Exactly. So how do you explan the superior kill ratio of the Panther versus the T34?
Soviet tank tech tree
- Thread starter 13Patrick
- 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.
Exactly. So how do you explan the superior kill ratio of the Panther versus the T34?
The very late war IS-3 had 4 rpm. Perhaps the T-10, which was introduced in 1953, was 6 rpm. You're doing an excellent job convincing me that you'll twist any information to minimize the Panther.
I'm as mystified as balmung60 as to where you're going with this, Phonix. I said the one strength of the Panther is shooting tanks, and you seem to be arguing against this by pointing out the Panther was good at shooting tanks. Maybe you could step back for a moment and check exactly what you're trying to say? We all agree the Panther was good at shooting tanks, the argument is that it was bad at the other, very important, things a tank was meant to do.
(Also the T34 was an American Prototype tank, the T-34 was the Soviet medium tank)
(Also the T34 was an American Prototype tank, the T-34 was the Soviet medium tank)
You said shooting tanks directly in front of it was the Panther's only strength. Based on the Panther's operational performance, I disupte this. Why? Because I believe a tank must have more strenghts than being good at shooting tanks directly in front of it to perform as good as it did (for example the kill ratio against the T34).
I can explain a superior kill ratio of the Panther vs the T-34 in several ways that come together to produce such a kill rate. I will also note here that the kill ratio of Panthers to T34s was 0:0 as the T34 was an American prototype heavy tank that never saw service.
First, the Panther was basically a tank destroyer rather than a tank.
Second, German kill claims are notoriously inflated and their losses undercounted.
Third, Soviet loss counting also counts far more losses than the Germans would.
Fourth, the Panther as a heavier vehicle can carry more gun and more armor.
The first explains that the Panther was largely designed for tank vs tank combat, largely to the exclusion of other roles. Note the low-caliber (relative to trends, which would see later mediums, such as the Pershing and T-44 taking larger caliber guns), high-velocity gun, characteristic of the same kind of thinking that brought us the various 2-pdr, 5-pdr, 37mm, 5cm, and 57mm anti-tank guns. This again points to the vehicle being built to maximize its results in a specific field, rather than as a general-purpose vehicle like the M4 or T-34, and it should hardly be surprising that a specialized tool has greater performance in the field it is specialized for.
The second and third explain that the kill ratio may not actually tell the whole story, especially if it's put together from numbers from both sides, as the Soviets would mark any vehicle that had become even temporarily unusable (such as throwing a track) as a loss, while the Germans would not count a vehicle as a loss unless it was deemed unrecoverable. Additionally, the Germans, especially the SS, routinely over reported or even completely fabricated kill claims.
The fourth explains that, as a ~50% heavier vehicle, the Panther was also able to bring a lot more gun and armor to the table, even if it was a very inefficient use of that amount of weight compared to the Pershing, IS-2, or T-44, all of which boasted equal or better protection from all sides (except the T-44's rear) and greater firepower in packages of ~5 tonnes less, about the same weight, and ~10 tonnes less, respectively. This is mostly due to the Panther being really, really big, and thus having a lot of surface to armor, thus driving up its weight. The armament issue is also exacerbated by the Panther's surprisingly anemic turret ring (an issue that plagued all German mediums), which was only slightly larger than the Panzer IV's and substantially smaller than the M4's (also note that the M4 had a freakishly huge turret ring, hence some of the crazy post-war modifications).
However, point four was also much of the Panther's downfall, especially when combined with the bad design of its final drive (no quality of steel would have saved it from its straight-cut final drive gears, especially given its weight), which in turn created much of the reliability issues that crippled the tank.
But it, in general, did NOT perform well, and your example of it performing well is specifically in the field of shooting tanks in front of it, the field we all admit the Panther was good in.
I think that Phonix is arguing that the Panther was good for more than shooting tanks directly in front of it. He's saying the Panther was good at shooting tanks all around it as evidenced by it's direct kill ratio against the T-34.
Darkrenown was emphasizing with his statement that the Panther was vulnerable from the sides. Phonix and I might counter the Panther had good agility and was often able to orient itself effectively, minimizing this weakness.
Darkrenown was emphasizing with his statement that the Panther was vulnerable from the sides. Phonix and I might counter the Panther had good agility and was often able to orient itself effectively, minimizing this weakness.
The fact that you find only mystifying things in what you just said and not in the revisionist soviet history that balmung60 keeps posting, is rather mystifying. And very worrying as you are developing the game.
To me it seemed Phonix was arguing against the fact that people seemed to think shooting at tanks was the only thing Panther was good at. Silly germans, they could have just slapped a turret with a 75mm L70 on an Opel Blitz if that is all it takes.
We already had podcat here claiming only 7 Tigers survived the war. Shape up dev team.
However, the Panther's ability to minimize the weakness of its side armor is highly contingent upon it not falling victim to its notoriously bad final drives, a weakness that would often be exacerbated if the Panther attempted to neutral steer, as it might wish to do to face a threat.
It's also a weakness that is very hard to hide from an enemy that you don't know the position of, which could and did lead to situations like a single hidden T-70 light tank knocking out 3 Panthers.
Well, not just that it was vulnerable from the sides in the sense it had weak armour, it was poor at engaging targets at the sides because:
The turret turned really slowly
The turret could not be turned on more than a 20 degree slope
Command/Gunner handoff time was poor
Pivot turning was likely to wreck the final drives
In the case of the Ausf D, it could not turn while reversing.
It still had a nice gun for shooting tanks though, and for the most part after the Panther appeared Germany was on the defensive and Panther units were kept in reserve to counter-attack Soviet attacks, so it could be used to its strengths in those situations.
Pretty much anything that has numbers in it. I already ignored him, but sadly his contribution still is visible in quotes. He is the person quoting some WoT website for reference, and apparently also quoting WoT tank statistics.
I noticed a person called Russian Bias on this thread, his post was equally enlightening.
Same thing happened when discussing Winter War with someone relying on soviet era schoolbooks for information. Even statistical losses provided by actual russian researchers with access and ability to read the documents could not get through.
I acknowledge the shortcomings of the Panther, but even with them it proved to be pretty darn efficient piece of machinery on the battlefield. When operated properly. Sadly for the germans, during the late war concentrating tanks in strong groups was not really possible, because Hitler. Even with this handicap, Panthers did inflict serious losses on the opposing forces.
I'd still argue, that Panther was the most complete tank of the war. Not perfect, but more so than the others. And personally i still adore Tiger the most.
Still trying to feed us that? In later models the turret rotated a full revolution in 15s with sufficient engine revs. Perfectly comparable to T-34 and M4.
So the only reasons the Panther had a very superior kill ratio against the T34 are the following:
1: The Panther was good at shooting tanks directly in front of it but sucked at everything else.
2: The Germans cheated on their loss statistics whereas the Soviet never did this
Conclusion: the T34 is a superior tank to the Panther?
I agree that if the Panther was never on the battlefield, it would be less effective tank. That's probably the most misleading comparison you've made yet, comparing a Pz2 to no tank at all. It might come across as comic exaggeration, if it wasn't made by the author of this earnest gem.
Given that he asserts that "later models" of the IS family could fire 6 rounds per minute, without mentioning that the model in question was the T-10 introduced in '53, he might define "any reasonable combat range" as close as 10 meters.
It might be better to ask what part of his post isn't ridiculously slated towards the conclusion of his choice.
Oh, if we can just declare ourselves correct then here goes: The Panther was a bad tank. Times infinity. No take-backs!
Do we only count later model Panthers when talking about Panthers? Even when taking about losses in '43? Even then you gotta hope the driver is in sync with the gunner when something pops up to one side.
Funny that it killed so many T34's in spite of this then, isn't it?
In regards to the turrent, consider this for the T34
http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html#an_4
to be clear, yes, the Pz2 thing was deliberate hyperbole.
And, no, any reasonable combat range is 600 to 800 meters, at which range the Sherman could easily knock out contemporary Panzers in the theater in which it was fighting. This means Mark 3 and 4 Panzers. The Panther was not yet fielded and the Tiger was not yet known to America.
Isn't that what you have been doing all the time? Repeating the same selective facts from early models. At some point you even admitted the improvement as the Panther matured. Seems you have regressed a bit. The guy was just quoted for saying Shermans were able to penetrate Panther frontally at all relevant combat ranges.
It seems you only count the early models. Kettle? Pot?
The Panther had a com mechanism, so the driver could be alerted to act accordingly. It does not take forever to rev the engine. Besides, if this would happen in a battle, it's unlikely that the revs would be too low to begin with.
Early losses in '43: Hitler. All Hitler. It was an absolute blunder to send untried tanks without adequate testing to the field in a massive battle against heavily entrenched enemy. Clearly a solid strategy. No one is denying the Panthers failing at Kursk. But they should not have been there to begin with, and would not have been if saner people had had any say in it.
I just noticed your location.. Destaliniation.. is that same as De-Stalinization?
No we were talking about France 1944. In that thread, as you are now, you were exhibiting your unjustified lack of esteem for the Panther. Specifically it's performance against the Sherman during the Battle of the Bulge.