A model with a hydraulic traverse that varied with engine speed, with a maximum rate of 360 degrees in 15 seconds if the engine was running at 3000 rpm. With the engine at 1000 rpm, the maximum traverse speed was 360 degrees in 46 seconds. A hand traverse wheel was like in any other tank, Axis or Allied, provided for the Panther gunner to fine tune the aim. This arrangement of the turret traverse mechanism was a slight weakness, as traversing the Panther's turret rapidly onto a target required close coordination between the gunner and driver (to rev up the engine to maximum speed). By comparison, the M4 Sherman turret traversed at up to 360 degrees in 15 seconds and was independent of engine speed, which gave it an advantage over the Panther in close-quarters combat."
The Panther has it's fair share of shortcomings though.
The commander of the PanzerLehr Division, Gen. Fritz Bayerlein made these comments about the weaknesses of the Panther tank in the fighting in Normandy:
"While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good...[the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final drives, made of low-grade steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible."
Ardennes Offensive
"The Panther once again demonstrated its prowess in open country, where it could shoot its victims at long range with near-impunity, and its vulnerability in the close-in fighting of the small towns of the Ardennes, where there were heavy losses. A status report on January 15, 1945 showed only 97 operational Panthers left in the units involved in the operation, out of 282 still in their possession. Losses were 198 Panthers listed as total write-offs."
Against T-34's:
"After much development work, the first T-34-85 tanks entered combat in March 1944. The production version of the T-34s new 85 mm gun proved to be ineffective against the Panther's frontal armor, meaning the Soviet tank had to flank the Panther to destroy it, while the Panther's main gun could penetrate the T-34 at long range from any angle. Although the T-34-85 tank was not quite the equal of the Panther, it was much better than the 76.2 mm-armed versions and made up for its quality shortcomings by being produced in greater quantities than the Panther. New self-propelled anti-tank vehicles based on the T-34 hull, such as the SU-85 and SU-100, were also developed. A German Army study dated October 5, 1944 showed that the Panther could easily penetrate the turret of the T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, and the frontal hull armor at 300 m, whereas from the front, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet part of the Panther turret at 500 m. From the side, the two were nearly equivalent as both tanks could penetrate the other from long range."
All in all, the Panther would definitely be seen far more in the MA than the 76mm Sherman and quite possibly, the T-34-85 and Tiger I in defense of a Vbase against gv's. As stated above, people will likely take the T-34-76 out instead of the 76mm Sherman when low/no perk points. With the Sherman's turret speed, it would probably be easier to track a fast moving M3 vs the T-34's. However, the addition of the 76mm Sherman would add that "variety" that a lot of people seek and it isn't a completely helpless tank. Would make for some interesting fights, T-34-76's vs 76mm Sherman's. At the very least, it would make for more accurate SEA type missions. Both would be good additions to the game regardless.
This is were I gathered the info off of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Shermanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
