Panzer Production.

[vonhavoc]

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.

And even with the range finders, the first shot tended to miss, at longer ranges. The curious thing for me is, that whenever the quality of soviet optics comes up, this one report, just this one singular report is used to prove how amazing they were. What I'm not saying here is not that this investigation of soviet optics was partial or some sort of hoax, I do believe the results. The optics provided for testing most likely were the best the Soviet Union could come up with, but in no way would be in line with what the actual troops had to work with on the field.

The 'good enough' way of thinking even supports this, the tanks were not made to last years, engineered to perfection (and I use perfection here generously, because over-engineering things can and will make things more complicated and even fragile) and beyond like german tanks. Also, think about the Berlin victory parade with IS-3s trundling through the city and allied generals going to fits over how amazing and imposing machines they appeared to be. And in reality it was just a facade, a troubled machine that never really shone. I seem to remember Egyptian IS-3s getting trashed against Israeli medium tanks later along the line.

Another point of success for the germans might have also been the fact that even if all crew members were specialized in their own position, they also had training in other vital functions of the tank. Thus they would be able to stand in for an incapacitated crew member with a better chance of actually succeeding in the given task.

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.

Very good points. All military designs are compromises in the end anyway. It's just what the designer/person making the order is willing to sacrifice first/most. Even if I do adore the looks of the Bf-109s, the narrow landing gear proved to be a pretty tricky on landing, for an inexperienced pilot. Yet it never was "fixed", maybe it just couldn't without re-designing the damn thing entirely. And since it was a proven successful design, the sacrifice of a number of rookie pilots was easier to accept.

Even if the Panther, when maintained properly, was a pretty damn good medium tank, it certainly wasn't perfect. Nothing is. The problem with the final drive is well known and often quoted, but as it was also known back then, people just got on with it. It did not immediately relegate Panther to a piece of junk, and you'd rather face enemy armor in anything else but that. This is not a direct reply to you, but it's just on the tracks of my train of thought. The Gun was more than adequate at taking care of it's adversaries. Some of which could not return the favor frontally at normal engagement ranges for the Panther. The side and rear armor is nothing to write home about, but neither is it in many tanks. Then again, if you have enemies to your sides and rear, you're doing it wrong.

I remember someone criticizing the "notoriously brittle german steel" somewhere earlier. As far as i know, the soviets had the most brittle steel of the combatants. Causing massive spalling even on non penetrating hits with guns of high enough caliber/velocity. Anyway, even here it's a matter of compromise. The harder the steel is, less likely is the shot to penetrate, but the steel also is more brittle. And I do remember seeing many a notions of germans missing some vital ingredients for the steel making later in the war, causing the steel to become more brittle.

Some historians and/or researchers have refuted this, saying that the steel germans produced still met the specifications set for it, and that those specifications had not been changed during the course of the war. And when i say some I recall Hilary Doyle mentioning it on some show, must have been in a book too, and at least Dave Lister has said similar things. This how ever does not necessarily mean the quality has stayed the same, just that the specifications are met, but perhaps not exceeded by as much as before. I do recall seeing that germans had to replace tungsten with vanadium in their steel making process, and that supposedly would make steel more brittle. I'm no metallugist, so I just have to trust others on that.

Another thing altogether is, does the drop in steel quality mean that the tank overall has become worse? Let's assume a reality where the drop in steel quality would not need to happen due to different prevailing conditions. War is not being lost, Hitler is not screwing things up and and we have the real Panther. The original Panther. Heck, this real Panther could even be better than the original Panther, as people can't seem to decide when the armor cuality started to (supposedly) fall. And Panther was a quite late war tank.

Long ramblings short (I do apologize), the shortcomings related to the war fortunes need not be the benchmark by which the tank in this game is judged.

PS. If changes in armor quality can be modeled in HoI4, I'm all for it! More important resources!

 

[Big Nev]

Just for info’, Tungsten wasn’t used as an alloying element in armour. It’s most commonly used compound (Tungsten carbide) is extremely hard and was (still is) used for tips & penetrators of AT weapons. It’s even more important use during WWII Germany was, however, cutting tips for machine tools. Most of Germany’s wartime supply of Tungsten came from Portugal and (almost) all of the rest from Spain.

You may be thinking of Molybdenum. Germany was short on supply of many (relatively) rare elements and because about 90% of the World’s Molybdenum came from a single mine in Colorado, tended to make more use of Chromium in their armour plate. Chromium carbide is also extremely hard but more difficult to produce evenly though the steel. This results in a very hard armour on the surface but yes, it is more brittle than Chromium-Molybdenum steels and not as uniform. This brittleness could result in plates shattering completely or, as has already been pointed-out, spalling from the inside. Also a common problem with castings. This was the usual Russian method of taking-out the "bigger cats" when it was found that the HE round from a 152 was actually better than the AP round and (if you could score a hit) had the same killing power at all ranges. Many Russian tanks were also suceptible to spalling.

Incidentally, while we’re on the topic of armour. Toughness is just as important as hardness and can only be developed through careful heat treatment. Consequently, castings provide poor quality armour (usually overcome by being made thicker, an easy option when casting) and welding of armour destroys its properties near the weld.

This, coupled with the fact that it’s very difficult to heat treat a completed vehicle (try putting a Panther in an oven & cool it evenly :blink: ) is why many tanks had much of their armour bolted or riveted on.

 

[shri]

(try putting a Panther in an oven & cool it evenly) is why many tanks had much of their armour bolted or riveted on.

LOL, good example on engineering and metallurgy. and very funny too!
BH Liddle Hart had made a very good list (in his book) of 20 essential war making materials and for 15 of them Germany had severe shortages and remaining too except coal relative scarcity.

 

[Mjarr]

And even with the range finders, the first shot tended to miss, at longer ranges. The curious thing for me is, that whenever the quality of soviet optics comes up, this one report, just this one singular report is used to prove how amazing they were. What I'm not saying here is not that this investigation of soviet optics was partial or some sort of hoax, I do believe the results. The optics provided for testing most likely were the best the Soviet Union could come up with, but in no way would be in line with what the actual troops had to work with on the field.

The 'good enough' way of thinking even supports this, the tanks were not made to last years, engineered to perfection (and I use perfection here generously, because over-engineering things can and will make things more complicated and even fragile) and beyond like german tanks. Also, think about the Berlin victory parade with IS-3s trundling through the city and allied generals going to fits over how amazing and imposing machines they appeared to be. And in reality it was just a facade, a troubled machine that never really shone. I seem to remember Egyptian IS-3s getting trashed against Israeli medium tanks later along the line.

Another point of success for the germans might have also been the fact that even if all crew members were specialized in their own position, they also had training in other vital functions of the tank. Thus they would be able to stand in for an incapacitated crew member with a better chance of actually succeeding in the given task.

Though if we consider average field of view, magnification, and learning curve Soviet optics were in general more practical by (theoretical) design than US\UK ones IMHO. Of course since my post was more about the basic design of optics I omitted the idea of big picture, but I do agree dedicated commander, gunner etc definitely helps the matters too. No doubt while with primitive range finder from long distance the first shot is likely to miss, it easily gives you a rough stab within say +\- 100m from the target's distance and narrows the guesswork down a lot especially if one cannot see the tracer properly. Guessing purely by the old fashioned way is much more likely to result in plain lottery before rough distance is nailed down to a rough estimate.

(Operator error aside.)

 

[Orson]

I would like to think that research and production mechanics will be tested in Alpha & and then in Beta. I remember the early days of HOI3 beta when it wasdemonstrated you can make a German Army entirely out of LARM and ARM. That as fixed. So adjustments will be made so that you don't see swarms of advanced tanks rolling over Europe in 1938.


....and I think it's clear that US tanks were just hands down better in every way than British, German and Soviet tanks. Argument closed. I've played World of Tanks, and if you remove the obvious Russian Bias(tm), American tanks are superior historically. I just need to mass produce Hellcat's with top end gun and engine, make sure all crews are trained up to 300 xp with 6th sense and I'll be singing Yankee Doodle Dandee in Berlin by end of year 1943 (assuming historical start). You guys can keep debating if you want, but deep down we all know the truth....that I'm right like always.

hahaha lol Murica ... nice joke buddy

 

[frolix42]

No, I’m not exaggerating at all. “When FIRST introduced...”

I'll readily give you that the Matilda was well equipped against the Panzer II and Italian tanks and other light tanks and AT guns of the early war. In 1940 France, I would not say that the Matilda II outperformed early models of the Pz3 or Pz4, given that the Matilda's heavy armor and low autonomy was not designed with maneuver warfare in mind.

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.

Another takeaway lesson from the Battle of Arras is that British Armor lacked the autonomy and ability to achieve a breakthrough. That the BEF could not penetrate and disrupt German lines before General Rommel could set up his AT guns proves the Matilda was not unquestionably the best tank on the battlefield. Though this could be at least partially to a failure of British doctrine, the fact remains Matilda was not designed to fight in the era of Blitzkrieg warfare.

“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 not an exact replica of the Tiger. So? The point I was making was that they had about the same use and effectiveness on the battlefield. The Pershing and Tiger had a similar caliber main gun, similar weight class and were meant to used in the same role. It's almost if the American Arms industry was given the rough specifications of a Tiger I and told "build us something like this".

It does seem from your further statements that we’re in agreement about the Pershing.

I was reacting more to this statement you made. It seems directly opposed to the one I quoted you on.

And then you suggest the Pershing was superior! It may have had parity with a Tiger I on paper, but it didn’t in the field. The Tiger I had a better gun, thicker armour and it was both faster (!) & more reliable.

You make four qualitative judgements about the Tiger in relation to the Pershing, and I disagree with all. If you remove qualities that cannot be attributed to the tank (tactics, crew experience and doctrine), the quality of all of these (with exception of reliability) are verifiable and the Tiger and the Pershing are shown to be virtually identical in their capabilities. With regard to the "reliability" of a tank, the Americans had an obvious advantage in supply.

When the state of German industry, supply and transport is taken into account, with the benefit of hindsight it is obvious to me that the 'Tiger I' was not as efficient and practical a design as the Pz5 'Panther'.

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.

The Tiger II was a terrible tank and a terrible waste of resources considering the state of German Industry when it entered production. By 1944 it should have been obvious to German warplanners that the 'Tiger I' should've been the last model of it's type. One of the most bizarre things in the history of this war was the fixation of Nazi Germany on "bigger is better" super-weapons. Taken even further, the V2 Rockets and Pz8 'Maus' were both incredibly inefficient uses of resources at a time when they were desperately needed elsewhere.

In my opinion, in the mid to late war German Industry should've directed it's efforts towards manufacturing weapons proven to be cost-effective and practical on the battlefield. The Me-262 fighter, MP44 rifle and Pz5 'Panther' were all well designed and effective. This is of course applying a rational mindset of the architects of the 'Thousand Year Reich' so it might be fallacious to begin with.

The Panther was a deeply flawed vehicle that didn't really do anything to improve Germany's situation.

I very much disagree. When the Panther was introduced in 1943, Germany was on the defensive. Already the tanks of the Soviet Army outnumbered German tanks greatly and the degree to which the Germans were able to delay for over 2 years the massive armored spearheads that the Soviets directed at the Wehrmacht can be attributed to the Panther, the most produced late war design tank Germany had. It was very quick for a heavier tank and ideal for maneuver warfare. The Panther was also very cost effective, costing the equivalent of approximately 117,100 RM (A Tiger tank cost 250,800 RM).

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.

I dispute that the Firefly or Comet tank's gun easily penetrated a Panther's frontal armor, while in turn the armor and speed of these British tanks were very inferior to the Panther.

The M-36 and Pershing were not introduced until the war was virtually over, the T-44 was only used against Japan and very briefly. It's not really fair to assert the superiority of models that effectively were introduced too late to engage the Panther in significant numbers.

Soviet Armor is a better match for the Panther, but it did not necessarily always dominate it. The IS-2 did not have near the maneuverability of the Panther. The Su-100s and the Su-152s were Tank Destroyers, effective in ambush and when supported by other defenses, but they didn't have turrets and the flexibility that comes with them.

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.

This was a serious issue in late 1944-1945, but that's not really a flaw in the Panther's design is it? Nor would it be untrue for any German Armored vehicle.

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.

I've never heard of someone claiming the Panther was being particularly unreliable, usually I see it cited as being reliable compared to other heavy tanks. I think you may be confusing it with the Tiger in this respect.

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.

Modern American Combat vehicles have a shared sight between the gunner and TC, I've never heard it called a "Unity Sight". When I was a Tank Commander I that learned that the T-72 tank also has no shared optics between the gunner and TC. Can you cite a reliable source that shows the Allied tanks of the World War 2 Era did? Because since the Russians as late as the 1980s didn't, I don't know if the Allies of WW2 had this.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_jCD6i0iccC&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Big Nev]

I'll readily give you that the Matilda was well equipped against the Panzer II and Italian tanks and other light tanks and AT guns of the early war. In 1940 France, I would not say that the Matilda II outperformed early models of the Pz3 or Pz4, given that the Matilda's heavy armor and low autonomy was not designed with maneuver warfare in mind.

The facts of Arras prove that the Matilda II outperformed (killed without loss!) Pz IIIs & IVs. Whilst I’ll accept that the Pz IV was probably better in the infantry support roll than the Matilda II because it had a decent HE, a dead tank is less than useful whilst the Pz III was supposed to fight the enemy tanks, at this it failed, miserably, against the Matilda II.

Another takeaway lesson from the Battle of Arras is that British Armor lacked the autonomy and ability to achieve a breakthrough. That the BEF could not penetrate and disrupt German lines before General Rommel could set up his AT guns proves the Matilda was not unquestionably the best tank on the battlefield. Though this could be at least partially to a failure of British doctrine, the fact remains Matilda was not designed to fight in the era of Blitzkrieg warfare.

The battle of Arras, whilst proving the Matilda II was a good tank in its intended roll of infantry support (apart from no HE! I mean seriously, WTF is THAT about?) it was a major screw-up by the BEF. You’re absolutely correct on doctrines but they weren’t intended to operate independently. They were the support, not the other way around. Most of the infantry they were supposed to support failed to turn-up which is why they got trashed. And trashed by German AA guns & artillery, not German AT guns.

The Pershing was not an exact replica of the Tiger. So? The point I was making was that they had about the same use and effectiveness on the battlefield. The Pershing and Tiger had a similar caliber main gun, similar weight class and were meant to used in the same role. It's almost if the American Arms industry was given the rough specifications of a Tiger I and told "build us something like this".

My point is that the Tiger I was three years older than the Pershing & still a better tank. Also, the development of these two tank projects was started at about the same time.

You make four qualitative judgements about the Tiger in relation to the Pershing, and I disagree with all. If you remove qualities that cannot be attributed to the tank (tactics, crew experience and doctrine), the quality of all of these (with exception of reliability) are verifiable and the Tiger and the Pershing are shown to be virtually identical in their capabilities. With regard to the "reliability" of a tank, the Americans had an obvious advantage in supply.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion. I’m not so sure it’s reasonable to say that the superior logistics & supply qualifies an unreliable vehicle as reliable. A more reliable vehicle is “better” than an equivalent unreliable vehicle regardless of logistical support.
IMHO anyway.

When the state of German industry, supply and transport is taken into account, with the benefit of hindsight it is obvious to me that the 'Tiger I' was not as efficient and practical a design as the Pz5 'Panther'.

Now correct me if I’m wrong here but the Panther was more difficult to build and maintain than the Tiger. Although in other respects, IMHO, it was a superb tank. It’s gun was better than the 88 L56 at close range and it was a lot faster than a Tiger I. Granted, it had an Achilles heel but 12 tons is a lot to give away in tank design.

I will because I'm bored at work.

:rofl: Makes two of us

The Tiger II was a terrible tank and a terrible waste of resources considering the state of German Industry when it entered production. By 1944 it should have been obvious to German warplanners that the 'Tiger I' should've been the last model of it's type. One of the most bizarre things in the history of this war was the fixation of Nazi Germany on "bigger is better" super-weapons. Taken even further, the V2 Rockets and Pz8 'Maus' were both incredibly inefficient uses of resources at a time when they were desperately needed elsewhere.

In my opinion, in the mid to late war German Industry should've directed it's efforts towards manufacturing weapons proven to be cost-effective and practical on the battlefield. The Me-262 fighter, MP44 rifle and Pz5 'Panther' were all well designed and effective. This is of course applying a rational mindset of the architects of the 'Thousand Year Reich' so it might be fallacious to begin with.

Agreed. On paper, the Tiger II was a brilliant tank. In the field too. It just had problems getting there. As is soooo often mentioned. IF Germany had access to the materials to make proper armour, fuel & lubricants to run them, they would have been a much more formidable force. Especially when you consider that a huge proportion of “total losses” were by their own crews after a breakdown. There’s a recurring theme here.

Germany was always pursuing the “war winner” and, to be fair, the V2 project would probably have been more effective if it wasn’t for the disinformation on call-of-shot from the XX programme. We would have had to expend some considerable resources to find & destroy the mobile launch sites.

The Maus was a joke though. Porsche definitely pulled a number on old Adolf there. Loads of money in R&D huh? The concept was beyond German metallurgy, even if they could have obtained the requisite materials. Even decent track pins for something so heavy require modern techniques to manufacture. To paraphrase Guderian “It’s a 200 ton piece of crap that’ll never be of any use”

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.

Firstly, the Comet wasn’t armed with the 17pdr. It had a 3” L50 with a different barrel, different breach and different ammunition. So... a completely different gun really. I have seen no reference to the Comet being equiped with an APDS round either. The 17pdr was a 3” L55 that definately fired APDS. Consequently, a Comet would have to get a good bit closer to take-out a Panther from the front. Probably too close.

The Avenger (Comet TD variant) had a real 17pdr though. Sadly, it didn’t see service.

IMHO, the Panther was a great tank. Arguably the best “all-rounder” that Germany had. Yes, it had poor side armour for a tank of its time but it couldn’t be penetrated by “obsolete anti-tank rifles” that’s just silly. Frolix42 has quoted the cost of a Panther as 117,100 RM against a Tiger I at 250,800 RM. From the same source, a Pz IV cost 103,462 RM. For an extra 13% (Panther) or 114% (Tiger I) I know which tank I’d be buying.

Once they fixed the teething problems the fast cat of course :blink:

I dispute that the Firefly or Comet tank's gun easily penetrated a Pather's frontal armor, while in turn the armor and speed of these British tanks were very inferior to the Panther.

The M-36 and Pershing were not introduced until the war was virtually over, the T-44 was only used against Japan and very briefly. It's not really fair to assert the superiority of models that effectively were introduced too late to engage the Panther in significant numbers.

Soviet Armor is a better match for the Panther, but it did not necessarily always dominate it. The IS-2 did not have near the maneuverability of the Panther. The Su-100s and the Su-152s were Tank Destroyers, effective in ambush and when supported by other defenses, but they didn't have turrets and the flexibility that comes with them.

Firefly yes. Comet no. Pershing... the only engagement I know of was at very close range and IIRC, the Pershing penetrated the Panther’s gun mantlet.

You raise a point here that I’d love to see reflected in HoI IV. The huge difference in combat ability between a casemate type TD and a turreted tank or TD.

I've never heard of someone claiming the Panther was being particularly unreliable, usually I see it cited as being reliable compared to other heavy tanks. I think you may be confusing it with the Tiger in this respect.

No, he’s right. The Panther was dreadfully unreliable when first introduced and almost as many were lost due to breakdown (having to be destroyed to prevent their capture by advancing Russians) as enemy action. This, however, was due to it being rushed in to production, not because it was a poor design. Most of the bugs were ironed-out about a year after its first introduction. And the Comet was faster than the late Panthers.

Modern American Combat vehicles have a shared sight between the gunner and TC, I've never heard it called a "Unity Sight". When I was a Tank Commander I that learned that the T-72 tank also has no shared optics between the gunner and TC. Can you cite a reliable source that shows the Allied tanks of the World War 2 Era did? Because since the Russians as late as the 1980s didn't, I don't know if the Allies of WW2 had this.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_jCD6i0iccC&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false

I too have read that the WW II Sherman had a “unity” sight that allowed the commander & aimer to see through the same sight. It’s WIKI though so... reliable? IDK.

 

[Mjarr]

Firefly yes. Comet no. Pershing... the only engagement I know of was at very close range and IIRC, the Pershing penetrated the Panther’s gun mantlet.

Unless it is APDS to certain distance (and ignoring that APDS was comparable to musket as far as long range accuracy goes) and preferably flawed plate to begin with, Panther glacis was essentially impregnable against Firefly. Certain parts of the turret and glacis could be penetrated pretty much even standard US 75mm if you were close enough.

 

[Big Nev]

Unless it is APDS to certain distance (and ignoring that APDS was comparable to musket as far as long range accuracy goes) and preferably flawed plate to begin with, Panther glacis was essentially impregnable against Firefly. Certain parts of the turret and glacis could be penetrated pretty much even standard US 75mm if you were close enough.

Err... no...

200mm at 500m, 30° incline. 185mm at 1000m, 30° incline. So, theoretically, it could take-out a Tiger II at a kilometer!

Theoretically o

But a Panther is crippled, from the front, at any range you can hit it.

The problem with APDS was that it was more difficult to see where it landed when you missed. Thus making correction based upon fall of shot somewhat... difficult :blink:

 

[Mjarr]

Just to save bit of page space with bloated quote, I'll refer to this from another thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...iger-tanks&p=16972310&viewfull=1#post16972310

Theoretically with APDS : yes. Regular AP? Not unless we assume flawed plate, and even then we can safely say it's very unlikely at best. Based on the same book (I have a copy dusting around here) I would rather trust the assumption that Panther glacis is essentially impregnable against most guns if we assume typical conditions and go with the probabilistic idea since we cannot know everything with precise accuracy.

I might as well add once again in practice things can get quite complicated and if Panther is even facing extra 10 to 15 degrees downward slope due to terrain suddenly it's very likely even regular AP will punch through, and in reverse if it is in slightly upwards slope (though how you depress Firefly gun that much remains a mystery) even APDS would more likely ricochet simply because it fails to grip to begin with, or in absurd case of lottery ricochet fails to grip but trajectory is altered, hits the mantlet and ricochets further off somewhere or perhaps even cause partial shot trap penetration if we assume earlier models, though I must stress that scenario is... very unlikely, but in theory possible as far as projectile penetration and behaviour goes.

 

[frolix42]

My point is that the Tiger I was three years older than the Pershing & still a better tank. Also, the development of these two tank projects was started at about the same time.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion. I’m not so sure it’s reasonable to say that the superior logistics & supply qualifies an unreliable vehicle as reliable. A more reliable vehicle is “better” than an equivalent unreliable vehicle regardless of logistical support.
IMHO anyway.

This is what Donald Rumsfeld would call a "known unknown". That is a thing we don't know for sure. What we can know for sure was by 1944 Germany wasn't capable of fielding and maintaining enough Tigers Is and Tiger IIs to win the war while the US did have enough resources to field a Heavy tank force in 1945. And that the delay in the production of the Pershing by the Americans was a mistake.

Now correct me if I’m wrong here but the Panther was more difficult to build and maintain than the Tiger. Although in other respects, IMHO, it was a superb tank. It’s gun was better than the 88 L56 at close range and it was a lot faster than a Tiger I. Granted, it had an Achilles heel but 12 tons is a lot to give away in tank design.

Agreed. On paper, the Tiger II was a brilliant tank. In the field too. It just had problems getting there. As is soooo often mentioned. IF Germany had access to the materials to make proper armour, fuel & lubricants to run them, they would have been a much more formidable force. Especially when you consider that a huge proportion of “total losses” were by their own crews after a breakdown. There’s a recurring theme here.

The figure of 117,100 RM for the Panther against 250,800 RM for the Tiger is a measure that shows the Tiger took more than twice the resources and labor to manufacture than a Panther.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer...stiger-kingroyaltiger-tiger-ii-sd-kfz-182.htm
While an estimate of the Tiger II was that the cost of manufacture was the equivalent of over 800,000 RM! At the stage in the war the focus on a "quality" tank which consumed many more resources didn't make much sense. When doing a cost-benefit analysis of a Tiger II, a German arms producer would have to ask himself if producing a single Tiger II would be a greater benefit to the war effort than seven Panthers. To me the answer is obvious.

Generally larger tanks and vehicles consume exponentially more fuel and require more maintenance. Being lighter, the Panther consumed less fuel per galleon than the Tiger models. A typical recorded engagement between US/British tanks versus a lone Tiger I or Tiger II models (which in the West were most often used in the Hunter-Killer role) are that the Allied tanks are ambushed by a the heavy panzer and several are destroyed while they disengage, but the initially triumphant Tiger eventually breaks down, runs out of fuel, is immobilized by infantry or aircraft, or rolls into a ditch. Given the disparity in numbers and resources, the result of the engagement is a net strategic gain for the Allies.

So with the Tiger II in 1944-45, you have generally the same issue as the Matilda had at Arras in 1940. A tank with overwhelming immediate tactical superiority against other armor, unable to be used to it's full potential due to the strategic situation, lack of autonomy and supplies to exploit breakthroughs and at the same time produced in insufficient numbers to make a meaningful impact on the strategic outcome.

I think the final nail in the coffin of the Tiger II's legacy is that the Heavy Tank design philosophy was abandoned as impractical by even the Soviets by the late 1940s. A hypothetical tank designed by Germany in the 1950s would more likely follow the same logical path as the T-54 or M-48 did and be more similar in weight and size to a Panther. I see in the Tiger II as Germany's attempt to create a tank for the role that the M1 and Leopard 2 tank fills today, but with the technology of the time it wasn't practical.

Perhaps my favorite book on World War 2, definitely on why (not how) the 3rd Reich fell is The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Toonze. As far as dispelling the mythology of the German Empire in Europe 1933-1945 it is unparalleled.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208#

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

This is what Donald Rumsfeld would call a "known unknown". That is a thing we don't know for sure. What we can know for sure was by 1944 Germany wasn't capable of fielding and maintaining enough Tigers Is and Tiger IIs to win the war while the US did have enough resources to field a Heavy tank force in 1945. And that the delay in the production of the Pershing by the Americans was a mistake.



The figure of 117,100 RM for the Panther against 250,800 RM for the Tiger is a measure that shows the Tiger took more than twice the resources and labor to manufacture than a Panther.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer...stiger-kingroyaltiger-tiger-ii-sd-kfz-182.htm
While an estimate of the Tiger II was that the cost of manufacture was the equivalent of over 800,000 RM. At the stage in the war the focus on a "quality" tank which consumed many more resources didn't make much sense. When doing a cost-benefit analysis of a Tiger II, a German arms producer would have to ask himself if producing Tiger II would be a greater benefit to the war effort than seven Panthers. To me the answer is obvious.

Generally larger tanks and vehicles consume exponentially more fuel and require more maintenance. Being lighter, the Panther consumed less fuel per galleon than the Tiger models. A typical recorded engagement between US/British tanks versus a lone Tiger I or Tiger II models are that the Allied tanks are ambushed by a the heavy panzer and several are destroyed while they disengage, but the initially triumphant Tiger eventually breaks down, runs out of fuel, is immobilized by infantry or aircraft, or rolls into a ditch. Given the disparity in numbers and resources, the result of the engagement is a net strategic gain for the Allies.

So with the Tiger II in 1944-45, you have generally the same issue as the Matilda had at Arras in 1940. A tank with overwhelming immediate tactical superiority against other armor, unable to be used to it's full potential due to the strategic situation, lack of autonomy and supplies to exploit breakthroughs and at the same time produced in insufficient numbers to make a meaningful impact on the strategic outcome.

Well Germany was running out of resources, If a tiger II takes 20% more steel, 20% more rubber, but 200% more labor hours, then it's not such a bad thing. If your lacking in something build stuff with the resources you have.

 

[Imaginary Star]

Regardless of penetration, poor quality of steel would make it very likely that non-penetrating hit would cause spalling and disable the tank through crew injuries/bailing. Crew would not be staying inside after driver/radio-op were mangled by armour fragments.
So in practical terms, 17pdr doesn't need to penetrate, just a solid hit.

 

[Sumeragi]

Not to be insulting, but too many people here think tanks are some independent weapon or war that needs to be perfect, never mind ignoring all the technological, logistical, and other problems that all sides had to deal with.

 

[Imaginary Star]

Not to be insulting, but too many people here think tanks are some independent weapon or war that needs to be perfect, never mind ignoring all the technological, logistical, and other problems that all sides had to deal with.

Yes. Unless they are U.S. tanks, which were prefect in every way and could fly when nobody was looking. Everybody knows that.

 

[dwa]

Yes. Unless they are U.S. tanks, which were prefect in every way and could fly when nobody was looking. Everybody knows that.

lol +1. There's always a tribal tendency about that.

 

[frolix42]

Yes. Unless they are U.S. tanks, which were prefect in every way and could fly when nobody was looking. Everybody knows that.

Who is saying that? Objectively speaking, WW2 era US Tanks were not well designed. I am an Armor Officer in the US Army so if anyone should be partisan about this, it's me.
Early on, before they entered the war, US Doctrine was based in part around the "tank destroyer" concept, where lightly armored but heavily gunned vehicles (the M3 Gun Motor Carriage) were held in a tactical reserve which would move to engage enemy tanks when they appeared on the battlefield. It was a bad idea and didn't work in practice. The Americans didn't realize the need for multipurpose tanks like the Pz4/T-34/Churchill, which hurt them strategically in Europe. The M4 Sherman would've been a much more effective tank had the US worked on developing it earlier, in particular improving it's gun before D-Day.

Of course from until 1980 to today, American Armored vehicles are the highest quality in the world. Unfortunately there is not so much use for tanks on the modern COIN battlefield.

 

[FOARP]

Of course from until 1980 to today, American Armored vehicles are the highest quality in the world. Unfortunately there is not so much use for tanks on the modern COIN battlefield.

. . . there's British who'll argue this point, naturally (record for longest range tank-to-tank kill still belongs to a British gunner) but unarguably American quality is high.

 

[Mjarr]

Regardless of penetration, poor quality of steel would make it very likely that non-penetrating hit would cause spalling and disable the tank through crew injuries/bailing. Crew would not be staying inside after driver/radio-op were mangled by armour fragments.
So in practical terms, 17pdr doesn't need to penetrate, just a solid hit.

It's pretty hard to tell did spalling or cracks occur from say 700m away after few hits, thus we run into the common scenario to keep firing until either the tank is on fire or you can see crew bailing out and preferably both. Even then strictly speaking 3x Shermans opening fire on Panther at distance they can score reliably the first hit might win the engagement because crew panic and all that, but you never know. Maybe the Panther crew is made of Knight's Cross veterans and they just laugh with gallows humour. Maybe they get hit once in the glacis and think the end is night.

Who is saying that? Objectively speaking, WW2 era US Tanks were not well designed. I am an Armor Officer in the US Army so if anyone should be partisan about this, it's me.
Early on, before they entered the war, US Doctrine was based in part around the "tank destroyer" concept, where lightly armored but heavily gunned vehicles (the M3 Gun Motor Carriage) were held in a tactical reserve which would move to engage enemy tanks when they appeared on the battlefield. It was a bad idea and didn't work in practice. The Americans didn't realize the need for multipurpose tanks like the Pz4/T-34/Churchill, which hurt them strategically in Europe. The M4 Sherman would've been a much more effective tank had the US worked on developing it earlier, in particular improving it's gun before D-Day.

Joke perhaps?

I do not see the tank destroyer doctrine as gross failure (I know I am swimming against the current here but hey, gasoline's on me) but simply impractical and essentially untested since the scenario "proper" TDs ala M10s and such were intended for never exactly happened, and since the problem became quite apparent when most of the Wehrmacht was not super motorised\mechanised and armoured spearhead deathmachine where infantry to tank ratio was off the rails as anticipated, they were forced to do things regular AFVs were meant to do which leads to as predictable results as betting classic dogfight between B-17 and and FW-190. Does it really need to be said the result is extremely lopsided in other's favour?

 

[frolix42]

. . . there's British who'll argue this point, naturally (record for longest range tank-to-tank kill still belongs to a British gunner) but unarguably American quality is high.

It's true that I wouldn't assert that the Abrams is unquestionably a better or worse tank than the Leopard 2 or Challenger 2, but then all NATO countries share most technology and doctrine. The deciding factor for me is that the Abrams is by far the most produced tank in the Western world and it's quality over the T-72, and probably the T-80 and T-90, is pretty indisputable.

I do not see the tank destroyer doctrine as gross failure (I know I am swimming against the current here but hey, gasoline's on me) but simply impractical and essentially untested since the scenario "proper" TDs ala M10s and such were intended for never exactly happened, and since the problem became quite apparent when most of the Wehrmacht was not super motorised\mechanised and armoured spearhead deathmachine where infantry to tank ratio was off the rails as anticipated, they were forced to do things regular AFVs were meant to do which leads to as predictable results as betting classic dogfight between B-17 and and FW-190. Does it really need to be said the result is extremely lopsided in other's favour?

It seems to be an issue of flexibility and the fact that maneuver warfare is unpredictable. US doctrine assumed that their command would have the ability and the time to identify the location of German Armor and then be able to maneuver the appropriate vehicle into position to counter it. This becomes impossible when the Germans adopted the asymmetrical Hunter-Killer ambush tactics for their armor. If you are in a Motor Carriage M3 Halftrack and you're engaging a panzer you not only need to have the drop on them, you also have to be a damn good shot and disable it right away because the first shot the enemy scores on you is certainly going to kill you. It's the same issue with the M-10 TD, which at least is tracked and has a turret, it's armor protection was just too thin and it's turret top was open. That must've had an effect on morale of a crew in an engagement.

And then at the same time you have the British, German and Soviet tank designs which were capable of being Infantry support, Tank Destroyers and at the time time armored to resist heavy fire. I'm not saying Tank Destroyers were useless, but a WW2 army needs a vehicle that served this role, which for the Americans had to be the Sherman.