Close Combat Series :: View topic - Mark V Panther tanks in GJS 4.4

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword

#1: Mark V Panther tanks in GJS 4.4 Author: Deshrex,

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:40 am
—
As the Allied player, I am just starting to encounter Panther tanks in GJS 4.4 for the first time. They seem like a pretty tough nut to crack for me. The Allies best AT asset, the 17 pdr., does not seem to easily kill them, at least with shots to frontal armor. Does anybody know the coding for these tanks? Are they supposed to be as formidable as the Tiger, or less so? I am assuming that they are coded so that a 17 pdr hit to frontal armor is a low odds proposition.

Does anybody know what the historical method for stopping these tanks was?

The April '06 issue of Military History magazine has an article on the campaign for St. Lo in the American sector of Normandy in early July '44. The article states that on July 11, two regiments of the Lehr, the 901 and 902, launched an attack to relieve American pressure on St. Lo. The article says the 901 was supported by 12 Panthers, while the 902 was supported by 20 Mark IVs. The attack got off to a good start, but the American line was able to absorb the blow, and by the afternoon with the aid of air support the attack was stopped and grievous losses were dealt to the Lehr. The article says 32 German tanks were lost. I don't know if the author means to say all the Panthers were destroyed or not.

My point is the Allies had ways of stopping these Panthers. They really were not free to move around the battlefield killing everything in their path. Maybe the Allies had to rely mostly on heavy arty. and air support. But I would guess some AT fire was involved too.

#2: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:57 am
—
definitely rear and flank attacks from close range.
getting into this position is of course another story.

#3: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:34 am
—
strange as it may seem i find a piat effective on panthers if u can get a side shot from close range...immobilisation after 1 or 2 shots... the 17 pounder i prefer from a long shot on side or rear then immediatly place in ambush mode if you have good cover then fire again while panther spins looking for source... of course u wont catch many panthers from close range if properly supported with assault troops or scouts... arty can immobilize panthers quiet effectively, but they are a source of concern,,, the other alternative if playing a gc is to let them rampage thru maps and bgs,, concentrate every oppertunity you have to slaughter their support troops.. eventually they will be left blinded by lack of support...

#4: Author: Glote,

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:37 am
—
Easy, just :plane them.
You just need to know in what BG there is one.

#5: Author: Cpt_Rio, Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:05 pm
—
The Panther frontal armor was 30 degree slopped, so it was way more efficient than the Tigee's 90 degree

#6: Author: poli, Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:02 pm
—
i have a 2 for one rule (3 for one is even better) when it comes to the panthers in GJS. Allways open fire on a panther with at least two tanks (prefer one sherman from a distance to "harrass" and a 17pd to come in for the flank shot while jerry is busy), another point is the rear armour.
On some maps i actually deploy my guns facing the wrong way! So that when the panthers inevitably overrun your position- the last thing they expect is a rear facing 6pounder!

Other than that- Airstrike!

#7: Author: Pzt_Kami, Location: IRAN

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:10 pm
—
Come on Deshrex,You say they are simulated more powerful than were.
But I think they were even more powerful than are in GJS.
As Cpt_Rio said,Thay have sloped armor and their frontal armor is 110mm
while Tiger's is 100mm.And dont forget that ,when we are talking about
"Panther",In fact we are talking about the best medium tank of WWII and
probably one of the best tanks of WWII.
They were "Panthers"

#8: i prefer Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:02 am
—
in close combat flame throwers, zooks side shots and grenade bundles, its my "FAVOURITE' way to kill

nothing is more satisfying....after 10 years soldiers destroying heavy tanks is my biggest thrill!

#9: Author: Glote,

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:17 am
—

Pzt_Kami wrote:

Come on Deshrex,You say they are simulated more powerful than were.
But I think they were even more powerful than are in GJS.
As Cpt_Rio said,Thay have sloped armor and their frontal armor is 110mm
while Tiger's is 100mm.And dont forget that ,when we are talking about
"Panther",In fact we are talking about the best medium tank of WWII and
probably one of the best tanks of WWII.
They were "Panthers"

But the Panter only hade a 75gun, the Tiger hade a 88... I'm not an expert but that sure make a diference for me.

#10: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:31 am
—
well actually both correct... the tiger could kill faster thus reducing returning fire.. the panther could sustain more damage and kill a little slower... pretty well equal but the panther was the evolveing choice for its better design... but lets not forget that quanity ie: the sherman... lowest of the low... beat quality the panther and its predecessors...

#11: Author: russ109,

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:47 am
—
Gloat wrote;

Quote:

But the Panter only hade a 75gun, the Tiger hade a 88... I'm not an expert but that sure make a diference for me.

The Panther's main gun was a 75 mm Rheinmetall KwK 42 L/70 with 79 rounds supported by two MG 34 machine guns. 75 mm was not a particularly large calibre for the time. Nonetheless, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of WWII, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since aiming was less sensitive to range. The 75 mm gun actually had more penetrating power than the 88 mm gun of the Tiger I, although not of the Tiger II.

The Panther was vunerable to flank and rear shots, the armour on later marks were increased but overall the Panther was one of the outstanding designs developed during WW2.

#12: Author: Glote,

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:21 am
—

Pzt_Kami wrote:

Yep you'r right on that !
The Tiger just hade a 88 gun, the panter a 75, but I guesse we can destroy most of the tank with that.

#13: Author: Tacloban,

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:04 pm
—
Historic: with planes and arty and sometimes pure attrition

Multiplayer: attrition (3 to 1 rule)

Against AI: Hang back and wait for it to do something stupid, won't take too long.

Historically, the Panthers were almost always heavily outnumbered, low on fuel, and crews were exhausted. In the game, a few German BGs can field about as many Panthers as the Allies have Shermans or Cromwells, which makes it very difficult. Cutting off the BG helps...a little.

Tacloban

#14: Author: Glote,

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:50 pm
—
Sorry of posting 2times the same thing, or nearly, I'm just very very tired.

#15: Author: aikmen, Location: Toronto Canada

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:03 am
—
I dunno about everyone else but u put 5 panthers together with at least 1 halftrack as bait and some recon infantry, you can pretty much drive right through anything allies have!

Aikmen

#16: Author: Pzt_Kami, Location: IRAN

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:17 pm
—
Thank you all;
I pleasured of your expertized remarks.
You right aikmen,In equal situation your suggested formation can beat any
Allied Battle groups. : Cool

I hope we have more conversations like this.
With my best Regards.

#17: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:15 am
—
Hi All, read with interest your remarks... it seems none of you have directly mentioned the most obvious advantage you have against tanks... terrain. You get your panthers into a build up area... a few of those 17pdr looking down the road with piats watching the approaches and maybe a tank, humber or something to deal with infantry... I have more success keeping panthers at bay using the allied infantry BGs in built up areas than any other method... and so much for piats... nothing more satisfying than a piat kill but overall I use them more as a scare tactic than a real tank killer. Several times I've let loose 6-12 piat shots from above and close range on a panther with little or no effect. Then other times one shot at almost full range on the piat and not only does it hit its target (as we all know pretty rare at range with a piat) and lucky me, boom, up goes the big cat.

I can't remember which map it was but I have kept panthers at bay in a stale mate knocking off 1 a battle where I can (2 if I'm lucky) for days and days while my other forces push through weaknesses in the line and flank, flank flank.

On the strat map or in the battle, I say flank the panthers!

Final word, never underestimate the power of flame against any tank...

#18: great replies Author: Deshrex,

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:08 am
—
Thank you everyone for the great replies.

I certainly agree with the school of thought that says the Panther was the best medium tank design of the war.

I guess the Panther was able to easily destroy the Sherman in most contests as long they were head-on. According to Max Hastings' book on Normandy (p.146), the 75 mm KwK 42 gun could penetrate 118 mm armor at 1000 yards, and of course the Sherman had only 76 mm frontal armor. The 75 mm gun of the Sherman, meanwhile, could only penetrate 74 mm armor at 100 yards (p.189). I don't have any info on the upgunned 76 mm Sherman.

Hastings says the Panther had the same 100 mm frontal armor of the Tiger I, but less side armor, with 45 mm for the one and 80 mm for the other. So the basic Sherman has some small hope only if it can get a side or rear shot in on the Panther.

But as far as the 17 pdr goes, the story is entirely different. Here are the specs as Hastings gives them on p. 205. These numbers are for the towed version of the gun, but I assume the numbers are the same for the Firefly and Achilles. The 17 pdr could penetrate 149 mm armor at 100 yds, 140 mm at 500 yds, 130 mm at 1000 yds.

I don't know how the coding for the 17 pdr is done in this game, but history suggests that for the ranges involved in GJS, the Panthers and Tigers really should have to worry about 17 pdr fire!

Another feature of the German tanks that writers mention is the slow turret traverse relative to the Sherman.

Slow turret traverse and the power of the 17 pdr were both factors in the demise of the Tiger ace Michael Whittmann on August 8. His small group of 4 Tigers that day was fighting with the 12 SS Hitlerjugend Division to hold open the Falaise Gap. The English troops were from the 33rd Independant Armoured Brigade, and were holding a pocket near the village of St Aignan-de-Cramesnil; the Germans were counterattacking to eliminate the English position. See Gary Simpson's book Tiger Ace, pps. 305-309. (There's lots of great research in this book, with tactical recreations of important tank battles in Whittmann's career, like the fighting in Villers-Bocage.) As The Tigers advanced with their turrets to the left, they came under fire from the right from several Shermans and one Firefly at a range of 800 yds. Using the tactic of 'shoot and scoot' and taking advantage of the slow traverse and of the difficulty the Tiger commanders had of locating the Firefly, this one tank was able to destroy the four Tigers in the space of about 10 to 15 mins. Good luck? Absolutely. But also good fighting backed up by a dangerous gun.

#19: Author: Heghemon,

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:28 pm
—
Firstofall sorry for my english. Now.. all u wrote is interesting but we just abandoned a gjs campaign couse of panthers.

with settings elite - elite at day 13 when panzers division storm the line my friend (ally) was forced back of one territory along all the line of fight.

Without hope to stop panthers that advance with their aufklarers as eyes he decided to flee from campaign : (

i played as german and i have to admit that the game was too isi to play.

Are settings incorrect?
Allied will have more powerful units the next days?

p.s.

my opponent was not a noob but my tanks won even when sorraunded!!

#20: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:51 pm
—
The GC is very winnable as Allies. You have to employ specific tactics vs the panthers. Just fighting them head on isnt a good idea... heres how some do it..

- Surround the unit if possible to cut them from supply. If you immobilize a panther in a battle, move on. It has a 60% chance of being removed after battle,

- assign your airstrikes to panthers only,

- gang up on them with infantry guns and tanks; and,

- if a panther has 3 out of 5 crew dead but the tank is still going, move on. The tank will be removed after battle.

#21: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:37 am
—
I played a GC once in gjs black devils with elite settings... I've never experienced anything like those king tigers and king jags... I was allies playing against a regular GC partner of mine (MarkusAur for those that might have played him as well). He's a good player but I usually would get the better of him, but it was always very tough going...

With those king-tanks on the elite setting he was truely terrible on the field. But after losing a mass of tanks (15+) in failed attempts to swam his king tiger I finally got it... with a PIAT!

I immobilised it with a piat shot of all things and it wasn't repaired!

Again when hit with someone who has the armour advantage... like I said, use cover... force him to send his infantry in, or bring his tanks into the enclosed spaces where you can ambush and swamp them.

Having played gjs black devils elite I think it favours the Germans too much. I sure know I'd find it very easy with those rolling land fortresses under my command.

Heghemon wrote:

with settings elite - elite at day 13 when panzers division storm the line my friend (ally) was forced back of one territory along all the line of fight.

Without hope to stop panthers that advance with their aufklarers as eyes he decided to flee from campaign : (

i played as german and i have to admit that the game was too isi to play.

Are settings incorrect?
Allied will have more powerful units the next days?

#22: Re: great replies Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:34 am
—
Hi!
Just some comments:).

Deshrex wrote:

I certainly agree with the school of thought that says the Panther was the best medium tank design of the war.

best AT tank:).
In reality Panther was almost incapable of fighting infantry as KwK42 HE shell was v weak. Actually it weighted less than APCBC.
Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther.

Quote:

I guess the Panther was able to easily destroy the Sherman in most contests as long they were head-on.

it just needed to hit.

Quote:

and of course the Sherman had only 76 mm frontal armor.

Early Shermans(that were used in Norm in June) had 51mm@56(from vertical) for High FHP that granted some 90-115mm of protection vs WW2 shells. And 51mm for Low FHP that was cast and could be pen. even by 3.7cm.
More to say all Sherman in June had flawed High FHP that drastically reduced protection. So in reality even 5cm L/60 could pen. it.
76mm@30deg(from vert) frontal armor was only for turret. But again it was cast...

Quote:

The 75 mm gun of the Sherman, meanwhile, could only penetrate 74 mm armor at 100 yards (p.189).

with early APC(AP=US designation).
By June 1944 APCBC(APC=US designation) were available. They could pen some 84mm@100m/90deg.

Quote:

I don't have any info on the upgunned 76 mm Sherman.

the first 76mm Shermans were M4A1(w) and were used in Op.Cobra for first time. It was July.

Quote:

Hastings says the Panther had the same 100 mm frontal armor of the Tiger

again not correct.
Panther had 85mm@55deg(from vertical) for High FHP and 65mm@55deg(from vertical) for Low FHP that granted protection of some 140-160mm and 130-150mm respectivly vs WW2 shells.
And only turret had 100mm but had curved shape so shell would have v high chnce to rico.
While Tiger had 102mm minimum in frontal hull and up to 200mm maximum in some parts of turret front.

Quote:

but less side armor, with 45 mm for the one and 80 mm for the other.

Panther D/A had 40mm@40deg for high side hull and 40mm@0 for low side hull.
Panther G had 50mm@30deg for high side hull.
And only turret sides were 45mm@25deg.
While Tiger had 82mm@0 for turret sides and 82mm@20 for high side and 82mm@0 for low die hull.

Quote:

So the basic Sherman has some small hope only if it can get a side or rear shot in on the Panther.

indeed plus it could pen Panther in turret ring.

Quote:

The 17 pdr could penetrate 149 mm armor at 100 yds, 140 mm at 500 yds, 130 mm at 1000 yds.

indeed but vs what angle it was? and what armor quality?
i've read UK reports and it is said there that 17pdr can pen. Panther HFHP at up to 300m with APC shell and at point black with APCBC.
Turret could be pen. at 600m.

Quote:

Another feature of the German tanks that writers mention is the slow turret traverse relative to the Sherman.

Sherman could make full circle in 15sec. Panther G could make it in 19sec, PzIVH slightly slower. Tiger/Panther D could make it in 60sec Very Happy

.
Not big difference yeah? Wink

But in reality Panther/PzIV/Tiger had much better chnces to spot Sherman than vice-versa so turret traverse wouldn't matter at all.
Btw due to it's hull square shape Tiger could align hull v fast. Much faster than any other turetted tank:).

#23: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:58 am
—
Ye

Recommended reading of reports (of 17 pd Sherman’s etc) and such of test fires against different tanks:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/documents.htm

ye

Stalky
[/quote]

#24: Re: great replies Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:22 pm
—

Dima wrote:

Hi!
Just some comments:).

Deshrex wrote:

I certainly agree with the school of thought that says the Panther was the best medium tank design of the war.

Quote:

I guess the Panther was able to easily destroy the Sherman in most contests as long they were head-on.

it just needed to hit.

Quote:

and of course the Sherman had only 76 mm frontal armor.

Quote:

The 75 mm gun of the Sherman, meanwhile, could only penetrate 74 mm armor at 100 yards (p.189).

with early APC(AP=US designation).
By June 1944 APCBC(APC=US designation) were available. They could pen some 84mm@100m/90deg.

Quote:

I don't have any info on the upgunned 76 mm Sherman.

the first 76mm Shermans were M4A1(w) and were used in Op.Cobra for first time. It was July.

Quote:

Hastings says the Panther had the same 100 mm frontal armor of the Tiger

Quote:

but less side armor, with 45 mm for the one and 80 mm for the other.

Quote:

So the basic Sherman has some small hope only if it can get a side or rear shot in on the Panther.

indeed plus it could pen Panther in turret ring.

Quote:

The 17 pdr could penetrate 149 mm armor at 100 yds, 140 mm at 500 yds, 130 mm at 1000 yds.

Quote:

Another feature of the German tanks that writers mention is the slow turret traverse relative to the Sherman.

Sherman could make full circle in 15sec. Panther G could make it in 19sec, PzIVH slightly slower. Tiger/Panther D could make it in 60sec Very Happy

.
Not big difference yeah? Wink

ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life

#25: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:34 am
—

Quote:

ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life

wow, such an argument!
guess one of the most smartest thing u've ever told.

#26: Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:39 pm
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life

wow, such an argument!
guess one of the most smartest thing u've ever told.

so your argument resorts to slaging me off ???

no counter argument to your sherman comments ???

ic nothing ( slag kampfe off and back stab him ill make kampfe look stupid)
sorry you are the person that looks stuid and the idiots that belive your data shit belive you ,,
dima quote " "Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther. "

lolololololololololololololololololololol

so why did they desiagn pershing???

#27: hmmm? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:52 pm
—
Hmm

Quote Dima : “Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther.”

US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..?

Here is a serious web page:

Here is Excelent reading of cast hull RHP/FHP, and data of all sorts, and how guns and difference tank preforme against each others official data form tests:

Panther facts tests etc:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

Loads of facts:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/documents.htm

Some Tiger facts:
http://www.alanhamby.com/technical.html

Some Gun data page:
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/

I must say GJS is the best mod ever, but is it a mod? Really? I alwasy seen GJS as CC6...

I must say Attilla and crew made a mod that sets the standard for the rest of us.

Stalkyy

#28: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:22 pm
—
kamf,

Quote:

so your argument resorts to slaging me off ???

interesting how u turn it all upside down.
U quoted my reply fully and told that it is 'contradictory bollox' w/o explaining anything.

Quote:

no counter argument to your sherman comments ???

if u wanted to comment my saying about Sherman, why didn't u quote only it?

Quote:

ic nothing ( slag kampfe off and back stab him ill make kampfe look stupid)
sorry you are the person that looks stuid and the idiots that belive your data shit belive you ,,

once again u turn it upside down. And even more, u insult me w/o showing any argument.

Quote:

dima quote " "Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther. "
lolololololololololololololololololololol

now i can c what in my reply u don't like.
1).It is My Opinion. That's why i put IMO.
2).I posted why i think so. Do u have counter arguments?

Quote:

so why did they desiagn pershing???

well they started with M2m.
Why did they design M3m and then M4?

Stalk,

Quote:

US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..?

According US doctrine tanx don't fite tanx. Tk Destoryers and ATGs do it.
What other things than excellent gun were much better in Panther than in Sherman?

didn't they have possibility? Do u really think USA couldn't just copy Panther? But as kamf mentioned they preffered Pershing.

Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?

Quote:

I must say Attilla and crew made a mod that sets the standard for the rest of us.

second that totally.

#29: Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:14 pm
—
once again u turn it upside down. And even more, u insult me w/o showing
any argument

kam..
well you've insulted me many times in past so if i done it to "hay" i got 1 back on you

now i can c what in my reply u don't like.
1).It is My Opinion. That's why i put IMO.
2).I posted why i think so. Do u have counter arguments?

kam...
quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1

sry not to go into more detail but i think this covers our argument .. you cant beat the truth from the guys that were there in1944

#30: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:46 pm
—
Quote:
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..?

Quote Dima: According US doctrine tanx don't fite tanx. Tk Destoryers and ATGs do it.

Answer, well, why did they up gun the Sherman’s if they was so happy with it in its roll where it had, and to dodging Germans tanks? The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3. And then we have the Fire fly, im rather sure it was not for infantry killing it was changed for. You know at the end of war roughly 50% of the Sherman’s had received 76mm guns, wonder why, as they was so pleased with the 75mm ? ?

Quote Dima: What other things than excellent gun were much better in Panther than in Sherman?

Answer: Well, what about armour, and as u insinuated in your first post, what about the panther’s optics?? And btw, wats the pourpose of a tank except its gun? Isnt that the whole ide with a tank? I meen kill power and protection?
And yes, panther gun is better, panther armoure is better, so maybe i draw wrong conclusion to belive Panther to be better as it is better in the two fundamental causes one even build and use tanks...

Quote Dima: didn't they have possibility? Do u really think USA couldn't just copy Panther?
Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946? And why would they copy Panther, US had Perching in the pipelines dint they?
And talk of copy, what about armour, why dint they copy the excellent steel alloys and treatment of armour? Well, US did “in a way” dint them? Have you seen a later (1944) Sherman and studied what they changed?

Quote Dima: But as kamf mentioned they preffered Pershing.
Answer: Ofcose, who wouldn’t? So exactly what are you saying here?

Quote Dima: Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?
Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2? And how many Sherman’s? Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better? Ohh, ic.

Well, this is just my humble analys.

Stalk

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

#31: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:51 pm
—

Quote:

rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1

once again, Sherman(75)'s main role was to fite soft targets. It did it v good. While was able to deal with most tanx of the enemy at real distances of combat.
Now say what was the chnce for Sherman to meet Panther/Tiger? V low in comparison to chnce of meeting enemy infanty,ATGs or AVFs it could deal with.

Panther was meant to be 'AT Tank'. So it was amust that it should win any other tank. In fighting soft targets it was not good.
But in such role (Anti-tank) JPIV, StuG40, etc were v good as well and costed much less.

According this logic('5:1 ratio'), do u think that 1 Panther crew will engage if it c 4 Shermans?

#32: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:31 am
—
main reason shermans went on the m4a1 to m4a2 so on route
coz it was financially cheaper to add the upgrades part at a time,also they were in a serious learning curve.
compare their tanks of 4 to 5 years earlier.
this way a upgrade could be added on the production lines without significantly changing too much.
the most important thing at the time was to keep producing them
as they knew germany couldnt!
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.

#33: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:52 am
—

Quote:

Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?

Dima my guess is that the Panthers were all destroyed, and the same with the factories that made them. So this would mean no spare parts, nobody ready to train new crews etc etc....

Quote:

US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility

If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt?

#34: Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:32 am
—

mooxe wrote:

Quote:

Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?

Dima my guess is that the Panthers were all destroyed, and the same with the factories that made them. So this would mean no spare parts, nobody ready to train new crews etc etc....

Quote:

US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility

If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt?

After 1945, fifty Panther tanks had been used by French 503e Régiment de Chars de Combat stationed in Mourmelon le Grand. Before the end of 1950, the Panther tanks had been replaced by French-built ARL-44 heavy tanks.

#35: Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:35 am
—
[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

According this logic('5:1 ratio'), do u think that 1 Panther crew will engage if it c 4 Shermans?

i belive your lerning Rolling Eyes

#36: Ahha... Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:25 am
—
Quote Dima: once again, Sherman(75)'s main role was to fite soft targets. It did it v good. While was able to deal with most tanx of the enemy at real distances of combat.

Answer, well, how come Dima, in the end of war some 50% of the Sherman’s was equipped with 76mm guns as the 76mm was really not good for HE Shells? They started this conversion in early – mid and fall of 1944. If the Sharman’s WAS NOT to be able to encounter enemy tanks why would one change this? Why remove the 75 mm with its HE abilities and replace with a basically AP fire gun. It don’t makes no sense for an infantry support tank to not be able to fire HE does it? ? ? ??? ?? ?
To me it’s obvious…

Quote Dima: Panther was meant to be 'AT Tank'. So it was amust that it should win any other tank. In fighting soft targets it was not good.
Answer: ??? Not good? How can that be? A Stug 75mm L/24 and the early IV tanks had 75mm L/24 and they were used as infantry support tanks, used mainly for HE at that time. And they all had same weight of their HE shell as the panther,.. The 75mm L/24 use the HE 34 model, and it was same weight, but less powerful, compared to the Panther who had the “60/40” -42 shell. So Panthers must have been an improvment? ! ?
As an example a 8cm mort shell weights some 3.5 – 4,5 kg..

Quote Dima: But in such role (Anti-tank) JPIV, StuG40, etc were v good as well and costed much less.
Answer, ehhh, well, the military analysis during and after ww2 doesn’t really seems to agree with you that a turret less tank destroyer is “v good” ... I would say its “ok”, but not good, and serenely not "v good"… It was a budget solution in a stressed time. And after WW2 nearly all tank designs was favoured turrets, so I guess they don’t agree with you, and nor do I.
A turret has so much advantages compared to a “fixed” or semi fixed gun. A turret less tank is in huge disadvantage in a close and in moving situation.

My much humble analyze, done in 10 min so sorry if my Englich is bad...

Slacky

#37: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:48 am
—
stalk,

Quote:

Answer, well, why did they up gun the Sherman’s if they was so happy with it in its roll where it had, and to dodging Germans tanks?

mainly to increase range of direct shot.

Quote:

The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3.

1)Long before they met first Panther.
2)They began to fit Shermans with 105mm pretty same time to compensate weakness of 76mm HE shell.

Quote:

And then we have the Fire fly, im rather sure it was not for infantry killing it was changed for.

indeed. Specialized 'Tank Killer'. According UK doctrine tanx main targets were tanx. But still there were CS tanx.
Why do u think yanks refused to use C-versions?

Quote:

You know at the end of war roughly 50% of the Sherman’s had received 76mm guns, wonder why, as they was so pleased with the 75mm ? ?

They produced less than 8000 76mm Shermans for USArmy. While in same time they produced ~5000 of Shermans(105mm) and ~11500 of late Shermans(75).
Why do u think they didn't stop production of 75mm versions?

Try this book:
"US Army Tank Crewman 1941-45: European Theater of Operations 1944-45"/S.Zaloga/Osprey 2002.

some v interesting things there. One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75 on Sherman 76 as it put them in disadvantage against infantry and ATGs that were the most common enemies.

Quote:

Answer: Well, what about armour, and as u insinuated in your first post, what about the panther’s optics??

Late Shermans recieved 64mm@47(from vert) that granted average protection against most common AT Weapons german had(Kwk42 was not common in comparison to pak40 and varients) at real distances of combat.
Sherman had good optics for it's gun. Take into account that unlike Panther it wasn't meant to fire at 1500m.

Quote:

And btw, wats the pourpose of a tank except its gun? Isnt that the whole ide with a tank?

U misses tank with tk destroyer.

Quote:

I meen kill power and protection?

Tank as a system, depends on mobility, gun, protection, crew, tactics.
1)Sherman had good mobility.
2)Sherman's gun was good for the task it's main tasks.
3)Sherman's protection was adeqvate.
4)US crews were mostly in good level of training.
5)germans tank tactics was more advanced.

Quote:

Panther to be better as it is better in the two fundamental causes one even build and use tanks...

Panther was good medium tank for germans.
Sherman was good medium tank for allies.

They were meant for diferent purposes. I really doubt that allies could reach Germany if they had Panthers instead of Shermans.

Quote:

Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946?

at least in March 1945 Pershing wasn't in serie.

Quote:

And talk of copy, what about armour, why dint they copy the excellent steel alloys and treatment of armour? Well, US did “in a way” dint them?

interesting...r u saying US copied german way of producing armour?

Quote:

Have you seen a later (1944) Sherman and studied what they changed?

late Shermans entered production since fall of 1943 when US found the way of producing single piece armor plates for FHP.

Quote:

Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2?

sev hundreds.

Quote:

Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better?

well PzIV were used long after WW2 although not many of them survived after the war as well.

Quote:

Well, this is just my humble analys.

good.
At last we can have good discussion w/o emotional background Wink

.

Lord4War,

Quote:

main reason shermans went on the m4a1 to m4a2 so on route
coz it was financially cheaper to add the upgrades part at a time,also they were in a serious learning curve.

not really.
Most of models entered production pretty same time. Mostly depended on factory.

Quote:

im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.

well actually KwK42 would pen. both Panther and Pershing at 600-800m.

mooxe,

Quote:

Dima my guess is that the Panthers were all destroyed, and the same with the factories that made them. So this would mean no spare parts, nobody ready to train new crews etc etc....

yes pretty much like this with spare parts, etc.
But as i told PzIV was in longer service.
Btw after WW2 Panthers were in service in Hungary,Czechoslovakia(~70) and France(50).

Quote:

If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt?

yanks had M4A1(76) by June 1944. But they didn't use them by July 1944.

kamf,

Quote:

i belive your lerning

do u mean by that that u think lone Panther would engage 4 Shermans?

#38: Ok Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:23 am
—
Quote Dima:
Quote:
Answer, well, why did they up gun the Sherman’s if they was so happy with it in its roll where it had, and to dodging Germans tanks?

Dima: mainly to increase range of direct shot.

Answer: Well, what are you saying here exactly? “range” is that the purpose? Well it comes with grater velocity and hit power… Range? Is that you way to analyze the cause to swoop from 75mm to 76mm? And loose the HE shell as well? What propose does a AP gun not be able to use HE be in infantry support`? Range? Is that your analyze why they removed the HE ability to an infantry support tank? Or can it be the US wanted some AT ability to there Sherman’s?

Quote Dima:

Quote:
The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3.

Dima: 1)Long before they met first Panther.
Dima: 2)They began to fit Shermans with 105mm pretty same time to compensate weakness of 76mm HE shell.

Answer 1: So you are saying the US didn’t have a clew the Panther was in Germans troops when they landed in Normandy? Are you saying they dint have reports from Russia for example what they was up against (or nearly as bad experiances with the Tigers?) ? It fell to UK / US hands you know in africa.
Do you really believe US dint know there Sherman’s 75mm guns was not up to meet Panthers and Tigers?
Answer 2: Ohh, so they did, and what was the 76mm then produced and fitted for, as they made the 105 for compensate for the bad HE in 76mm? What do you believe the 76mm was to be used for? For farm work in the filed, maybe? Or Killing infantry with AP rounds at "range"... ? Ehh?

Quote Dima:
some v interesting things there. One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75 on Sherman 76 as it put them in disadvantage against infantry and ATGs that were the most common enemies.

Answer: well I take your word for it, but read what you just written, “One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75”, yes, ONE YOU SAY dint want to change the 75mm… That’s an exception… Atleast to me, for the 75mm was changed was it not...

Quote Dima:
Late Shermans recieved 64mm@47(from vert) that granted average protection against most common AT Weapons german had(Kwk42 was not common in comparison to pak40 and varients) at real distances of combat.
Sherman had good optics for it's gun. Take into account that unlike Panther it wasn't meant to fire at 1500m.
Answer 1: Ehh, a Pak 40 can kill a Sherman…
Answer 2: You say “Take into account that unlike Panther it wasn't meant to fire at 1500m.” Well, 90 to 95 % of battle in Europe between tank vs tank was WITHIN 1000 meters.

Quote Dima:

Quote:
I meen kill power and protection?

Dima: Tank as a system, depends on mobility, gun, protection, crew, tactics.
1)Sherman had good mobility.
2)Sherman's gun was good for the task it's main tasks.
3)Sherman's protection was adeqvate.
4)US crews were mostly in good level of training.
5)germans tank tactics was more advanced.
Answer, ahhh, well, again I say Fire Power and Protection is what its about, but ofcose other things make up a tank, it’s a chain and links have to be somewhat “ok” in general, obvious really to most ppl, goes for verything in life, imo..
But it don’t matter how god them other thing is if you don’t have “firepower and protection”, set Michael Withman in a PzI and I bet any rocky Sherman or Stuart crew would beat him 99 times of 100… Pretty obvious to me…

Quote Dima:

Quote:
Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946?

Dima: at least in March 1945 Pershing wasn't in serie.
Answer: What are you saying here, what does that have to do with anything? ? Can you explain plz?
So you say they should have scraped the Pershing project and tool making preparations and build a copy of a less good tank, a “US –Panther” ?? Why would the US scrap a better construction and build a less good tank? You aren’t making any sense to me…
(( And its not be in production is not really fully right either, but it dont matter, ofcose.
From "http://www.tarrif.net/" Although not standardized until March 1945, Pershings had been sent to the European Theater of Operations as T26E3s with the Zebra Mission in January 1945..))
There are even some really nice film form Pershing fighting a Panther in Köln. And guess who won?
See movie here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsYWNjJN_V0

Quote Dima:

Quote:
Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2?

Dima: sev hundreds.
Answer: So? And how many Sherman’s was there? Cant you see the huge difference.. Or do you think its no major difference in them figures? I take your word it was 200, but ehmmm maybe you can look at Shermans numbers…

Quote Dima:

Quote:
Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better?
Dima: well PzIV were used long after WW2 although not many of them survived after the war as well.
Answer: What exactly are you say here? That the IV is there for a better tank then the Panther? Is that the conclusions you draw?

Quote Dima:

Quote:
Well, this is just my humble analys.

Dima: good.
At last we can have good discussion w/o emotional background
Answer: Well, you say Sherman’s is an overall better tank than the Panther, may I disagree with you? Maybe we can see each other arguments, and maybe one of us may come to change there minds.
Or it’s all ok with me that we agree to disagree. Maybe that’s the simplest way…

Stalky

Well, I rest my case... Lets get a beer isntead..
[/b]

#39: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:50 pm
—
Double post

Last edited by ANZAC_Lord4war on Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

#40: Re: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:22 pm
—
i pulled figures for production of M4 Sherman
M4 75mm were in production for nearly 2 years before 76mm & 105mm
Total War time production
75mm 33403
76mm 10883
105mm 4680

Now for 1944 production figures
75mm 3504
76mm 7135
105mm 2286

now for 1945 production figures
75mm 651
76mm 3748
105mm 2394

seems the 76mm was gun of choice
of them 33403 75mm shermans
29248 of them were made before the 76mm gun came into production.

also M26 production
for 1944 was 40 Pershings
1945 was 2162 Pershings

ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:

Quote:
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.

Dima wrote:

well actually KwK42 would pen. both Panther and Pershing at 600-800m.

what range would it do a sherman at?

#41: Author: 4Reich,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:48 pm
—
"I really doubt that allies could reach Germany if they had Panthers instead of Shermans. "

LoL, thats the most stupid thing I have ever heard sorry .

The only thing the US/GB where good in was bombing.
Thats what saved there ass and not the crapy sherman tanks who got the nick:"Tommycooker" given by the Germans because they began to burn when they where under MG42 fire.... :jumpfire
Germans would have kicked the shit out of the Brits and US in landcombat if they got the same number or even less tanks then them and they wouldnt been involved in the eastern front at the same time.

#42: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:25 pm
—
Stalk,

let me answer all yer replies before u reply again, plz.
Will be 2 of mine:).

Quote:

Answer, well, how come Dima, in the end of war some 50% of the Sherman’s was equipped with 76mm guns as the 76mm was really not good for HE Shells?

they got plenty of 105mm to compensate 76mm HE weakness.

Quote:

If the Sharman’s WAS NOT to be able to encounter enemy tanks why would one change this? Why remove the 75 mm with its HE abilities and replace with a basically AP fire gun.

i have never told that Sherman was NOT TO BE ABLE to engage enemy tanx.
i just mean that it's main targets were soft. While it was able to engage most of german tanx.

Quote:

It don’t makes no sense for an infantry support tank to not be able to fire HE does it? ? ? ??? ?? ?

for first it was pretty same as in UK Army. 1 76mm for 3-4 75mm. Later when they received enuf 105mm they could increase number of 76mm.

Quote:

Answer: ??? Not good? How can that be? A Stug 75mm L/24 and the early IV tanks had 75mm L/24 and they were used as infantry support tanks, used mainly for HE at that time. And they all had same weight of their HE shell as the panther,..

ehh, compare weight of HE filler and not the shell itself.

Quote:

The 75mm L/24 use the HE 34 model, and it was same weight, but less powerful, compared to the Panther who had the “60/40” -42 shell. So Panthers must have been an improvment? ! ?

check muzzle velocity of L/24 and L/71. And then compare thickness of shell sides and materials that were used for them.

Quote:

As an example a 8cm mort shell weights some 3.5 – 4,5 kg..

bad comparison imho.

Quote:

Answer, ehhh, well, the military analysis during and after ww2 doesn’t really seems to agree with you that a turret less tank destroyer is “v good”

they were not good in offence actions yes.
But in defence, their low silouethe and powerfull gun was great combination. It was v hard to spot them especially when they lost muzzle breaks(JPIV,Hetzer,etc).

Quote:

It was a budget solution in a stressed time.

just like C-serie of Shermans.

Quote:

And after WW2 nearly all tank designs was favoured turrets, so I guess they don’t agree with you, and nor do I.

french,sweds... j/king Wink

.
Stalk, i pointed turretless, as they were cheaper and were meant for same tasks as Panther was.

Quote:

A turret has so much advantages compared to a “fixed” or semi fixed gun. A turret less tank is in huge disadvantage in a close and in moving situation

they were not meant to attack. They were meant to provide mobile AT defence and to counter attack vs disorganized enemy.

#43: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:44 pm
—
stalk,

2nd reply:)

Quote:

Answer: Well, what are you saying here exactly? “range” is that the purpose? Well it comes with grater velocity and hit power…

mainly.
u prolly know that there were no range-finders during WW2 and effective range with AP was limited to direct fire range.

Quote:

Is that your analyze why they removed the HE ability to an infantry support tank?

plz don't say that i told something i didn't tell.
I told that Sherman(75)'s main targets were soft not that it was infantry support tank. As only Sherman(105) became it.
Plus 76mm HE shell was pretty same as Kwk40 had.

Quote:

Or can it be the US wanted some AT ability to there Sherman’s?

when they encountered PzIV(l) for first time, Shermans couldn't engage them at the range PzIV could. Not becoz 75mm couldn't pen PzIV but coz of Direct Shot Range. Then PzIV received 80mm of frontal armour and it became even harder to KO it at med-long distances.
US chose 2 ways:
1)design of new 75mm AP shells
2)design of new gun.

Quote:

Answer 1: So you are saying the US didn’t have a clew the Panther was in Germans troops when they landed in Normandy?

as i already mentioned, they started to design 76mm long before first Panther saw action during Zitadelle.

Quote:

Do you really believe US dint know there Sherman’s 75mm guns was not up to meet Panthers and Tigers?

do u really think 76mm could pen. Tiger or Panther from front?
Answer for Panthers and Tigers was 90mm.

Quote:

Ohh, so they did, and what was the 76mm then produced and fitted for, as they made the 105 for compensate for the bad HE in 76mm?

76mm was better than 75mm in case of Direct Shot Range and of coz it had better penetration.

Quote:

Answer: well I take your word for it, but read what you just written, “One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75”, yes, ONE YOU SAY dint want to change the 75mm… That’s an exception… Atleast to me, for the 75mm was changed was it not...

some v interesting things there. One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75 on.....
try to read all the sentence. One of them=one of v interesting things in book.

Quote:

Answer 1: Ehh, a Pak 40 can kill a Sherman…

of coz it can. And Sherman can kill Panther.

Quote:

Well, 90 to 95 % of battle in Europe between tank vs tank was WITHIN 1000 meters.

yes and withing Direct Range of Shot Sherman had good optics.

Quote:

Withman in a PzI and I bet any rocky Sherman or Stuart crew would beat him 99 times of 100

bad comparison imho, PzI is lite tank w/o gun. But in combat veteran crew of PzIII will have v good chnces to KO SHerman. And vice-versa. As not tanx fite but men in them.

Quote:

So you say they should have scraped the Pershing project and tool making preparations and build a copy of a less good tank, a “US –Panther” ?? Why would the US scrap a better construction and build a less good tank? You aren’t making any sense to me…

check why this started: US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility…
that's why they didn't trade SHerman for Panther. As they had better construction in development.

Quote:

There are even some really nice film form Pershing fighting a Panther in Köln. And guess who won?

i have photos of Pershing KO by Nashorn. And Pershing KO by TigerI.
But that's diferent discussion. We r speaking about Sherman and Panther here Wink

Quote:

I take your word it was 200, but ehmmm maybe you can look at Shermans numbers…

ye prolly. Don't have exact numbers but i guess something like that.
Of coz there were more Shermans. US produced crapload of good medium tanx and destroyed all the super-excellent-invincible german tanx.
Germany lost so it's tank conception wasn't that good.

Quote:

Answer: What exactly are you say here? That the IV is there for a better tank then the Panther? Is that the conclusions you draw?

i'd say it was much more reliable. And repairable.

Quote:

Answer: Well, you say Sherman’s is an overall better tank than the Panther, may I disagree with you?

that's why discussion r needed Very Happy

Quote:

Maybe we can see each other arguments, and maybe one of us may come to change there minds.
Or it’s all ok with me that we agree to disagree. Maybe that’s the simplest way…

yep.

Lord4War,

from the number of 76mm SHermans u should extract ~3000 of M4A2 that were not used by USArmy.

Quote:

for 1944 was 40 Pershings

hmm, have read in several sources that there were 20 of them till March of 1945.

Quote:

what range would it do a sherman at?

as Stalk, pointed majority of tank engagement were at less than 1000m.
So would matter if it could kill Sherman at 1500-2500m. It won't hit or in most situation won't c it.

4Reich,

Quote:

LoL, thats the most stupid thing I have ever heard sorry .

before accusing someone in stupidity u'd better argument yer statement.

Quote:

Thats what saved there ass and not the crapy sherman tanks who got the nick:"Tommycooker" given by the Germans because they began to burn when they where under MG42 fire....

nah, they always KO Shermans with Walther PPK.

Quote:

Germans would have kicked the shit out of the Brits and US in landcombat if they got the same number or even less tanks then them and they wouldnt been involved in the eastern front at the same time.

so german strategy and concepts were wrong. Agreed.

#44: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:25 pm
—

Dima wrote:

Stalk,

Dima: et me answer all yer replies before u reply again, plz.
Will be 2 of mine:).
Answer: Sorry, your right there, i got carried away. LOL, But remember Guns is my big passion. Smile

Quote:

Answer, well, how come Dima, in the end of war some 50% of the Sherman’s was equipped with 76mm guns as the 76mm was really not good for HE Shells?

Dima: they got plenty of 105mm to compensate 76mm HE weakness.

Answer: Ye? But why are you dodgin the question, why EVEN FIT A 76mm AP gun to a infantry support tank, that cant fire good HE shells? (if its not ment for AT...)

Quote:

If the Sharman’s WAS NOT to be able to encounter enemy tanks why would one change this? Why remove the 75 mm with its HE abilities and replace with a basically AP fire gun.

Dima: i have never told that Sherman was NOT TO BE ABLE to engage enemy tanx.i just mean that it's main targets were soft. While it was able to engage most of german tanx.

Answer: So, then why wold one fit a 76mm gun asit has less/no HE capabillety, if main targets are soft? Makes no sence does it...

Quote:

It don’t makes no sense for an infantry support tank to not be able to fire HE does it? ? ? ??? ?? ?

Dima: for first it was pretty same as in UK Army. 1 76mm for 3-4 75mm. Later when they received enuf 105mm they could increase number of 76mm.
Answer: ?? Why wold they increas numbers of 76mm if they are to be used as Infantry support tanks as u say? Why not keept the 75mm that fired good HE shell, or even better got more 105mm? Pretty obvious, to me...

Quote:

Dima : ehh, compare weight of HE filler and not the shell itself.

Answer, uj uj uj uj,
Well, the HE 34 for early stug and IV 75m L/24 had weight of 5,74 Kg of that it had 0,69 Kg of 100% Amatol.
The HE 42 for the Panther had weight of 5,74 Kg of that it had 0,61 Kg of Amatol/TNT 60/40. The Amatol has lower detonation speed than TNT, ie TNT has a higher, and its density in mm3 they by the weight in mm3 is less, and TNT destructive power is, yes "some" more..
To make it simple, the HE in Panther HE 42 grenade is detonating in much more speed compared to the HE 34, the diffrence in High Explosive blast is about "up to" 50% more speed in Panther HE explosives, so what do you think? Them few grams in diffrance in HE filler compared to the much more destructibe force of the explosives in them? chall i calculate it?

Quote:

The 75mm L/24 use the HE 34 model, and it was same weight, but less powerful, compared to the Panther who had the “60/40” -42 shell. So Panthers must have been an improvment? ! ?

Dima: check muzzle velocity of L/24 and L/71. And then compare thickness of shell sides and materials that were used for them.Answer: Look abow please. And btw, the 80 grams more of weight in steel in HE 42, do you know how much steel that is, I meen how much more steel for "thickness" that is?
Well, steel has a desity of 7.8 metric weight value. That would be same as 10cm3, well, thats the size some sugure cube. Not that much steel, or?

Quote:

As an example a 8cm mort shell weights some 3.5 – 4,5 kg..

Dima: bad comparison imho.
Answer, o really? why? if i get a 5.7 kg Shell 10 meters from me or a Mortar shell of 3,5 - 4,5 Kg i wold PRAY for that mortar shell... But how they can target somthing may be really diferance, but thats not what we talk of here is it.. But a HE shell of same weight, compared to a Mortar shell, with same fuse, does it really matter, wold be a bad day?

Quote:

Answer, ehhh, well, the military analysis during and after ww2 doesn’t really seems to agree with you that a turret less tank destroyer is “v good”

Dima: they were not good in offence actions yes.
But in defence, their low silouethe and powerfull gun was great combination. It was v hard to spot them especially when they lost muzzle breaks(JPIV,Hetzer,etc).
Answer: Yes, well, military analyssist and generals making there Xmas list after WW2 what they whant, seem not to agree whit you dima. But as a low cost option, they can be "ok".

Quote:

It was a budget solution in a stressed time.

just like C-serie of Shermans.

Quote:

And after WW2 nearly all tank designs was favoured turrets, so I guess they don’t agree with you, and nor do I.

Dima: french,sweds... j/king Wink

.
Stalk, i pointed turretless, as they were cheaper and were meant for same tasks as Panther was.
Answer: hmmm, "meent for same task as Panther?" Well, Panther was offencive and defencive, and JPZ and fixed and semifixed guns are mostly for defence... But, ye, Swedes made a turretless Tanks, Smile

and it was an intresting project and sulutions to things, but thats for another thread.. Smile

Quote:

A turret has so much advantages compared to a “fixed” or semi fixed gun. A turret less tank is in huge disadvantage in a close and in moving situation

Dima: they were not meant to attack. They were meant to provide mobile AT defence and to counter attack vs disorganized enemy.
Answer, so do you agree with me after all, grate? ? ?

Lets end this,

I dont whan to reply no more, lets have a big beer instead.

You think a Sherman is a overall better tank then Panther, I dont.

Lets agree we are just not agreing here. And just leave it.

Stalk

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

#45: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:03 pm
—
lol u seem slightly delusional Dima
ur making stuff up trying to be right!

Quote:

Quote:
for 1944 was 40 Pershings

Quote:

hmm, have read in several sources that there were 20 of them till March of 1945.

im talking production figures made as stated on top of my thread.
of them 40 pershings 20 were sent to europe in january 1945 named as another tank Wink

for a certain mission.

here i said

Quote:

ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:
Quote:
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.

u quoted me and replied

Quote:

Dima wrote:
well actually KwK42 would pen. both Panther and Pershing at 600-800m.

so i then asked a question

Quote:

what range would it do a sherman at?

Quote:

as Stalk, pointed majority of tank engagement were at less than 1000m.
So would matter if it could kill Sherman at 1500-2500m. It won't hit or in most situation won't c it.

basically trying to get him to answer himself here
he knows what ranges the pershing and panther can get taken out by a certain german gun,well can that same gun open a sherman up from further away?
maybe even outside its direct hit range?

but if gun could kill sherman at 1500
and only kill panther at 800metres
which tank would a person with a brain rather be in?

#46: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:04 pm
—
stalk,

let's try to sum the things up.

1)Sherman wasn't Infantry Support tank. But it's main targets were soft ones according US doctrine. Sherman in UK use had tanx as main targets according to UK doctrine.

2)First USA produced 75mm Shermans wich can be called general-purpose tank. With good HE and average AP.
Then USA began to produce 76mm for AT role and 105mm for Support Role and continued to produce 75mm as they were cheaper:).
Still all of them remained Shermans.

3)Panther was created as AT Tank.
During Zitadelle Panthers didn't have HE shells. Germans had to create and use Panzerglocke tactics where Panthers were covered in flanx and in the front by PzIII/IV while acted in role of Tk Destroyers.
But despite it, super-armored and super-gunned Panthers were stadily sustaining losses in attack and won in defence.

4)Panther was bad repairwise. F.e. to chnge one roller one would need to remove half of rollers that would take 20-30hrs. While Sherman needed some 8-12hrs.

5)Panther possesed the best gun of WW2(imo). It was almost inpenetratable from frontal projection. And it was definetly one of the most successful german tanx.

6)Shermans had gyrostabilizers(except 105, C-serie), electrical turret traverse(except C-serie), no muzzle break(except M1A2), advanced HVSS suspension(from 1944), wet stowage(from 1944) or armored stowage(105mm), each Sherman had AA .50cal.
Most of these feutures were used in post WW2 times.

7)As i already mentioned, Panther was the best tank for germans as they were mostly in defence since mid 1943. They didn't need mobile, reliable tank, they needed good frontal armor and gun.
Sherman was the best tank for US. As they needed cheap, reliable attack tank, adequately protected and with adequate main gun.

lord4war,

Quote:

im talking production figures made as stated on top of my thread.
of them 40 pershings 20 were sent to europe in january 1945 named as another tank for a certain mission.

just interested what number is rite.

Quote:

basically trying to get him to answer himself here he knows what ranges the pershing and panther can get taken out by a certain german gun,well can that same gun open a sherman up from further away?

wow interesting conclusion.
it's easy to compare mm of penetratable armor with mm of armor.
In reality, u had to be v lucky to spot tank at 1500m and u need to be even more lucky to hit it.
Actually in theory TigerI couldn't KO Pershing from frontal prjection at any range. But in relaity it did it hiting Pershing in Coax MG.

Quote:

maybe even outside its direct hit range?

nah, it's like to win in Las Vegas. Gunner could only guess what range it was till enemy tank.

Quote:

but if gun could kill sherman at 1500 and only kill panther at 800metres which tank would a person with a brain rather be in?

imo a person with brain would stay in ambush and hit side of enemy tank especially if it can't fire at further than 1000m(Pershing) at tanx.

well anyway that's all IMHO.

#47: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:46 pm
—
well as the allies were invading im sure the shermans had every opportunity to wait in ambush. lol
thats what the germans did!
and they did it in places where the range would suit there guns.
im sure the sherman crews wanted to wait in ambush.
smart might mean being courtmartialled
damn i wouldnt want to drive 1 down a road,but they were ordered too.
and if i was ordered too i would hope to at least have a 76mm gun for whatever i encountered.

#48: Ye one little thing here... Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:45 am
—
Quote Dima: stalk,

let's try to sum the things up.

Dima, just a little thing. If you are doing a summing up, you must take into it your basic thoughts and MY OBJECTIONS. The summing up whit this headline you made, MUST reflect BOTH people’s arguments, in full or just in general, balanced.
If one don’t have BOTH ppls thoughts in it or at lest objections, the reader MAY believe we actually agree on the things in the sum up.
In a summing up, one can’t add new ideas and thoughts and arguments. Its a referat.

Like this:
((1. Dima belive Shermans is a better tank than Panther , Stalky dont agree))
((2. Dima belive Panthers HE is verry week, stalky dont agree.))
Etc, etc

As an alternative you can change the initial head line to:
“ stalk,

I will try to sum up MY OWN thought’s here. “
Then it gives you more latitude and then you don’t have to take in other ppls objections. I think your sum up of your thoughts abow was a reflection of your thought and just maby need adjusting the headline. Smile

That’s all really.

CC best game ever.

Stalky

#49: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:12 pm
—

Quote:

Dima, just a little thing. If you are doing a summing up, you must take into it your basic thoughts and MY OBJECTIONS. The summing up whit this headline you made, MUST reflect BOTH people’s arguments, in full or just in general, balanced.

yeah, rite.
but i did that reply to sum up all that i was telling thru several pages. As we've gone pretty far away from topic.

Quote:

I will try to sum up MY OWN thought’s here. “

yeah would be better prolly Razz

.

Lord4War,

Quote:

well as the allies were invading im sure the shermans had every opportunity to wait in ambush. lol

actually most of german tanx were KO by allied tanx and ATGs in ambush.
or do u think germans just sat and waited w/o attacking?

Quote:

and if i was ordered too i would hope to at least have a 76mm gun for whatever i encountered.

yep.
But anyway 76mm and 75mm had pretty same chnce to KO Panther/Tiger from front...to hit turret ring.

#50: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:43 pm
—

Quote:

Of coz there were more Shermans. US produced crapload of good medium tanx and destroyed all the super-excellent-invincible german tanx.
Germany lost so it's tank conception wasn't that good.

It seems to me what this whole argument is coming down to is quanity vs. quality.

So one side is saying that 5 Sherman tanks was better than 1 Panther - While the other side is saying a Panther is a better tank than a Sherman.

If you had to choose one tank (1 vs. 1) to dual to the death in, I imagine that everyone would choose the Panther over the sherman. However, if you had to sit in 1 Panther while battling it out with 5 shermans... perhaps the choice would not be so easy.

There are many, many factors that went into why the Germans lost - but like everyone in the war, whomever developed the next best thing, and had the resources to do it, came out on top in the end...

#51: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:11 pm
—
actually mac the thread was about panthers and how to take them out
and it was an opinion expressed by Dima that turned it into a lively thread.
dimas responce was to Deshrexs coments

Quote:

Deshrex wrote:
I certainly agree with the school of thought that says the Panther was the best medium tank design of the war.

Quote:

Dima wrote:
Hi!
Just some comments:).
best AT tank:).
In reality Panther was almost incapable of fighting infantry as KwK42 HE shell was v weak. Actually it weighted less than APCBC.
Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther.

follow on threads r quite humourous and even informative!

#52: Author: king_tiger_tank, Location: the Band and State of Kansas

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:52 pm
—
it was a cheap copy of the T-34 like window computers are a cheap simple copy of a mac. it was a good tank though.

#53: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:48 am
—
Indeed Smile

I was just commenting on the last bit of conversation.

edit:

It also seems that this conversation took a turn from "best medium tank of the war" to "best HE shell of the war".

#54: Author: poli, Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 1:38 pm
—
whats really missing from the game is strategic arty and airstrikes- The moment Those Panzer groups were spotted they were targeted for harrasment arty fire- Air strikes and just generally hasseld at every available opportunity. Unfortunantly the game only lets you throw air and arty at the enemy during battles.

as for the 3 for 1 rule in H2H- IF your lucky - 5 to 1 seems to be more realistic count going by my latest GC.

#55: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 10:00 pm
—
Indeed, Poli. I'm in a GJS GC with Verboten right now, and his rate of distruction against my Panthers is pretty dismal. Some of the Panthers have had 8 or more kills... I'm sure Verboten would love to get those odds down to 3 or even 5 to one Smile

#56: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 11:39 pm
—

Quote:

The moment Those Panzer groups were spotted they were targeted for harrasment arty fire- Air strikes and just generally hasseld at every available opportunity

According UK surveys of Panther wrecks/captured in Normandy(6June-31Aug 1944):

47 were lost to AP.
8 were lost to Hollow Charge Projectiles.
8 to HE.
8 to Aircraft Rockets.
3 to Aircraft Cannons.
50 were destroyed by crews.
33 were abandoned.
19 were lost by unknown reasons.

So imo air support is shown v realistic in CC5 and particulary in GJS 4.4.

#57: Author: Pzt_Kami, Location: IRAN

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:27 am
—
Hi All;
Dima ,The sum of all of thses wrecks/captured is 176.What about other panthers?
Let me ask you,How many panthers (,Tigers ,PzIv and PzIII) were in Normandy?
As far as I know,Allies had about 6000 tanks and germans had about 2000.But I dont know How many they had of each models Question

Thanks a lot
-Kambiz

#58: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:52 am
—

Quote:

Let me ask you,How many panthers (,Tigers ,PzIv and PzIII) were in Normandy?

6June-12Aug 1944:

PzIII - 30.
PzIV - 841.
Panther - 654.
Tiger I - 126.
Tiger II - 12.

Quote:

The sum of all of thses wrecks/captured is 176.

don't forget USArmy fought vs Panthers as well.

Quote:

As far as I know,Allies had about 6000 tanks

8.676 allied tanx/SPGs were commited to Norm by 31Aug.

Quote:

and germans had about 2000

2.248 german AVFs(w/o Marders) were commited to Norm by 12Aug.

Quote:

But I dont know How many they had of each models

that's really hard to tell but i have models for Op.Cobra. (24July):

Sherman(75) - 1104.
Sherman(76) - 102.
Sherman(105) - 63.
Sherman Dozer - 40.
Stuart - 694.
M10 - 288.
M18 - 36.

#59: Author: poli, Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:11 am
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

The moment Those Panzer groups were spotted they were targeted for harrasment arty fire- Air strikes and just generally hasseld at every available opportunity

i disagree i think youll find that those panzers that were destroyed or abandoned by own crews did so because of?
I'd geuss continual harrasement by air and interference with supply lines (again mainly by air)

as for the realism- um no. A single pass for air support? no loitering on loacation? no use of planes as spotters?

but even so 8 to arty (i assume HE means arty fire) and 11 to air would be great.

Im real curious as to the "unknown reasons" hehe

#60: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:23 am
—

Quote:

exactly poli Smile

.
Main targets for planes were supply routes/bridges/roads.
But most of tanx abandoned/destroyed by crews were found in August mostly when germans were retreating from Normandy.

Pretend u have 20 Panthers for PzDiv in GJS coz of impact of airstrikes that forced u not to use 50 more Wink

Quote:

but even so 8 to arty (i assume HE means arty fire)

well direct hit of idler or engine with 75mm HE can make tank to catch fire.

#61: Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 8:10 am
—
Hey guys I have a question. There are three types of panthers in GJS as far as I have seen, mark VA, mark VD and mark VG. What are the differences between these and which one is the strongest? And also there is the sherman II, sherman III and sherman V, if I'm not mistaken. The same question applies to these also.

#62: air strikes vs. armor in Normandy Author: Deshrex,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:34 am
—
I wouldn't sell too short the ability of the Allies to hit individual German tanks. Here is some info that I found in John Keegan's book 'Six Armies in Normandy.'

This info pertains to the German counterattack at Avranches and Mortain, what the Germans called Operation Luttich, starting August 7.

According to Keegan, the Allies knew the attack was coming due to the cracking of the German military code. American fighters flew combat air patrol sorties over Paris to interdict German fighters sortieing to support the German attack. Medium bombers were used to bomb the German supply routes. And 60 lb. rocket carrying English Typhoons were free to range the battlefield seeking targets. Keegan says (p.248) that on Aug. 7, 294 Typhoon sorties were flown 'the majority against a concentration of 2nd Panzers vehicles.' On this one day, the Typhoon pilots succeeding in destroying 30 of the 60 tanks this division had in the field at the time. The 2nd Panzer here is from the regular Wehrmacht, not the SS, although the 2nd SS was also in this battle.

Keegan streeses that this number does not include tanks lost in fighting the American 2nd Armored division in the area trying to stop the German advance.

Keegan does not break down the destroyed tanks by type.

#63: Hmm? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:09 pm
—
[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

Let me ask you,How many panthers (,Tigers ,PzIv and PzIII) were in Normandy?

Quote:

6June-12Aug 1944:

PzIII - 30.
PzIV - 841.
Panther - 654.
Tiger I - 126.
Tiger II - 12.

Na, I just look at the Tiger figure and see thats not correct, fe: the Tiger II
Just as an example, the Abt 503, that arrived 29/6-5/7 had 12 Tiger II and Fkl 316 had another 5 Tiger II.

Fkl 316 had 5 Tiger II serie number 28001-28005.

503 : 1 KP: had 11+1 Tiger II with Porsche turret and one with henshel, serie nr 280023 - 280035.

That make in total 17, in the two units a bow. They were in fight at time frame mentioned in region we talk of.

Source: SPHF, No#4 1996 Part 1., by Christer Baastöe (here the faith of the individual tanks are presented and where they where kocked out, even tank commander name are mentioned)
I will get SPHF part 2, where the fate of FLk is coverd, i be back with more info in that regard.

Stalky

PS: In general and in detail: I believe one shall mention once sources especially when one talk in detail and not in general. The reader ought to have a clew from where one have got the figures, and shall be able to verify those figures.

Btw: As an rather good internet resource for Normandy battle and tanks and guns and infantry and MG down to numbers, I can recommend http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Thu May 18, 2006 12:50 pm; edited 4 times in total

#64: More on losses: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:26 pm
—
Losses:

Here is an excelnt article about air to ground effect:
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/article.html
Click at: Effects of Allied Air Power

#65: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:41 pm
—

Quote:

Na, I just look at the Tiger figure and see thats not correct, fe: the Tiger II
Just as an example, the Abt 503, that arrived 29/6-5/7 had 12 Tiger II and Fkl 316 had another 5 Tiger II.

1)what;s Fkl316?
it was Pz-Kp.316(fkl).

2)IMHO u should learn to read whole article(statement) and not take words out of context.
While u use inet source i perefer to buy books. Here what N.Zetterling writes in his 'Normandy 1944 ........"(2000)/ p.386:
"Panzer-Kompanie 316 (Funklenk) did not bring it's Tiger II tanks to Normandy."

I believe that there is same statement in i-net version of that book.

#66: Hmm? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:45 pm
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

Na, I just look at the Tiger figure and see thats not correct, fe: the Tiger II
Just as an example, the Abt 503, that arrived 29/6-5/7 had 12 Tiger II and Fkl 316 had another 5 Tiger II.

1)what;s Fkl316?
it was Pz-Kp.316(fkl).

Ye, shall i give full name? Panzer Kompani Funklenk 316... Maby Flk 316 is enough for most ppl... ... ...

[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

2)IMHO u should learn to read whole article(statement) and not take words out of context.

What exact did i take out of context? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

While u use inet source i perefer to buy books. Here what N.Zetterling writes in his 'Normandy 1944 ........"(2000)/ p.386:

Hmm?? SPHF is a Historic Tank association (i AM a member of SPHF), u know on paper by real military and historcans, not internet, maybe you dint know, (apart from research tanks, we actually have tanks thats restored etc)
Btw, And now u say your source, thanx... That was what i whanted...

[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

"Panzer-Kompanie 316 (Funklenk) did not bring it's Tiger II tanks to Normandy."

hmm, they was blown up "maybe", but where was that?

quote="Dima"]

Quote:

I believe that there is same statement in i-net version of that book.

Ahh, intresting Wink

? But that’s ok, as long as one says from where one has got it, and preferably gives the link.

AND :
That link I gave, that covers the airwar effect in Normandy and what tanks was killed by, and the one that rather accurate about actual tanks in Normandy and down to men, and MG and so in most units there, do you mind If I put it there so ppl can have a look them selvs?
Why wold I put figures here when I can give a link to the place where ppl can read it them self’s, and actually fined good information.
The air war in Normandy: http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
The whole excellent site:
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/article.html

good good information...

STalky

#67: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 2:05 pm
—

Quote:

"Funklenkpanzer" (Marcus Jaugnitz):

"...By mid-May 1944 the division was quartered in the Chatres-Le Mans-Orleans area and 316 was quartered in St. Denis near Chateudun.
On 18 May 1944 as a result of the serious technical problems affecting the five Tiger IIs, the division headquarters ordered 316 to be reequipped at once. The 3. Kompanie of PJA 130 was ordered to return the StuG IIIs and the five Tiger IIs were to be sent to a garrison in Germany for further service trials..."

Quote:

hmm, they was blown up "maybe", but where was that?

13.08.44
The 5 Tiger II tanks arrive in CHATEAUDUN.
They are deployed within the city defense against the approaching US Army.

18.08.44.
Last Tiger II was abandoned by crew due to malfunction in vicinity of TOURY.

1 of those 5 Tiger IIs.

Tiger II(316fkl).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

67.59 KB

Viewed:

10669 Time(s)

#68: Yes Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:06 pm
—
Them 5 was the first Tiger II in series production, and had some serious tecnical issues.

Edit: Sry, i said the link was to main page of good information site of Normandy battle and the units that foght there, but i missed in copy and past of the link,
a new try to get link right:
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/

Good good information.

#69: Author: Mythoclastic,

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:20 am
—
Sorry if this has already been answered but which battle group do Panthers occur in?

#70: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:16 am
—
I decided I'm going to add my 2c to this but first:

Mythoclastic wrote:

Sorry if this has already been answered but which battle group do Panthers occur in?

The one's with the panther symbol on the strat map in the grand campaign (they don't come till day 8 or 9 or after, I forget exactly) ... Smile

or check here: http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2657
I assume you mean in game?

ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:

EDITED ... figures for production of M4 Sherman...
1944 production figures
75mm 3504
76mm 7135
105mm 2286

I don't want to get into the debate of this post but this seems dismal, possibly wrong. I don't have the knowledge you guys do on WW2 but I hear repeatedly about the 'production power' of the US/Allies in WW2. Well, I'm currently reading 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor (good read), on p223 he states, paraphrased: in the final 6 months of 1942 the Soviet Union produced 13,600 tanks and 15,800 aircraft!!! (In comparison to Germany's 500 tanks a month). Presumably it was much more in 1944. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I thought allied production was much higher than Russian? Here it looks like 1942 Russian MBT production was TWICE that of US 1944 MBT production?! So much so that I had the impression it was general knowledge that when the US entered the war their *huge* production power sealed the deal in terms of German defeat? On Beevors figures seems Germany was pretty out of it production-wise in 1942 against Russia alone to say nothing of the Commonwealth or the impending war with US.

AT_Stalky wrote:

CC best game ever.

Um, duh!

poli wrote:

whats really missing from the game is strategic arty and airstrikes- The moment Those Panzer groups were spotted they were targeted for harrasment arty fire- Air strikes and just generally hasseld at every available opportunity. Unfortunantly the game only lets you throw air and arty at the enemy during battles.

as for the 3 for 1 rule in H2H- IF your lucky - 5 to 1 seems to be more realistic count going by my latest GC.

Your right but also I think wrong. GJS for example is well balanced. And you can assume, as someone else pointed out, that the relatively few panthers you have that do make it to the field is as a result of attrition losses. Also I find airstrikes in GJS one of my best weapons against panthers/tigers. Hold them as best you can by taking a defensive position and work away at them a tank (or 2 if you're lucky) at a time.

Dima wrote:

So imo air support is shown v realistic in CC5 and particulary in GJS 4.4.

Without getting into it any more than this, I agree.

I had my say on this earlier in this post and but, to again answer those who have problems killing panthers, we all have problems killing them. As we should! You really need to take a more defensive approach to panther BGs. Draw them into towns or areas where you can hold off their supporting infantry and then hit them with piats or AT or swarm them with tanks. Personally, like TACK, one of my most favourite things is killing tanks with PIATS. I think they're underrated. Sure they suck, but get them in the right position and they're deadly. Of course, one reason they're so good is they're so expendible. You've got tonnes of them. And one german tank for even 2 or 3 piat teams is a very good deal imho. Germans in GJS can't afford to lose 1 tank to 2 ALLIED tanks let alone a tank to piats! Remember in GJS allies have at least double the number of tanks so you can afford some losses. Remember to be bold early in your GC as allies, losses are to be expected. Take as much ground as you can, hit hard. Shermans are expendible as they were in real life. As germans if the allies get off the beaches you're in big trouble because they have so much gear and you don't.

In one tough GC I finished recently I managed to entice a Panther BG to attack my allied infantry at LINGEVRES. My BG had 17pdrs, M10s and, of course PIATS! It seemed I would have the panther BG pinned down at the road indefinately with 17pdrs and M10s pointing down the road, piats, MGs, humbers and infantry holding the germans in the houses! If I haddn't tried to counter attack after a few days of stand-off action to cut supply I could have held indefinately! Infantry v Panthers! Try it out in your GCs Smile

... as it was even after my line was broken I held in guerilla warfare reducing this panther BG to one tank though my infantry BG was totally spent (including reinforce). Still an infantry BG for a Panther BG is an outstanding trade imho!

happy gaming Wink

#71: Author: Mythoclastic,

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:45 am
—
I've had a look on both the lists page and I've gone through the battle groups (Recruits setting etc. etc.) and I can't find them.

I'm on "Create a Scenario" so do you only get them on a GC?

Anyone know the battlegroup?

#72: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:28 pm
—
yer the production u quoted me as saying.
was for shermans only and in 1944 only.
when u take into account other tanks and vehicles,and shipping them across the atlantic,its quite an impressive production and delivery effort.

#73: Author: roonburg,

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:55 am
—
Mythoclastic: The panther is listed in the game as "MARK VG/VD/VA" depending on model.

They appear in these BGs
-I./3 2.Panzer div
-I./6 Panze-Lehr div
-I./12 12 SS-Panzer div

As someone said look for the picture of a panther on the BG icon

#74: Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:06 pm
—
[quote="Cpt_Rio"]The Panther frontal armor was 30 degree of 80mm slopped amour & turret was 120mm at front, so it was way more efficient than the Tigee's 90 degree of 100/110 mm yes it was far harder to kill than a tiger at a front shot but the tiger had thicker side armour than a panther. over all panther was a better tank.

#75: Author: Massivattack, Location: St Priest (France)

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:50 am
—
Confirmation : the best way (only one ?) to beat such monsters is ambushing them. My favourite is to burn them with flamethrower. Twisted Evil

For my very first time, yesterday, I faced a tiger (driven by a human) and I think my end was arrived...
Hopefully pioneer (I like this unit) was there at the right moment ! It was good cooking...

PS : It also works with Panther.

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1