"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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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 .
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.
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.
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:
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,..
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 .
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, and it was an intresting project and sulutions to things, but thats for another thread.. .
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
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: mmm
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 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?
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
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.
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: mmm
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.
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: Ye one little thing here...
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.
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 .
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.
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...
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: mmm
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!
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
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.
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
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.
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
Thanks a lot
-Kambiz
Women are like flowers, I appreciate their beauty and fragrance without picking them off the branch, then I continue on to the next flower
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.
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.
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)
exactly poli .
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 .
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
.
.
