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? |
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. |
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). |
Quote: |
I don't have any info on the upgunned 76 mm Sherman. |
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. |
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. |
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.
it just needed to hit.
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...
with early APC(AP=US designation). By June 1944 APCBC(APC=US designation) were available. They could pen some 84mm@100m/90deg.
the first 76mm Shermans were M4A1(w) and were used in Op.Cobra for first time. It was July.
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.
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.
indeed plus it could pen Panther in turret ring.
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.
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 . Not big difference yeah? 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:). |
Quote: |
ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life |
Dima wrote: | ||
wow, such an argument! guess one of the most smartest thing u've ever told. |
Quote: |
so your argument resorts to slaging me off ??? |
Quote: |
no counter argument to your sherman comments ??? |
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 ,, |
Quote: |
dima quote " "Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther. "
lolololololololololololololololololololol |
Quote: |
so why did they desiagn pershing??? |
Quote: |
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..? |
Quote: |
I must say Attilla and crew made a mod that sets the standard for the rest of us. |
Quote: |
rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1 |
Quote: |
Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers? |
Quote: |
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility |
mooxe wrote: | ||||
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....
If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt? |
Quote: |
According this logic('5:1 ratio'), do u think that 1 Panther crew will engage if it c 4 Shermans? |
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? |
Quote: |
The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3. |
Quote: |
And then we have the Fire fly, im rather sure it was not for infantry killing it was changed for. |
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 ? ? |
Quote: |
Answer: Well, what about armour, and as u insinuated in your first post, what about the panther’s optics?? |
Quote: |
And btw, wats the pourpose of a tank except its gun? Isnt that the whole ide with a tank? |
Quote: |
I meen kill power and protection? |
Quote: |
Panther to be better as it is better in the two fundamental causes one even build and use tanks... |
Quote: |
Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946? |
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? |
Quote: |
Have you seen a later (1944) Sherman and studied what they changed? |
Quote: |
Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2? |
Quote: |
Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better? |
Quote: |
Well, this is just my humble analys. |
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. |
Quote: |
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead. |
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.... |
Quote: |
If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt? |
Quote: |
i belive your lerning |
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. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT