Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would you rate this this comment?

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

  • How would you rate this this comment?

    Found this in Achtung Panzer.
    How do you guys rate this quote, an accurate description or "off the mark?"

    German comparison of German tanks with the new (at the time) Russian T-34/85 and JS-II (122mm), from March 23rd of 1944, stated that: "The Panther is far superior to the T34-85 for frontal fire (Panther Ausf G could penetrate frontal armor of T-34/85 at 800m, while T-34/85 could penetrare frontal armor of Panther Ausf G at 500m), approximately equal for side and rear fire, superior to the JS for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear fire." In 1943 and 1944, Panther was able to destroy any enemy tank in existence at ranges of 2000m, while in general veteran Panther crews reported 90 percent hit rate at ranges up to 1000m.



    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
    Ernest Hemingway.

    "The more I learn about people, The more I love my dog".
    Mark Twain.

  • #2
    Well the second half sounds almost like Cat fanboy dialogue.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

    Comment


    • #3
      In 1943 and 1944, Panther was able to destroy any enemy tank in existence at ranges of 2000m

      In 1943 there were no IS series tanks on the battlefield, in early 1944 there were not any IS series tanks in any great numbers on the battlefield...So therefore probably (taken with a grain of propagandic salt ) true vs. the T-34's and Shermans encountered (it does not actually specify east or west fronts).

      While in general veteran Panther crews reported 90 percent hit rate at ranges up to 1000m.

      Also probably pretty close to the mark for "veteran" tank gunners....on the firing range... Veterans were however in short supply by 1944.

      Comment


      • #4
        Here's what I have determined for "frontal fire": at 2000 meters, the Panther could penetrate the T-34/85 hull, but not that of the JS II, and neither Russian tank could penetrate the Panther's hull at that range. At 1500 meters, the Panther can take both Russian tanks out, whereas neither Russian tank could penetrate the Panther's hull. At 1000 meters, both Russian tanks could penetrate the Panther's hull.

        So, the statement you posted..."In 1943 and 1944, Panther was able to destroy any enemy tank in existence at ranges of 2000m" is not totally true...the Panther could not take out the JS II at that range. Further, the Panther's performance is better than stated..."Panther Ausf G could penetrate frontal armor of T-34/85 at 800m" - it could take out the T-34/85 at 2000 meters.

        Data to back this up can be provided upon request.

        Comment


        • #5
          From what I've heard in the past I'm inclined to agree with Tom D.
          "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by deterrumeversor
            taken with a grain of propagandic salt
            What's the propaganda value of a classified report?
            Panzerworld
            Preserved Military Vehicle Registry Project More than 1000 Second World War-era museum vehicles on record

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
              What's the propaganda value of a classified report?
              I would guess it was intended to build up their troops confidence in the Panther...improve their morale....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by achtung baby View Post
                Found this in Achtung Panzer.
                How do you guys rate this quote, an accurate description or "off the mark?"

                German comparison of German tanks with the new (at the time) Russian T-34/85 and JS-II (122mm), from March 23rd of 1944, stated that: "The Panther is far superior to the T34-85 for frontal fire (Panther Ausf G could penetrate frontal armor of T-34/85 at 800m, while T-34/85 could penetrare frontal armor of Panther Ausf G at 500m), approximately equal for side and rear fire, superior to the JS for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear fire." In 1943 and 1944, Panther was able to destroy any enemy tank in existence at ranges of 2000m, while in general veteran Panther crews reported 90 percent hit rate at ranges up to 1000m.
                I suspect that there would have been a lot of rumours going on among the German tank-crews about this "new monster" in march 1944, the Germans first saw the IS-2 in february 1944 during the heavy combat near Korsun - Chevchenkovski.
                So I agree with Tom D, that this comment was made to boost morale, and to stop rumours.
                As for the T-34/85 included in that comment...well, I think there would have been rumours going on about that one to; I mean, the T-34/85 would not have been that common to the Germans in march 1944, there were only 100 T-34/85 produced by the end of 1943.
                When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
                Jimi Hendrix

                Comment


                • #9
                  Meeting with the Red Army's new heavy tank

                  Lieutenant Alfred Regeniter, Knight's Cross bearer and platoon leader in the 3rd Battery of Assault Gun Brigade 276, reported on his first meeting with the Red Army's new heavy tank:

                  "The battery led an attack in the Steinkrug area of East Prussia on the afternoon of October 21, 1944. But we had hardly left our beginning position... when we sighted a "Josef Stalin" 122 tank at 2000 meters. We fired eight antitank shells, whose tracer lights were wonderful to see. They all bounced off, although the gun is wonderfully accurate"

                  The armour, up to 160mm on the front of the hull and 100mm on the turret, naturally offered reliable protection against shells from the 7.5 cm Assault Gun 40 of Regeniter's assault gun. The Pursuit Tank IV/70 with its 7.5 cm Antitank Gun 42 only achieved sufficient penetrating power against the IS-2 beyond 800 meters. Only the 8.8 cm Tank Gun 43 of the Tiger tank was able to fight the Stalin tank already at a longer range.


                  Source: Russian tanks and armoured vehicles 1917-1945 by Wolfgang Fleischer
                  When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
                  Jimi Hendrix

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Tom D, M.Joensen
                    The report wasn't available to any field troops. Therefore, the suggestion that it was faked to improve morale of the troops is irrefutably wrong.

                    It is quite interesting how classified reports which praise the publishing country's performance is usually regarded as propaganda, despite it having no propaganda value, because they were classified (i.e. not available to the public, including soldiers and most officers, who would be the target of the alledged propaganda).
                    Panzerworld
                    Preserved Military Vehicle Registry Project More than 1000 Second World War-era museum vehicles on record

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by M.Joensen View Post
                      Lieutenant Alfred Regeniter, Knight's Cross bearer and platoon leader in the 3rd Battery of Assault Gun Brigade 276, reported on his first meeting with the Red Army's new heavy tank:

                      "The battery led an attack in the Steinkrug area of East Prussia on the afternoon of October 21, 1944. But we had hardly left our beginning position... when we sighted a "Josef Stalin" 122 tank at 2000 meters. We fired eight antitank shells, whose tracer lights were wonderful to see. They all bounced off, although the gun is wonderfully accurate"

                      The armour, up to 160mm on the front of the hull and 100mm on the turret, naturally offered reliable protection against shells from the 7.5 cm Assault Gun 40 of Regeniter's assault gun. The Pursuit Tank IV/70 with its 7.5 cm Antitank Gun 42 only achieved sufficient penetrating power against the IS-2 beyond 800 meters. Only the 8.8 cm Tank Gun 43 of the Tiger tank was able to fight the Stalin tank already at a longer range.


                      Source: Russian tanks and armoured vehicles 1917-1945 by Wolfgang Fleischer
                      Check out: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...d=32&Itemid=44

                      It's the best site I've seen on the IS-2, and scroll down to the cross sections showing armor thicknesses. Note that the maximum thickness is 120mm, not 160mm (I have seen other references, including a Soviet siet that shows 120mm as well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Tank crewmen were and are a very superstitious lot. This statement is the usual attempt to boost morale, such as the French army not telling their tank crews that Germany had weapons that could penetrate their 40mm frontal armour "in case it upset the troops". Although the sloping hull front of the Panther caused problems for even the 17 pdr, the increased use of carbon to harden the steel in the absence of non-ferrous metals made Panther's armour very brittle and the welds were often weak. Add to that the fact that most Panthers had the curved mantlet without the chin and you have a vehicle that is more vulnerable than cold statistics suggest. The 100 mm mantlet and slightly thicker small turret front areas were both vulnerable to US 76mm, British 17 pdr or Soviet rounds > 85mm and there was a high risk of rounds being deflected downwards into the hull roof. The IS series also had only 100mm mantlets (a small piece up to 162mm). With something like 30% of all hits landing on the turret front in an attack on the front, Panther was not that safe. However, at the longer ranges it was difficult to "choose" where a shot would land, so 70% of hits could be expected to hit the hull front with most on the glaces and - terrain permitting - the odd one on the lower hull nose.

                        Panther's ability to kill at long range came from the fact that German gunsights were better than anyone else's (though often not by a great margin v western tanks), though they took longer to aim and shoot. Panther's turret traverse mechanism was also too insensitive - like Soviet and early US systems - to use power for fine laying. Another factor worth considering are numbers. As the Soviets said, quantity is also a quality. Repeated hits on the glacis by a posse of allied vehicles would eventually produce a result (if only to crew morale) and the kinetic energy in a Soviet 122mm or 152mm projectile could concuss the crew, set of Panther's ammunition - a fault with the design - or more often as not simply knock off the turret.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
                          Tom D, M.Joensen
                          The report wasn't available to any field troops. Therefore, the suggestion that it was faked to improve morale of the troops is irrefutably wrong.
                          Where does it say that the comment was classified?

                          Charles Markuss: Welcome to the forum. Superb post, keep 'em coming
                          When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
                          Jimi Hendrix

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Where does it say that the comment was classified?
                            I would assume it's written on the report itself.
                            Last edited by C. Ankerstjerne; 14 Sep 07, 12:50.
                            Panzerworld
                            Preserved Military Vehicle Registry Project More than 1000 Second World War-era museum vehicles on record

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
                              I would assume it's written on the report itself.
                              Okay C. Ankerstjerne, lets say that the comment was Geheime Kommandosache...I got a wild theory on that to
                              The German Sixth Army surrendered on 31. january 1943; I assume Hitler was not happy about that. However, his mood was on the way up again at the time of the battle of Kharkov 2-23 march, Kharkov was recaptured on 14. march.

                              That is what the comment would have look like when it was presented to Hitler...it was more realistic at the beginning, but was "dressed up" on the way "up", so it would'nt destroy Hitler's "good mood"

                              How 'bout that one?
                              When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
                              Jimi Hendrix

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X