Panzer Production.
- Thread starter unmerged(362087)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, I’m not exaggerating at all. “When FIRST introduced...”
The Matilda II wasn’t introduced in North Africa where, incidentally, it gained the nickname Queen of the Desert because it was similarly impervious to Italian weapons and still to most German weapons. Read about the battle of Arras where 16 Matilda IIs (along with a hundred or so other tanks armed with machineguns) threw Rommel in to panic because the Germans couldn’t stop the Matilda IIs. They had taken-out all the German armour unfortunate enough to stay within range until stopped by FlaK 18s. The Valentine was smaller & less well armoured (being only two thirds of the weight) than the Matilda yet still obtained a reputation for being a tough tank although under-gunned. The Matilda was replaced because the Valentine was cheaper to build & easier to maintain, not because it had been outclassed.
“Mostly equivalent” That means it wasn’t equivalent. I’ll grant you that the USA did have the edge on shell design which made-up most of the difference. From the few recorded engagements between Pershings, Tiger Is & Panthers it’s difficult to form a definite superiority as many of the engagements were at close range where a 6pdr/Pak 40 would have done the job and who shot first was the deciding factor. But it is fair to say they acquitted themselves reasonably well at about 50/50. Pz IVs were outclassed by the Pershing.
The Pershing was also not particularly reliable. By your own admission, they still hadn’t got the bugs out of its transmission by the early 50s! The Tiger I was put in to service in 1942, the Pershing in 1945. Three years more development and still not quite there. By which time, of course, Tiger IIs were on the scene.
It’s unfair to compare the Pershing to a Tiger II. Massively different weight classes so I’ll not go there.
It does seem from your further statements that we’re in agreement about the Pershing.
That bit about “If the UK had been capable of producing as many Churchills etc.”
It was part of my response to this...
I specifically used GermanPower’s wording as much as possible to get my point across. My point being the same as yours.
Seriously. Quoting me out of context like that isn’t clever
I see this statement so often on Paradox forums.
If only more people would actually do some before spouting BS though. I mean... seriously?!
I’m beginning to think the guy was actually trolling seeing as he hasn't been back to this thread.
If trolling = starting a lively conversation, then I am in favor of sustained trolling.
I'm reading the book as well but I've only reached the part of his battles at Narva. So I either missed or have yet to read the part were he makes these statements. But so far I was under the impression that radio was his main advantage over the enemy and the extra fifth man was a (dedicated) radio-operator. And the rest was the same as in allied tanks: a driver, a gunner, a loader and a commander. But this radio ability was crucial. He warned his fellow tanks for dangers, avoiding backing up into bomb craters etc... In other words, the were fighting as one unit and not a sum of individual tanks like his enemies.
the only tank that could match what Germany had would of been Centurion Main Battle Tank shame it wasn't used till after the war
What the Germans had when?
In 1938 when their main tanks was the Pz I and Pz II perhaps?
For British army specifically, Sherman Firefly had more than enough firepower to deal with Panthers or Tigers. And it was significantly cheaper and more reliable, though uncomfortable for the crew in some respects.
Please get the perspective, it is not about having a longer one or bigger one, it is about how u used it.
Doctrine, Training, Radios, Morale mattered more than the gun size and armor.
That was the reason, German Panzer created fear not because they had bigger guns (Russian Tanks had bigger guns) or armor (British infantry tanks were best armored).
Ergonomic, having a 5 man tank with commander getting a wide angle and ample free time to focus on one job, fighting as a single unit instead of a collection of dispersed particles, these things mattered also Officers, NCO, Mission based directives.
Could be defeated from the front by the Firefly, Comet (and anything else with a 17-pdr), Pershing, IS-2, T-44, M36, SU-100, and (I)SU-152 which were all available before the Centurion. Additionally, everything could and did defeat the Panther's side armor, including obsolete anti-tank rifles. And then, on top of that, German armor was notoriously brittle, so even non-penetrating and HE hits would put the crew at severe risk from spalling.
And that's assuming the stupid, obese steel brick even got to the battle in the first place instead of just breaking its final drive before it even got to the front.
The Panther was a deeply flawed vehicle that didn't really do anything to improve Germany's situation.
Actually, despite its size, the Panther wasn't even very ergonomic. The turret was poorly laid out, such that it was difficult to operate the traverse (which was also underpowered). Also, unlike with most Allied tanks, the gunner had no unity sight, making target handoff from commander to gunner difficult and time-consuming, as the gunner would have to locate the target through his telescopic sight. And being a five man tank wasn't special when the Panther was first fielded - the Sherman and KV-1 already had a five man crew, and the Soviets would upgrade the T-34 to the same with the T-34-85. Also, radios aren't exactly a distinguishing feature for the Panther since everyone was including radios as standard by then (yes, including the Soviets).
I think the Panther's turret was fairly cramped due it it being fairly small in relation to the size of the gun, and the loader had to operate in a kind of leaning crouch. Not a good tank.
Though German turrets (and turret rings) being small is kind of a recurring theme if you look at their tanks. It's why the Panzer IV took over from the Panzer III, even in the III's intended role, and at least part of why they built the Panther in the first place.
Nice to see someone else reads Archive Awareness.
Do we really need another thread like this http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...hermans-or-have-limted-numbers-of-tiger-tanks ?
How so? The Panther's turret ring was basically the same size as the PanzerIV's. I mean, yes, the Panther was meant to replace the IVs, but I hadn't thought turret ring enlargement was a key factor in that decision - if it was they messed it up pretty badly.
Do we really need another thread like this http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...hermans-or-have-limted-numbers-of-tiger-tanks ?
Maybe not
o
It was slightly larger than the Panzer IV's (by about as much as the Panzer IV's turret ring was bigger than the Panzer III's turret ring), but you'd think for the size of the Panther, they could have managed a bigger turret ring, along the lines of the Sherman's freakishly huge turret ring (have you seen some of the stuff foreign users crammed into that tank? The D-25T upgunning is a personal favorite of mine.). Even if the turret ring on the Panzer IV would have been big enough to accept the KwK42, it would probably be a tight fit (and, of course, the suspension couldn't take much more weight), and the reason that the Panzer IV was upgunned to the KwK40 instead of the Panzer III was the tiny turret ring on the Panzer III. What I'm saying is, you'd think that, given their past experience and the rather substantial size of the Panther, they'd have included a bit more room for modernization potential. I mean, sure, they never got the chance to run into that issue, but it kind of shows a failure to learn from past mistakes.How so? The Panther's turret ring was basically the same size as the PanzerIV's. I mean, yes, the Panther was meant to replace the IVs, but I hadn't thought turret ring enlargement was a key factor in that decision - if it was they messed it up pretty badly.
Maybe not
I was speaking about the victories gained from Sept 39 to Aug 42 and not later aprt, in the earlier part the Tanks were-
1939- Pz I (Tankette at Best)
1940- Pz II (Light Tank at best)
1941- Pz III (Light/Medium Tank)
1942- Pz IV (Short barreled one used upto 1941)- First Medium Tank.
If soviet optics had been so magical and great, germans surely would have taken them into wider use. After all, they had no problems using captured czech armor, french airplanes, and even soviet armor and AT guns mounted on tank destroyers.
Second thing, now that we are talking trash about the Panther, not being ergonomical and whatnot, then how about that Sherman Firefly? The only way to even fit the 17 pounder gun in the turret was to fit it sideways. And even that made it a cramped and awkward solution.
Second thing, now that we are talking trash about the Panther, not being ergonomical and whatnot, then how about that Sherman Firefly? The only way to even fit the 17 pounder gun in the turret was to fit it sideways. And even that made it a cramped and awkward solution.
Once again it really boils down to differing standards and inevitable problem of quality control during war. Soviet Union had it worse in general, but every participant had their share of wacky and dramatic problems with production on very mild to small scale. Especially as the war progressed and calibres increased what really mattered as far as rough theory goes was getting the first hit regardless did it actually penetrate, and having a range finder makes getting the first hit much more likely and having crews trained to use the rough range finder speaks for itself.
I do not necessarily see it as trash talk since every good equipment has their downsides. P-51 was very dangerous to take off with high fuel load since it was very unbalanced, Bf-109 was tricky mistress to control especially on higher speeds which had certain tactical limitations (though arguably they did mean it was impossible to exceed dangerous G-forces in simple move and damage\destroy the airframe), open bolt firearms ala PPSh and MP40 can be accidentally discharged by slamming the gun hard enough - or say accidentally just bumping it into something hard like a door - and whatnot. In this context since the usual consensus is that Panther is God-tier and for the sake of inciting another forum argument, Sherman is the complete piece of garbage-tier it is very easy to read any challenge to those like someone is trash talking, although logically reasonable conversation should be able to distinguish even faults or potential issues of said equipment.
I think most people interested in WWII tanks are aware that the Firefly was pretty cramped, whereas there's a commonly held view that the Panther was the greatest tank ever. I'm not actually sure how the two compare, I mean I "know" the Firefly was cramped and the breach was mounted sideways, but it was a pretty roomy turret to begin with.