I dont know, actual value was never mentioned, and nobody I know except for Spielberger had a copy of that document. Every other author copied the information off of his book. So Im not sure how can a comparison be made.
Please up front armor of panther G (like bef panther)
- Thread starter DPK
- 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.
1. Defensive advantage is funny and the Germans made excellent use of the terrain.
2. What is a good or functional or reasonable thank is always controversial. StuGs killed collectively more tanks than all the sexy big cats combined yet StuGs were lost more as well. Maybe it tells something about how they were used as well, and considering to many infantry divisions StuGs were possibly their only means of "better" mobile AT or armoured support while the nearest Panther was miles away, go figure.
3. Many tanks by 1944 were essentially vulnerable to their own gun and only in stupidly ideal situations they would be impregnable to most fire. Panther vs Panther would be same as having coardboard box with 12.7mm rifle shooting at another cardboard box with 12.7mm rifle.
4. It's like saying "we have tactical nukes and even bigger nukes so why do you need armies for? just nuke the shit out of something" and not realising there might be tiny bit of an issue with the argument that perhaps nukes aren't only solution to everything. Replace nukes with air power or artillery and it's not too far off either.
Hard data aside it doesn't sound too illogical to assume it may play a role. How much is up for grabs, what kind of situation and how probabilistic you want to be. If you drink 1l of whiskey every day and smoke a pack of smokes on top of that, you are probably going to cut down your lifespan on top of other health issues. We do not have lifelong hard data on that exact point, we do have data pointing out possible adverse effects of both products on the other hand and if we combine the basic idea that "This isn't exactly the healthiest solution out there" on top of repeating that idea every day en masse, is it inaccurate to claim it probably will be a huge deal years down the line?
"Panther had a 6,9:1 ratio against allied tanks in Normandy"
I'm gonna stop you there. That's the loss ratio, like how many Shermans were destroyed total to how many Panthers were destroyed total. So unless Panthers were also anti-tank mines, infantry anti-armor weapons, towed and SP anti-tank guns, they don't figure into it.
Something like only 14% of Allied tank losses were due to conventional tanks (inclusive all "cats," Panzer IVs, very lucky Panzer IIIs etc), while a whopping 20% was due to mines. About 22 and 25% were to towed AT guns or SP anti-tank platforms like the StuG. Interestingly enough German tanks were about as lethal to Allied tanks by percentages lost as infantry anti-armor weapons.
As an additional caveat though, at least in Normandy the leading cause of death for Panzers was tanks , leading at around 51%.
Panthers performed fairly badly. When they were used defensively, they were pretty okay, as they lost the disadvantage of slower acquisition to shot time as generally they initiated contact, and had a good chance of a hit and a kill when firing first given their weapon system. On the offensive they were a shambling mess as I keep pointing out, generally accomplishing very little (like just to add to the fun, as I've said Mortain, Arracourt enough, the 12th SS lost 60% of it's armor strength at Krinkelt-Rocherath and Dom Butgenbach against 75 MM Shermans, 57 MM AT guns, and M10s).
The Panther certainly had good frontal armor and a big gun. But it really did not deliver on the investment. Germany would have likely been better off with more StuGs, or meeting the Panther's original intend of making a T-34 clone.
I'm gonna stop you there. That's the loss ratio, like how many Shermans were destroyed total to how many Panthers were destroyed total. So unless Panthers were also anti-tank mines, infantry anti-armor weapons, towed and SP anti-tank guns, they don't figure into it.
Something like only 14% of Allied tank losses were due to conventional tanks (inclusive all "cats," Panzer IVs, very lucky Panzer IIIs etc), while a whopping 20% was due to mines. About 22 and 25% were to towed AT guns or SP anti-tank platforms like the StuG. Interestingly enough German tanks were about as lethal to Allied tanks by percentages lost as infantry anti-armor weapons.
As an additional caveat though, at least in Normandy the leading cause of death for Panzers was tanks , leading at around 51%.
Panthers performed fairly badly. When they were used defensively, they were pretty okay, as they lost the disadvantage of slower acquisition to shot time as generally they initiated contact, and had a good chance of a hit and a kill when firing first given their weapon system. On the offensive they were a shambling mess as I keep pointing out, generally accomplishing very little (like just to add to the fun, as I've said Mortain, Arracourt enough, the 12th SS lost 60% of it's armor strength at Krinkelt-Rocherath and Dom Butgenbach against 75 MM Shermans, 57 MM AT guns, and M10s).
The Panther certainly had good frontal armor and a big gun. But it really did not deliver on the investment. Germany would have likely been better off with more StuGs, or meeting the Panther's original intend of making a T-34 clone.
Im not saying it didnt have an effect, but saying that Sherman got 4 shots off on a Panther before said Panther even found it, is a bit silly, specially when you dont know the actual time it took Sherman to find a target.
Which would be nice to know, because the wonderful action bars with "alligning", "reloading" and so on could provide an unprecedented degree of asymmetrical balance.
No, thats a specific exchange ratio of lost tanks to kill claims in a certain Panther battalion for a period of 3 months since D-day.
50-60% of allied tanks were lost to gunfire in Normandy, at an aproximate ratio of 3:1:1 to Tank/StuG/AT-gun. In a sample of 100 tanks taken by British MOR analysts, majority was taken out by KwK 42.
that's been discussed earlier, probably in this very thread? The Brit numbers are different because of the combat differences in their sector(s).
and discussing a 'certain Panther battalion' is questionable at best. there are allied units with insane kill ratios against panthers, and as has been pointed out repeatedly the Germans didn't officially count a loss unless it was irreparable.
and discussing a 'certain Panther battalion' is questionable at best. there are allied units with insane kill ratios against panthers, and as has been pointed out repeatedly the Germans didn't officially count a loss unless it was irreparable.
I regard to wunderwaffe that is Panther, I just want to point to this British test they performed, in which 5 various Panther chassis variants did not just fail to meet the basic testing requirements, but failed to complete the entire test in the first place. All five broke down(some quite spectacularly), despite German consultants, and the extensive use of parts of failed vehicles parts to keep the remaining ones running.
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/13/from-the-vault-post-war-british-report-on-panther-reliability/
Results of Test:
Owing to the general mechanical unreliability of the Panther and Jagd Panther tanks insufficient test results have been obtained to allow any accurate assessment of the performance of these vehicles to be made.
Future Action:
It is recommended that this project be closed.
If anything, it is a testament to the German crews' ability that they were able to get ANYTHING done in these tanks.
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/13/from-the-vault-post-war-british-report-on-panther-reliability/
Results of Test:
Owing to the general mechanical unreliability of the Panther and Jagd Panther tanks insufficient test results have been obtained to allow any accurate assessment of the performance of these vehicles to be made.
Future Action:
It is recommended that this project be closed.
If anything, it is a testament to the German crews' ability that they were able to get ANYTHING done in these tanks.
1. The French report stated 20-30s for the Panther from target aquisition to getting the shot of. Not longer, but overall. The French just state "considerably" longer.
2. The French test is partly hampered, but viable.
2. The French test is partly hampered, but viable.
Oh! If that's the case then then, the Sherman had a 6.8/1 Kill ratio against Panthers, and a net kill rate of 12.4/1 if we're including Panzer IVs killed in the same battle if we're cherry picking data (and naming an especially awesome display of German tactical ineptitude).
Clearly unstoppable murder beasts. Shermans driven by Frenchmen unstoppable.
1. Both gunner and Cmdr had hour-markings to ease the system
2. The Cmdr had small "Iron-Sights" to see where the gun is aligned to
3. The Panther-Gunner always had a wide FoV smaller optic with 2.5 magnification. While the FoV of 28° isn't as good as the unmagnified Unity-Optic FoV (roughly around 40+°) it is considerably better than most Allied optics in this range. Together with the adjustable magnification, the system isn't as bad for target aquisition as some people here make it sound like, even when the gunner doesn't have situational awareness.
And again I have to mention here that the Germans were AFAIK the only ones to use Milliradian sights instead of pure ballistic ones. (To this comes that the gunner actually didn't even had to change elevation up to 1800m which eases aiming considerably)
To hit first is important, not necessarily to shoot first.
Yes, the Sherman had the far faster "aim-time" and a higher chance to find its target first, but its accuracy, especially on the far more wide-spread 75mm guns, was simply far worse.
Otherwise: Kill-Loss-Ratio is never a good measurement to compare the Fighting-Power of mere vehicles... a lot of other circumstances plays mostly far more important roles than the tanks themselves.
An example: If someone mentions that Shermans had a 2:1 Kill-Ratio against Panthers in Normandy, you have to calculate in that due to the Counter-Attack-Usage of the Panzers they were often times attacking and thus had already to fight a 3:1 uphill-battle against statistics and to this comes Allied Air supremacy, ... so the Panther did actually better than expected and the numbers might look like. (Please, this is just an example how numbers can be deeply flawed by interpretations, the Numbers were chosen pretty randomly otherwise, the point is just that K/D-Ratios are pretty much idiotic to compare)
Last edited:
All claims are questionable.
Pattons army apparently killed 2200 tanks from landing to the V-day, including 800 Panthers and Tigers, according to his own and his intelligence dep. assesments.
Dont know if its just me, but an army that was away from concentrated german tank forces most of the time accounting for what would be about 20% (or more) of german tanks ever present in western front is suspect, as everything, if you dont cross-check with the other side.
Yes, Panthers assembled from god knows what parts without blueprints in a completely bombed out factory that stopped production several months prior to the end of war (To the point where REME had to set workshop somewhere else) dont work.
Color me surprised?
Is this supposed to mean something to me?
Or are we going to continue posting useless statistics out of context?
My applies to the Panther battalion of 12th SS, so atleast im specific enough, and being very optimistic, as they lost 66 tanks from D-day to 1st september, 5 of which were lost to tanks, 21 were unknown. For 181 claims.
If all unknown cases were knocked out by tanks, its 6,9:1, if we take purely tank losses, its 36,2:1.
You somehow forgot to mention little details like around 20 artillery battalions, a fighter group, and other such, im sure not very important details that contributed to Mortain, Arracourt and other such battles.
On a serious note, The panther G and the befel should swap front armor values. As far as i am aware all panthers had the same front armor. However, i believe the turret is taken into account to get the in game value. The panther G doesn't have the shot trap that the befel has, which i assume is based on the panther A judging off of footage of the panzer lehr in streams.
I am not seeing anything that shows these were the same vehicles. Are you suggesting that the five vehicles used in tests were manufactured without any blueprints, plus they decided for extra challenge to manufacture three different variants of Panther chassis(two Panther tanks, two Jagd Panthers, and one Panther ARV) for the tests?
(not to mention the rather insulting assumption that British test officials were just completely clueless about the possible problems arising from using knockoff vehicles for testing, and thus did not deign to even note it in the report)
Well, colour me unconvinced?
Last edited:
"
The two Panther, and both Jagd Panther machines were new vehicles when first received at P.V.P.E., having been constructed by No. 823 Armoured Troops Workshop, R.E.M.E. B.O. A .R., in 1945.
In the case of the Panther A.R.V., this vehicle had run 632 kilometers prior to its arrival at F.V.P.E., and it was found necessary to install a new engine before commencing trials."
Straight from your link.
Colour me..... not surprised at all.
Very well. Point taken.
So...
The one Panther A.R.V. NOT manufactured there, with a plentitude of spare parts and a new engine failed to complete the trial... why?
Wow.
"The results given in this report are, therefore, those derived from tests carried out on four vehicles – two Panther Tanks, Model G, and two Jagd Panthers."
The ARV, as far as I know, served for 20 more years with Bovington museum, and they have the winch from that particular vehicle to this day.
I don't know what to call this. You arn't even trying to defend your point. It's just... 'is anything even real, man?'
What I am reading in the test is that ARV "could not be induced to run" and "was used for spare parts". So, it failed.
Also, poor steering which disqualified Panther from road tests was certainly not due to poor worksmanship (weak steering was noted by Germans who used it in war, as noted). Engine fires may be a result of poor craftsmanship, but oddly, that's the same issue that, for example, ruined dozens of Panthers during their deployment in Kursk. An odd coincidence, wouldn't you say?
Not trying to defend anything, because that point is ridiculous. Kill claims mean nothing by themselves, so Im not sure why are they being used to prove anything.
My bad, I mis-remembered.
There was also a Panther that managed to travel 4200 kilometers.
And im not sure whats so strange about fuel lines or linkages not working due to poor craftsmanship. Wasnt that the problem with first batch of Panthers delivered to Kursk?