Please up front armor of panther G (like bef panther)

[Guggy]

Panthers did indeed move thousands of kilometers. Mostly via ship to the US for testing.

 

[Ulatersk]

D chassis built somewher earound september 1943.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Except, it does take significantly longer. You even admit so yourself. 20-30 seconds longer is between 50-100% longer then what you state the acquisition time for a Sherman is. 50% tends to be a significant number (100% or twice as much even more so), and as I said, in that time frame a Sherman can send 3-4 shots against its' targets.

The problem with the Panther's lack of vision for the gunner remains, even with the bearing called out in "hours and minutes" because the gunner still has to rely on the commander to find the target and the commander has to rely on the gunner to turn the turret to the correct angle and then find the target using a zoomed in sight that is not suitable for quickly scanning large areas (try it yourself: hold a binocular to your eyes, turn 90 degrees and try to quickly train in on something a friend called out in the short to medium distance). This problem translates to the 50-100% longer target acquisition time. This is a serious deficit and I have no idea why you keep insisting that it isn't and that the German system was somehow equal to the Sherman's, when the Sherman could acquire a target in half the time.

It may be an advantage to the sherman but i believe that it is overplayed, all the sherman would do to the panther is ding off of it and reveal its location, then the panther would slam one right back at it

 

[IronHat]

It may be an advantage to the sherman but i believe that it is overplayed, all the sherman would do to the panther is ding off of it and reveal its location, then the panther would slam one right back at it

less of an advantage for the sherman but more of a disadvantage for the panther.

and remember that the firefly is just a modified sherman. the difference will be a lot more relevant once the Guard, canadian, and pole are in the game.

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.

the chin turret wasn't added to the G model until Septemeber 1944

 

[Rocksitter]

http://www.schifferbooks.com/for-want-of-a-gun-the-sherman-tank-scandal-of-wwii-6155.html

Have not read it but might be interesting.

 

[Gethsemani]

http://www.schifferbooks.com/for-want-of-a-gun-the-sherman-tank-scandal-of-wwii-6155.html

Have not read it but might be interesting.

Sounds like the typical pop-history about the M4 being an inferior tank. The simple truth is that in 1942, when the first Shermans arrived in North Africa, the M4 was, without a doubt, the finest Medium Tank in service. The T-34/76 and the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 were its' closest contenders, one suffering from disastrous crew ergonomics and poor production quality and the other from having rather pitiful armor and having been upgraded to the very limit of what its' chassis could stand. The M4 was still a fine tank in 1943 and it remained so in 1944, even with its' 75mm gun.

As many others have noted in prior works on the M4 and the Panther, the front of a tank only makes up some 25% of the area that other ground targets can engage and a majority of tanks were not taken out by other tanks, but by anti-tank guns (the real tank killer), mines, artillery, infantry weapons and aircraft. The Panther would win any duel situation with a M4, where both appeared on a flat field across from one another and had to slug it out until one was a burning wreck. Such was not actual combat situation for either tank though. The M4 was adequate to engage StuGs, Panzer IVs, infantry positions and gun positions and that was the majority of its' job. When it faced Panthers it had a gun (75 or 76) that had absolutely no problem striking through the unreasonably thin side armor of a Panther. Considering that, across all types of tanks, 7 out of 10 disabling hits penetrated the side armor, it was good enough for the M4 to be able to penetrate the Panther's side even if it was unable to penetrate its' front. It is a problem with SD that tanks are too quick to turn their front towards enemies appearing from the sides to allow for M4s truly flanking a Panther without baiting it with other units.

 

[Graphic]

Sounds like the typical pop-history about the M4 being an inferior tank.

By all accounts the author is a hack: http://tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41619

Pop-history Sherman slagging is nothing special but the conspiracy theory angle is something new and quite bizarre.

 

[fightinheckfish]

http://www.schifferbooks.com/for-want-of-a-gun-the-sherman-tank-scandal-of-wwii-6155.html

Have not read it but might be interesting.

The author came around to a few scale modeling websites and military interest forums I hang out on:

1. It's an 80 dollar book.

2. Dude got annihilated from all quarters as far as his conclusions. Like not in the sense of the Sherman Theocracy raging that someone is in their temple speaking heresy, but it was mostly people arguing if he was absolutely wrong vs totally wrong.