Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pzkpfw V: the Panther

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pzkpfw V: the Panther

    don't know why, but it seems to me that Tiger I are better known reputation than it's brother (they come up at nearly the same time) Panther. they had different purposes, Tiger I was a heavy tank used to lead advances, taking advantage of it's armour and powerful gun. Panther was the first MBT (main battle tank), it had good armour, and i heard that it's KWK 42 L/70 main gun had almost equal penetration capability than Tiger I KWK 36 L/56. Tiger I debut in battle was fair, they learn to use a such heavy tank in favorable terrain. but Panther's debut on Kursk offensive was disastrous! many broke down due to breakdown transmission, engine or both. the few germans could save was sent back to factory to reconstruction. germans produced only about 1300 Tiger I's, but more than 4500 Panthers! knowing this, i ask you: do you think, Panther or Tiger I had the most impact on german armoured divisions? i know a number of tiger I aces, like Wittman, Carius, and others, but the only Panther ace i know is Ernst Barkmann. could you show and/or place comments about these two great fighting machines, and judge in your opinion what's best of the two? thanks for your comments!

    Panther ausf D


    Tiger I


    ____________________________________________
    War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
    Bertrand Russell

  • #2
    Sorry, I cant help you out on any other Aces with the Panther, Barkmann was the only one I know of.

    The Panther was cheaper to produce than the Tiger, by far...IIRC, you could get 2.5 Panthers for one Tiger 1. The Panther after its teething troubles were worked out, became a fine tank for its day. The Long barrel L/70 75mm gun was a superb weapon of choive for it as well. It served the German army well, and even after the war the French had about 50 of them or so for a few years until they could get something better to use.

    As far as the troubles with engine fires, and transmission/final drives on them, and the roadwheels cracking and the shot trap of the D version and the overheating of the engine and a proper ball mount for the bow machine gun, and a few other minor issues...it became a dependable and stable gun platform. Once turned into a tank hunter or JadgPanther with an 88mm L/71gun, it made for a fearsome defensive weapon, and there were not enough to keep up with the demand.

    Many consider it to be the best medium tank of world war 2.
    ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hetzer 15 View Post
      Sorry, I cant help you out on any other Aces with the Panther, Barkmann was the only one I know of.

      The Panther was cheaper to produce than the Tiger, by far...IIRC, you could get 2.5 Panthers for one Tiger 1. The Panther after its teething troubles were worked out, became a fine tank for its day. The Long barrel L/70 75mm gun was a superb weapon of choive for it as well. It served the German army well, and even after the war the French had about 50 of them or so for a few years until they could get something better to use.

      As far as the troubles with engine fires, and transmission/final drives on them, and the roadwheels cracking and the shot trap of the D version and the overheating of the engine and a proper ball mount for the bow machine gun, and a few other minor issues...it became a dependable and stable gun platform. Once turned into a tank hunter or JadgPanther with an 88mm L/71gun, it made for a fearsome defensive weapon, and there were not enough to keep up with the demand.

      Many consider it to be the best medium tank of world war 2.
      thanks for your comments Hetzer! i read that on stalingrad siege, crazy Adolf wanted to send one BATTALION of new and untested Panthers to open a corridor so Paulus 6 army could evade. if in Kursk offensive Panthers had failures, imagine 6 months earlier!
      i think too it's one of the best, if not the best medium tank of WW2.

      Comment


      • #4
        Both were fielded too early, with numerous faults that needed sorting out.
        The Tiger's first combat, near Leningrad, lead to the Russians capturing one that broke/bogged down.
        Carlos - Hitler wouldn't countenance the escape of the 6th Army from Stalingrad, until it was too late. The first Panthers weren't produced until January 43, too late to be used at Stalingrad.
        The Tiger & Panther were designed, produced & used for different purposes. The Tiger was designed as an armoured spearhead, to lead the attack, so the best crews were assigned to them and hence they lead to "kill" tables. The Panther's gun and optics were on a par.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_from_Germany
        Looking at this list, Barkmann & Seibold were in Panthers, Kniep was (At least for a time).
        The rest were in either Tigers, Stugs or dedicated tank destroyers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
          don't know why, but it seems to me that Tiger I are better known reputation than it's brother (they come up at nearly the same time) Panther. they had different purposes, Tiger I was a heavy tank used to lead advances, taking advantage of it's armour and powerful gun. Panther was the first MBT (main battle tank), it had good armour, and i heard that it's KWK 42 L/70 main gun had almost equal penetration capability than Tiger I KWK 36 L/56. Tiger I debut in battle was fair, they learn to use a such heavy tank in favorable terrain. but Panther's debut on Kursk offensive was disastrous! many broke down due to breakdown transmission, engine or both. the few germans could save was sent back to factory to reconstruction. germans produced only about 1300 Tiger I's, but more than 4500 Panthers! knowing this, i ask you: do you think, Panther or Tiger I had the most impact on german armoured divisions? i know a number of tiger I aces, like Wittman, Carius, and others, but the only Panther ace i know is Ernst Barkmann. could you show and/or place comments about these two great fighting machines, and judge in your opinion what's best of the two? thanks for your comments!

          Panther ausf D


          Tiger I


          ____________________________________________
          War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
          Bertrand Russell
          As you said, you cannot compare the two. One is a heavy, and the other a medium.

          Also forget about 'Aces'. It's pure Nazi propaganda.

          The Tiger 1 was a fine tank, albeit maintenance heavy. Its armour was more than capable to withstand plentiful Soviet 76.2mm and Western 75mm tank guns, and it had a powerful 88mm capable of taking out any enemy medium at all combat ranges. It remained useful throughout the war.

          The Panther was a different story. It was fine when used defensively, and when the enemy had to use a specific point to attack, eg down a road. Its problem was its mobility. On paper it appears very capable, but in practise, the engine would overheat in 30 minutes. Worse in many ways, its final drive would only last 150kms, requiring major maintenance. Both prevent it being used effectively as an offensive weapon. Compare that with a Cromwell that was only needing a change of lubricants in c250kms, and it is not difficult to see why the 'inferior' western tank makes afor a better weapon in the attack.

          Panthers should be seen in the context of their time. They were fine tanks when used defensively, especially against other afvs, but a long way off from being a MBT, even if the Garmans used that concept. Side armour was far too thin for such a heavy (in weight) tank, and fine laying of the gun due to its unbalanced turret could be a problem. Gunners field of vision was next to zero as well, and the lack of turret traverse control for the commander was a bad oversight.

          It could have been good, but the Panther was a missed hit, and 10 tons too heavy for its mechanicals.

          I would suggest you get yourself the following two reports to judge the real effectiveness of tanks in battle in NWE. They are also available on Amazon.

          http://www.merriam-press.com/asurvey...ugust1944.aspx
          http://www.merriam-press.com/dataonw...gagements.aspx
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
            don't know why, but it seems to me that Tiger I are better known reputation than it's brother (they come up at nearly the same time) Panther. they had different purposes, Tiger I was a heavy tank used to lead advances, taking advantage of it's armour and powerful gun. Panther was the first MBT (main battle tank), it had good armour, and i heard that it's KWK 42 L/70 main gun had almost equal penetration capability than Tiger I KWK 36 L/56. Tiger I debut in battle was fair, they learn to use a such heavy tank in favorable terrain. but Panther's debut on Kursk offensive was disastrous! many broke down due to breakdown transmission, engine or both. the few germans could save was sent back to factory to reconstruction. germans produced only about 1300 Tiger I's, but more than 4500 Panthers! knowing this, i ask you: do you think, Panther or Tiger I had the most impact on german armoured divisions? i know a number of tiger I aces, like Wittman, Carius, and others, but the only Panther ace i know is Ernst Barkmann. could you show and/or place comments about these two great fighting machines, and judge in your opinion what's best of the two? thanks for your comments!

            Panther ausf D


            Tiger I
            Nick has covered a lot of this already so I'll just add one or two comments of my own:

            The Panther was not an MBT, it was a medium tank. The MBT is the merging together of two classes of tank ('medium' and 'heavy', or their equivalents) into a single class, the Main Battle Tank, making the very idea of having two major classes of tank obsolete. This did not begin to occur until after WW2, with the premier tank producing nations continuing to develop and deploy heavy tanks for some years after 1945. The first MBTs arguably appeared from about 1960 or so, give or take a bit (depending on which country you look at); and the term MBT was not accepted in general use until well after that; with many published references dealing with contemporary tanks still referring to 'medium' and 'heavy' until well into the 1970s.

            However, having said this it is possible to state that in terms of its basic intended design characteristics and overall balance of attributes - when it was working as it should - looking back, the Panther design arguably approached the MBT concept more closely than any other tank in widespread service during WW2. Flaws notwithstanding, it seems in general terms to have pointed the way to the future.

            As far as the Panther's gun was concerned, its armour penetration capability was slightly better than that of Tiger I; although both tanks were easily capable of penetrating most Allied types and the Tiger's standard AP round with a larger explosive charge, was more destructive after penetration.

            The number of Panthers produced was actually about 6,000 (not sure where you get the figure of 4,500 from). Compare this with about 1,300 Tigers. Of course, the Panther was intended to be the new standard medium tank for the Germans, to fully replace PzKpfw III and IV but due to some issues with the Panther and other problems, the PzKpfw IV continued in production until the end of the war.

            There is relatively little value comparing the Panther and Tiger tanks with each other because they were designed and intended to fulfil different roles on the battlefield.
            Last edited by panther3485; 30 Dec 12, 12:11.
            "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
            Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              Nick has covered a lot of this already so I'll just add one or two comments of my own:

              The Panther was not an MBT, it was a medium tank. The MBT is the merging together of two classes of tank ('medium' and 'heavy', or their equivalents) into a single class, the Main Battle Tank, making the very idea of having two major classes of tank obsolete. This did not begin to occur until after WW2, with the premier tank producing nations continuing to develop and deploy heavy tanks for some years after 1945. The first MBTs arguably appeared from about 1960 or so, give or take a bit (depending on which country you look at); and the term MBT was not accepted in general use until well after that; with many published references dealing with contemporary tanks still referring to 'medium' and 'heavy' until well into the 1970s.

              However, having said this it is possible to state that in terms of its basic intended design characteristics and overall balance of attributes - when it was working as it should - looking back, the Panther design arguably approached the MBT concept more closely than any other tank in widespread service during WW2. Flaws notwithstanding, it seems in general terms to have pointed the way to the future.

              As far as the Panther's gun was concerned, its armour penetration capability was slightly better than that of Tiger I; although both tanks were easily capable of penetrating most Allied types and the Tiger's standard AP round with a larger explosive charge, was more destructive after penetration.

              The number of Panthers produced was actually about 6,000 (not sure where you get the figure of 4,500 from). Compare this with about 1,300 Tigers. Of course, the Panther was intended to be the new standard medium tank for the Germans, to fully replace PzKpfw III and IV but due to some issues with the Panther and other problems, the PzKpfw IV continued in production until the end of the war.

              There is relatively little value comparing the Panther and Tiger tanks with each other because they were designed and intended to fulfil different roles on the battlefield.
              thanks for your comments Panther! i got that 4500+ figure on "armoured fighting vehicles-300 of the world's greatest military vehicles" by Philip Trewhitt. it's a more resumed book, giving only some details of these vehicles. to me is very dificult access the right info about them, 'cause some sites not always give the right info, and books to me in Brazil (land ruled today by Chuck killer toy's mother) are VERY expensive. because there's not any books about this made here, so i need to buy US and european books, by ebay and amazon. i buy what i can, and borrow, beg, find, whatever. lucky for me i found Armchair General forum, where i find people sharing the info i search, and can share too my little knowledge.
              some info i got in finescale modeller mag, where i found that history about sherman firefly sole advantage on Tiger II was it's low speed in turning its turret, giving the sherman time to get around it and shoot it's back. as i could see here, that was a mith. can you confirm or deny that info about the need of 5 shermans to knock out a Panther? it would destroy four shermans and the fifth coud get around to shoot Panther's back. i saw this ratio in many histories about armoured fighting in NE europe. thanks for your help!

              _________________________________________
              I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
              John Adams

              Comment


              • #8
                Tiger crews were not the pick of the crop. New recruits were allocated in the same haphazard way any unit got replacements.
                As for the Panther on its 'debut' in Normandy it suffered the same fate as 4th CLY at Villers.
                Full of confidence they attacked head on and in several high profile actions were more or less decimated. 12th SS at Rots/Bretteville is a perfect example how not to do it.
                As an ambush tank it was excellent.
                Leading the charge? Just another target.

                Sturmbannfuhrer ]urgensen, who was awarded the Knights Cross for his command of the I/SS-Panzer Regiment 12 in Normandy (he was the only one in the Abteilung to receive the Knights Cross), prepared the following report at the beginning of August 1944 of the experiences of the Panther tanks in his Abteilung.

                I/Panzer Regiment 12 was in battle from the third day of the invasion. During this time it was revealed that the battle fought by armoured forces in Normandy was very different from what was experienced in open country due to the undergrowth and the rugged terrain, and this prevented the normal deployment of panzers. Attack is extremely disadvantageous over terrain with the thick undergrowth of Normandy. The Abteilung-sized attack is very hard, if not entirely impossible, due to the undergrowth. The assault gun-like group deployment seems to be the most advantageous form of deployment, in close cooperation with the Panzergrenadiers. For this, good cooperation and extensive knowledge of the armoured units for at least the officers and NCOs of the Panzergrenadiers is essential. All experiences gathered so far have shown that the Grenadiers do not understand the battle deployment of tanks. On the one hand they require the impossible, on the other they fail to exploit even the most advantageous possibilities (firing positions).
                Cooperation with the artillery is especially weak. During the whole campaign there was not a single example of at least an acceptable level of cooperation.
                The primary reasons are: the heavy radio equipment that is not mobile enough, and above all, is not sufficient or used adequately. Attacks with limited goals have failed one by one, with extensive losses suffered, because the artillery were not ready, or were ready too late and even then it scarcely fired.
                Both sides have to have knowledge and understanding of the armament and its functioning. Thorough preparation is essential at all times. It is better to depart half an hour later, following thorough preparations (briefing and discussion of the attack of the Grenadiers and the artillery) than to attack unprepared and scattered.
                The advantages which the Panzer V (Panther) has, due to its optics or gun, cannot be exploited on terrain with thick undergrowth, as seen in Normandy, because of the short effective range and short lines of sight. The enemy anti-tank guns and tanks that are well-covered in the undergrowth and in the hollows at the outskirts of villages cannot be discovered, or only from a short distance by which time it is already too late; therefore the enemy anti-tank guns and tanks can easily knock out and disable the Panzer V (close cooperation of the tanks, Panzergrenadiers and the artillery).
                The Panzerkampfwagen V has never failed regarding engineering, armament engineering and mechanical engineering, although engineering service was scarce and not sufficient. The exhausts glowing or flaming at night are extremely disadvantageous (they must be covered)
                For the battle fought on the Invasionfront the tanks are best deployed as tank destroyers, well-camouflaged and covered, and directly behind the main battle line because of the dominance of enemy artillery and the extensive usage of enemy tanks.
                Counterstrokes carried out by armoured units deployed in reserve were not effective again. Reasons: broken terrain with undergrowth, enemy artillery dominance, swiftly deployed anti-tank guns and tanks located on the outskirts of villages, behind bushes and hollows, in ambush positions, which let the counterstrokes come close then knocked out the armoured units at short range.
                Battle tactics of the enemy tanks: avoiding the open field, stealth through valleys, hollows, ravines; camouflage and well-covered firing positions on the outskirts of villages, in the undergrowth, behind slopes and on the flanks; firing at long distances, extensive exploitation of smoke.


                Waffen SS Armour In Normandy by Norbert Szamveber page 184/185

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                  Tiger crews were not the pick of the crop. New recruits were allocated in the same haphazard way any unit got replacements.
                  As for the Panther on its 'debut' in Normandy it suffered the same fate as 4th CLY at Villers.
                  Full of confidence they attacked head on and in several high profile actions were more or less decimated. 12th SS at Rots/Bretteville is a perfect example how not to do it.
                  As an ambush tank it was excellent.
                  Leading the charge? Just another target.

                  Sturmbannfuhrer ]urgensen, who was awarded the Knights Cross for his command of the I/SS-Panzer Regiment 12 in Normandy (he was the only one in the Abteilung to receive the Knights Cross), prepared the following report at the beginning of August 1944 of the experiences of the Panther tanks in his Abteilung.

                  I/Panzer Regiment 12 was in battle from the third day of the invasion. During this time it was revealed that the battle fought by armoured forces in Normandy was very different from what was experienced in open country due to the undergrowth and the rugged terrain, and this prevented the normal deployment of panzers. Attack is extremely disadvantageous over terrain with the thick undergrowth of Normandy. The Abteilung-sized attack is very hard, if not entirely impossible, due to the undergrowth. The assault gun-like group deployment seems to be the most advantageous form of deployment, in close cooperation with the Panzergrenadiers. For this, good cooperation and extensive knowledge of the armoured units for at least the officers and NCOs of the Panzergrenadiers is essential. All experiences gathered so far have shown that the Grenadiers do not understand the battle deployment of tanks. On the one hand they require the impossible, on the other they fail to exploit even the most advantageous possibilities (firing positions).
                  Cooperation with the artillery is especially weak. During the whole campaign there was not a single example of at least an acceptable level of cooperation.
                  The primary reasons are: the heavy radio equipment that is not mobile enough, and above all, is not sufficient or used adequately. Attacks with limited goals have failed one by one, with extensive losses suffered, because the artillery were not ready, or were ready too late and even then it scarcely fired.
                  Both sides have to have knowledge and understanding of the armament and its functioning. Thorough preparation is essential at all times. It is better to depart half an hour later, following thorough preparations (briefing and discussion of the attack of the Grenadiers and the artillery) than to attack unprepared and scattered.
                  The advantages which the Panzer V (Panther) has, due to its optics or gun, cannot be exploited on terrain with thick undergrowth, as seen in Normandy, because of the short effective range and short lines of sight. The enemy anti-tank guns and tanks that are well-covered in the undergrowth and in the hollows at the outskirts of villages cannot be discovered, or only from a short distance by which time it is already too late; therefore the enemy anti-tank guns and tanks can easily knock out and disable the Panzer V (close cooperation of the tanks, Panzergrenadiers and the artillery).
                  The Panzerkampfwagen V has never failed regarding engineering, armament engineering and mechanical engineering, although engineering service was scarce and not sufficient. The exhausts glowing or flaming at night are extremely disadvantageous (they must be covered)
                  For the battle fought on the Invasionfront the tanks are best deployed as tank destroyers, well-camouflaged and covered, and directly behind the main battle line because of the dominance of enemy artillery and the extensive usage of enemy tanks.
                  Counterstrokes carried out by armoured units deployed in reserve were not effective again. Reasons: broken terrain with undergrowth, enemy artillery dominance, swiftly deployed anti-tank guns and tanks located on the outskirts of villages, behind bushes and hollows, in ambush positions, which let the counterstrokes come close then knocked out the armoured units at short range.
                  Battle tactics of the enemy tanks: avoiding the open field, stealth through valleys, hollows, ravines; camouflage and well-covered firing positions on the outskirts of villages, in the undergrowth, behind slopes and on the flanks; firing at long distances, extensive exploitation of smoke.


                  Waffen SS Armour In Normandy by Norbert Szamveber page 184/185
                  great "other side of the hill" comments! i'm use to know german tatics and MO thru US, russian and Brithish views. great for me learn the german side as well!

                  ________________________________________
                  There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
                  Benjamin Franklin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Those insights into a Panther commander on the hedgerows of D-Day, tell the true story, of how it was from the German side. I have read how hard it was from the US point of view, all to well.

                    I find his insights and idea of what to do, and how to do it...excellent.
                    But, with enemy airpower, and enemy artillery and counterbattery fire, even the kind of attacks he suggests stand only to make a very short lived or local victory only, possible.

                    Just trying to get fuel, ammo, transport, and supplies to the german front after D-day, must have a logistical nightmare. It is truely a miracle they held the line as long as they did...it was airpower and the supply of vehicles and equipment coimng in huge quantities that really made the difference for the allies.

                    There was always another Sherman or P-47/P-51 to deal with. No matter how many your destroyed.
                    ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                      "thanks for your comments Panther! i got that 4500+ figure on "armoured fighting vehicles-300 of the world's greatest military vehicles" by Philip Trewhitt. it's a more resumed book, giving only some details of these vehicles. to me is very dificult access the right info about them, 'cause some sites not always give the right info, and books to me in Brazil (land ruled today by Chuck killer toy's mother) are VERY expensive. because there's not any books about this made here, so i need to buy US and european books, by ebay and amazon. i buy what i can, and borrow, beg, find, whatever. lucky for me i found Armchair General forum, where i find people sharing the info i search, and can share too my little knowledge."
                      No worries. Only one of my books on armour was published in Australia, and that was dedicated to the German A7V. All the rest were published elsewhere in the World. We regard books as generally quite expesive here too, although the situation for you in Brazil may be worse, I don't know. I've found that the quality of books (in terms of accuracy of information) can vary quite a lot but in my experience internet sources tend to vary even more so there's a need to be careful with info.

                      I agree with you that ACG is a great place to share and exchange information and opinions. There are some very knowledgeable folks around here and I've learned quite a lot.

                      Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                      ( " ... some info i got in finescale modeller mag, where i found that history about sherman firefly sole advantage on Tiger II was it's low speed in turning its turret, giving the sherman time to get around it and shoot it's back. as i could see here, that was a mith. ... "
                      The bit about slow turret traverse, and W. Allied tanks such as Sherman or Cromwell being able to move around the German tank at close quarters faster than it could traverse its turret, is a comment I usually see being applied to Tiger I. I don't remember it being used about Tiger II before. Certainly, it was Tiger I that had the much slower turret traverse if my book sources are any guide.

                      On the subject in general, it is also worth noting that a shot to the sides of a Tiger might be just as effective as, if not more effective than, one to the rear. Indeed, of all the main vertical or near vertical plates covering the front, sides and rear of the tank, the thinnest two were the lower sides (beneath the panniers - 60mm nominal).
                      Also, a successfully penetrating shot to the side of the tank could more readily cause fatal damage than one to the rear of the hull, as it would be more likely to enter the crew compartment, causing death or serious injury; and very possibly ignite the tank's ammo (the biggest direct cause of catastropic fires in penetrated tanks during WW2). Getting a clear shot at the lower sides would not always be easy, though; and most shots aimed at the sides of Tiger I tended to hit the panniers or the turret, which at 80mm nominal were the same thickness as the rear of the tank.


                      Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                      " ... can you confirm or deny that info about the need of 5 shermans to knock out a Panther? it would destroy four shermans and the fifth coud get around to shoot Panther's back.
                      i saw this ratio in many histories about armoured fighting in NE europe."
                      Essentially, this thing about it taking 5 Shermans to KO a single Panther (or Tiger) is just another myth. Sure, there were certain occasions when German tanks were able to knock out a lot Allied tanks before they went down; however, this completely ignores plenty of occasions when they achieved considerably less; and some others where the German tanks actually came off worse than the Allied ones (and this applies on both the Eastern and Western fronts). Kill/loss ratios are notoriously hard to prove with any accuracy anyway, as relatively few encounters were strictly tank-on-tank without other weapons being involved; and many memoirs are full of exaggerations and false claims.

                      Bottom line: Don't believe it.

                      I would add once again here, and especially in the case of the Panther, that it was not necessary to maneuver around to the rear of the tank to killl it. The Panther's side armour - both hull and turret - was thin enough to be readily penetrated by the 75mm Sherman at the combat ranges most commonly experienced during the NW Europe campaign. Only the Panther's front presented any great difficulty for the majority of Allied medium tanks.


                      Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                      thanks for your help!
                      My pleasure, any time.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 30 Dec 12, 20:52.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The German units in Normandy, had been used to fighting in Russia & initially used the same tactics that had been successful in Russia.
                        These didn't work, Western Allies were quite happy to fight at night, the terrain in Normandy didn't favour the Panther's long gun barrel.
                        The 5:1 ratio probably came from the number of tanks destroyed.
                        There are a lot of myths out there, on both sides (ie the effectiveness of Allied airpower in killing tanks).
                        The bottom line, is that Germany was arguably better-off by concentrating on building Panzer IVs & the assault guns based thereon, plus the PAK40.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Panther was huge, unwieldy, had no armor other than at the front and was extremely prone to mechanical failure - if Sherman was the Tommy cooker, then Panther was the Jerry cooker. But, unlike the Sherman, it was very expensive and time consuming to produce.


                          This tank is vastly overrated.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roachthegreat View Post
                            The Panther was huge, unwieldy, had no armor other than at the front and was extremely prone to mechanical failure - if Sherman was the Tommy cooker, then Panther was the Jerry cooker. But, unlike the Sherman, it was very expensive and time consuming to produce.


                            This tank is vastly overrated.
                            It was about 117,00 Marks a peice or so, while the Tiger was over 400,000! That is cheap by comparison. Its gun and optics were very good, and ammo was hard hitting at long range. It was not exactly terrible at what it did. The G version had most bugs removed and with a close-in dense weapon and better cooling and chip mantlet, it was a good tank.
                            ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              By 1944, the plants that produced Panther Gs could make them only incrementally more expensive than the late model Panzer IVs. But Panthers consumed fuel at a rate that was 40% greater than Panzer IVs (a significant logistics effect on the battlefield)

                              The Tiger Is, were down to around 250,000 near the end of their production batch, and I believe that the Tiger II cost something similar.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X