Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panther or Comet?

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

  • Panther or Comet?

    Which one - Panther or Comet, do you think is the better tank and why? In a head-to-head encounter, which one would prevail and why?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Tom D View Post
    Which one - Panther or Comet, do you think is the better tank and why? In a head-to-head encounter, which one would prevail and why?
    In a head to head, I'd go for the Panther.
    The Comet is more reliable and has greater mobility and speed, and its gun is almost as good as the Panthers, but the sloping frontal hull armour on the Panther could defeat even a 17 pdr at close range..

    ps, I have read that in the first meeting between a Panther and a Comet, a Panther came out of cover 500 yards in front of the Comet, thinking it was facing a 75 mm armed Cromwell, they only found out the difference when the Comet put a shell through its turret

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by redcoat View Post
      In a head to head, I'd go for the Panther.
      The Comet is more reliable and has greater mobility and speed, and its gun is almost as good as the Panthers, but the sloping frontal hull armour on the Panther could defeat even a 17 pdr at close range..

      ps, I have read that in the first meeting between a Panther and a Comet, a Panther came out of cover 500 yards in front of the Comet, thinking it was facing a 75 mm armed Cromwell, they only found out the difference when the Comet put a shell through its turret
      Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second? with the Comet putting a 'shell through (the Panther's) turret'
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
        Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second? with the Comet putting a 'shell through (the Panther's) turret'
        No.
        In the first paragraph I mentioned that the Panthers sloping frontal hull armour could defeat a 17 pdr shell at close range, the turret was a different matter

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by redcoat View Post
          No.
          In the first paragraph I mentioned that the Panthers sloping frontal hull armour could defeat a 17 pdr shell at close range, the turret was a different matter
          OK then....but wouldn't the turret have the thickest armour? besides the Comet looks much better than a Panther - the Panther looks like a beached whale
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Surrey View Post
            "OK then....but wouldn't the turret have the thickest armour?"
            The mantlet and turret front (100mm) were thicker than the glacis (80mm) but the glacis was sloped at 55 degrees, giving it considerably greater 'effective thickness' from the usual angles of attack, as well as providing a significant amount of deflection.

            Originally posted by Surrey View Post
            "....besides the Comet looks much better than a Panther - the Panther looks like a beached whale"
            Personally, I prefer the look of the Panther (though the Comet is a fine looking tank) but that's purely subjective, I suppose.
            "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
              Head-to-Head the Panther is better although any contest could be decided by who got first shot. In an extended campaign I'd prefer to be in a Comet because of its reliability. I'd bank on more fully operational Comets reaching their objective than would Panthers and the slight superiority of the Panther could not make up for a deficiency in numbers on the battlefield.
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Comet! best looking tank of WW2 (Yeah, not much of an advantage in a duel I know ). Too bad it saw such limited use.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                  In an extended campaign I'd prefer to be in a Comet because of its reliability. I'd bank on more fully operational Comets reaching their objective than would Panthers
                  I agree with Mr. Betts of Post #7, here. Analysis in the comparison of the comet and the panther needs to go beyond a strict tank gun to tank gun and front armor to front armor comparisons (although these can become very important and are not necessarily superceded). ON operational reliability of tank,for example, take this situation; if just 5 tanks (valuable MBTs drop out of combat operations towards an objective) due to engine problems or gear snafuus; and this is in addition to tank attrition for air attack and mines; then the armor tip has fewer tanks in which to engage the enemy in what could be the most important battle for operational success; and the missing tank can make a difference (particularly in over runs EDIT: also in multiple and repeated tank manuever ambushes/flank shots))

                  However, a disabled tank due unreliability is not a destroyed tank and can be repaired, if operational success wins the battlefield, or the repair units have good towing to get out of there.

                  Objective for armor can be 1) a territorial objective, suach as a completed encirlement after breakthrougn, where a town or river is named objective to complete this, or a long run objective such as ;take Berlin,

                  2) the other objective of armor is to destroy the opponents armor.; either enroute to a objective or in defending against counterattackct by opposing armor

                  In these contests; the Germans prefer to exploit their superior 75mmL71 long gun in long range accuracy and penetration; therefore the Panther platoons will stand out 500 yards or more and duel it out when the opportunity arises for this

                  therefore this author thinks it was a mistake on Comet production to reduce the muzzle velocity of its 77mm main gun (for Comet production run of 1,200; the British may have their technological reasons for this; but this author,webmill, thinks the tank should be built around the absolute best muzzle velocity the British are attaining . however, the anti-tank gun 17 pdr has its high 4,000+/fps muzzle velocity
                  Last edited by webmill2203524; 13 Aug 07, 14:29. Reason: manuever ambushes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Comet's gun was the so-called 77mm, which is not the same gun as the original 17 pounder in the Sherman Firefly or Challenger. It is a cut-down lower velocity version, with a smaller breech and lower recoil so it could fit in the Comet's smaller turret. It was not as powerful as the original 17 pdr or the 75mm/L70 in the Panther.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tom D View Post
                      The Comet's gun was the so-called 77mm, which is not the same gun as the original 17 pounder in the Sherman Firefly or Challenger. It is a cut-down lower velocity version, with a smaller breech and lower recoil so it could fit in the Comet's smaller turret. It was not as powerful as the original 17 pdr or the 75mm/L70 in the Panther.
                      It was still a powerful gun, it could penetrate up to 178 mm at 500 meters at 30degrees with APDS (3,675 fps).
                      Last edited by redcoat; 13 Aug 07, 15:12.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Don't forget that tanks spend a lot of time engaging non-tank targets, and a good explosive shell is important too. It would be particularly important when tanks run up against the other two dangerous tank killers - AT guns and infantry.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Panther for me, in my opinion it has a better chance of a successful hit first!
                          "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                          Ernest Hemingway.

                          Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by achtung baby View Post
                            Panther for me, in my opinion it has a better chance of a successful hit first!
                            many tank encounters can fall into a frontal armor vrs frontal armor and tank gun vrs tank gun contest. in this case, power and strength of the frontal armor and tank gun of a tank, can supercede

                            Within this encounter the factor of superior tankcrew/commander training and experience can be the final supercede (as long as the disparity in strength between the two tanks is not to great; such as a Tiger II vrs a US Stuart)
                            And the exceptional circumstances in the encounter such as Hull Down or the turret facing (including the traversing speed of the turret)

                            So I would ask Achtung Baby, if he could provide more explanation as to why the Panther can have a more successful first shot.; over the Comet and the Comet crew.
                            Last edited by webmill2203524; 14 Aug 07, 02:20.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              post deleted
                              Last edited by webmill2203524; 14 Aug 07, 05:00.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X