Author Topic: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther  (Read 7328 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #105 on: February 18, 2010, 03:01:34 PM »
Lots of proof posted for no 76MM Shermans being in combat until late July 44.

No proof at all posted about them being on the Beach on D-Day.

If you are interested in Sherman's Angus, you should try and get a copy of Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga, its a really interesting read.

Either tank would add Value to the game, I lean towards the Sherman myself though. It would be easy to model other models of it.  New turrets, etc.

Agree to everything. But bear in mind that the Firefly was here and there when the action got thicker. The war had its 10 months to go...all on the mainland.
An odd angle here....how about the Italian campaign? That would set up an interesting scenario I think.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline BigKev03

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 256
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #106 on: February 19, 2010, 10:55:29 AM »
I am late on posting to this and as others have posted my thoughts in their own words I will say this.  The Panther would have the biggest impact on the game.  As desinged the Panther is about the best combination of speed, armor, and firepower you could get out of a tank in WWII.  In fact post WWII tank design was heavily influenced by the Panther and is still influenced today.  The 75mm gun of the panther was a beauty with its high muzzle velocity and could kill any tank it met on the battlefiel.  The sloped armor of the Panther made it a tough kill.  Granted it had thinner armor and it still could be killed by other tanks.  Speed was good but the unique suspension made for a smoother ride which made shooting on the move a big advantage.  For those reasons the Panter would be a big game changer.

BigKev

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #107 on: February 19, 2010, 12:38:15 PM »
Do not forget that it's flaws (unreliability) would not be modelled in AH.
The gun is pretty much close to the 17 pdr BTW.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #108 on: February 20, 2010, 02:20:12 AM »
Same with all vehicles and planes, we don't have to worry about random breakdowns. If we did, it would have a much smaller impact, especially if it were a MW variant.
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #109 on: February 20, 2010, 05:11:31 PM »
We would certainly be more touchy about perk rides with historically modelled breakdowns/flaws.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #110 on: February 20, 2010, 09:05:37 PM »
If historic breakdowns were modeled, and they put the Panther in, you would spend more time blowing your own tank up then killing anyone else's(just like the German crews had to, to keep the broken down tanks out of enemy hands since they were always on the retreat). Their loss's due to breakdowns were ridiculous. If the do model it they should model the armor weaker then it shown on paper due to the German steel sucking really bad as well.

I wonder what influence on modern design bigkev is talking about, I can't think of a single thing that was really innovative on the panther.

No one copied the crappy suspension.
No one uses a five man lay out anymore.
No one puts the motor in the back and then tranny and difs in the front. (Because a drive shaft through your fighting compartment makes your tank taller, hence the panthers height).
The gun was great but was surpassed by bigger guns on all the big nations tanks.

The Centurion, T44 and M26, had far more bearing on future tank designs. The Panther was an overly complicated waste of resources. It's main saving grace is its looks and great gun.   

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #111 on: February 21, 2010, 12:47:41 AM »
I know, its just a beautiful tank isn't it? I mean come on, just look at it:

All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #112 on: February 22, 2010, 02:08:28 AM »
I wonder what influence on modern design bigkev is talking about, I can't think of a single thing that was really innovative on the panther.

No one copied the crappy suspension.
No one uses a five man lay out anymore.
No one puts the motor in the back and then tranny and difs in the front. (Because a drive shaft through your fighting compartment makes your tank taller, hence the panthers height).
The gun was great but was surpassed by bigger guns on all the big nations tanks.

The Centurion, T44 and M26, had far more bearing on future tank designs. The Panther was an overly complicated waste of resources. It's main saving grace is its looks and great gun.   

The Panther was a major influence on French and German postwar tanks. The Panther's influence on the AMX50 is especially obvious.



Especially the engine deck, the sprockets and the tracks are strongly reminiscent of the German design style. The AMX had nine overlapping tyred road wheels each side on a double torsion bar suspension. The much admired German overlapping design had been motivated by a shortage of high quality rubber, necessitating large road wheels to lower tyre tension, which then were made overlapping to better distribute the load pressure. As France would have no trouble obtaining rubber of the desired quality, this feature was superfluous and therefore the road wheels were made smaller.  The transmission was derived from the ZF of the Panther. The engine was a modified Maybach HL295 12 cylinder of 29.5 litres, using fuel injection combined with spark ignition. The AMX 50 was the grandfather of all French postwar MBTs including the current LeClerc.

The Panther's influence on the design of the Leopard I is also obvious.



And the Leopard I is the granddaddy of the current breed of German and American tanks trough the MBT-70 project.


We've been over this GtoRA2... Don't make me copy & paste from that older Panther vs. Sherman thread! ;)
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #113 on: February 22, 2010, 10:25:25 AM »
Interestingly the Panther was so superior to allied armor in 1944 that British, Canadian, French and American units used captured Panthers as a stop-gap measure until better allied tanks became available.



It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #114 on: February 22, 2010, 12:16:11 PM »
The Panther was a major influence on French and German postwar tanks. The Panther's influence on the AMX50 is especially obvious.

(Image removed from quote.)

Especially the engine deck, the sprockets and the tracks are strongly reminiscent of the German design style. The AMX had nine overlapping tyred road wheels each side on a double torsion bar suspension. The much admired German overlapping design had been motivated by a shortage of high quality rubber, necessitating large road wheels to lower tyre tension, which then were made overlapping to better distribute the load pressure. As France would have no trouble obtaining rubber of the desired quality, this feature was superfluous and therefore the road wheels were made smaller.  The transmission was derived from the ZF of the Panther. The engine was a modified Maybach HL295 12 cylinder of 29.5 litres, using fuel injection combined with spark ignition. The AMX 50 was the grandfather of all French postwar MBTs including the current LeClerc.

The Panther's influence on the design of the Leopard I is also obvious.

(Image removed from quote.)

And the Leopard I is the granddaddy of the current breed of German and American tanks trough the MBT-70 project.


We've been over this GtoRA2... Don't make me copy & paste from that older Panther vs. Sherman thread! ;)

Your points are arguable, and neither of those tanks counts as modern designs.

There is nothing of the design in any real modern tanks that I can see.

You have any info to go with the image? I really doubt the allies used the Panthers very much like that, to unreliable.  I have read of the Russians doing it, but the Russians also liked the 76MM M4A2 a lot.

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #115 on: February 22, 2010, 01:12:26 PM »
If historic breakdowns were modeled, and they put the Panther in, you would spend more time blowing your own tank up then killing anyone else's(just like the German crews had to, to keep the broken down tanks out of enemy hands since they were always on the retreat). Their loss's due to breakdowns were ridiculous. If the do model it they should model the armor weaker then it shown on paper due to the German steel sucking really bad as well.

I wonder what influence on modern design bigkev is talking about, I can't think of a single thing that was really innovative on the panther.

No one copied the crappy suspension.
No one uses a five man lay out anymore.
No one puts the motor in the back and then tranny and difs in the front. (Because a drive shaft through your fighting compartment makes your tank taller, hence the panthers height).
The gun was great but was surpassed by bigger guns on all the big nations tanks.

The Centurion, T44 and M26, had far more bearing on future tank designs. The Panther was an overly complicated waste of resources. It's main saving grace is its looks and great gun.    

Plenty of holes in this.... For the day the suspention offered the tank with a much smoother ride reducing crew fatigue not to mention the ability to shot on the move, complicated, yes but the benefits it offered was superior to most allied designs. Late war allied tanks were finally up gunned enough to handle the panthers armor. I haven't read a lot about the quality of the armor in the last days so can't make a comment about that. You have to remember that the tank was designed at a time when all of it's design advances were new and better. Most problems transmission were worked out by the G model and by then drivers knew how to drive the tanks to avoid mechanical problems.

 The gun was good enough to handle most if not all tanks it crossed with exception of a couple of heavy soviet tanks but by the time these soviet tanks showed up most tank fighting was done at close quarters. The larger soviet caliber guns were mainly low velocity and 2 part ammo. slow to load and not that impressive. The best soviet gun was their 100mm and it was never manufactured enough to be installed into very tank.

Automatic loaders now do the job of a WW2 loader so there is no need for the 5th man also many other WW2 tank designs have evolved into front engine placement and tranny layout because of it.

Most if not all German design was very complicated but to say that the Panther was a waste is a little over the top. Ernst Barkman and  Max Wunsch would not agree with you and they killed many soviet and allied tanks with the panther and survived the war. Ernst Barkman said that if not for the Panther he wouldn't be alive today.

Tanks were blown up in the last days of the war but you would be surprised on how many damaged tanks were recovered
up until then so saying that German tank crews just blew their tanks up when broken down is not true.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 01:59:45 PM by BigPlay »

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #116 on: February 22, 2010, 01:15:35 PM »
Your points are arguable, and neither of those tanks counts as modern designs.

There is nothing of the design in any real modern tanks that I can see.

Name one tank from the 1940s that fit that criteria... It's a moot point. The "DNA" of the Panther evolved into postwar designs that evolved further. However there is one point I'd like to make: You mentioned the Panther was "overly complicated"... Tell me, are "real modern tanks" medium-weight, simple and cheap, or are they heavy, gas-guzzling, complicated and expensive? Yeah... The Panther was the M1 Abrams/Leopard II/Challenger/LeClerc of its day and it blasted M4s and T-34s like they were Iraqi T-55s.


You have any info to go with the image? I really doubt the allies used the Panthers very much like that, to unreliable.  I have read of the Russians doing it, but the Russians also liked the 76MM M4A2 a lot.

That particular Panther served for three months with the 4th Battalion of 6th Coldstream Guards Tank Brigade, North-West Europe in late 1944 and early 1945. The Free French scavenged every Panther they could and operated a force of Panthers until the late 1950s. In 1944 the Panther was not more unreliable than any other tank its size.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Jabberwock

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #117 on: February 22, 2010, 04:34:42 PM »
The failed was influenced by a combination of elements from the Tiger, the Panther and the US M4. It's hardly the defining influence on French tank design, having been cancelled after five prototypes.

The Leopard I has some external resemblance to the Panther (more so in the photo of the prototype you have used  :lol), but it was built to a completely different design and combat philosophy, favouring mobility and firepower over the heavy armour of the Panther. Its revealing that the Leopard was almost five tonnes lighter than the Panther...
 


Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #118 on: February 22, 2010, 04:50:51 PM »
The AMX-50 was the base for further postwar tank development in France.

A prototype is where any design influence is most easily recognized.

The Panther was designed to fill the role of a medium tank despite weighing more than most heavy tanks at the time. The suspension was designed to give superior ride comfort and stability cross-country at high speed. The Panther had a higher top speed than most medium tanks at the time, including the M4 Sherman. The Panther had an excellent anti-tank gun; better in fact than the Tiger's 88. Its design is all about mobility and firepower.

Even in the later mark Leopard I the Panther's influence is obvious.



It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: 76mm Sherman V.S. Panther
« Reply #119 on: February 22, 2010, 04:59:40 PM »
The failed was influenced by a combination of elements from the Tiger, the Panther and the US M4. It's hardly the defining influence on French tank design, having been cancelled after five prototypes.

The Leopard I has some external resemblance to the Panther (more so in the photo of the prototype you have used  :lol), but it was built to a completely different design and combat philosophy, favouring mobility and firepower over the heavy armour of the Panther. Its revealing that the Leopard was almost five tonnes lighter than the Panther...
 




The reason the lighter armor was selected was because the new MBT's main guns were able to shoot hollow projectiles or shaped charges which could defeat thick armor , they felt there was no reason to produce a heaver tank when the armor was able to be penetrated by these projectiles. Everything evolves including MBT's and to say that the Panther's design features were followed to the T  is not what I believe Diehard meant. Tank warfare changed and so did tank designs and philosophies , even the soviets MBT's changed in design and philosophy with the T-55 which was lighter then the comparable NATO contemporaries. The soviets soon abandoned building heavy tanks in favor of tanks with better mobility.