Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
Since no one has even attempted to answer my question on the effective armor value on the Panther, I will give what I would consider the ultimate answer as it comes directly from the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army:
"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47 inches)."
the effective armor value is really depending on a shell it is against.
f.e. against 17pdr APDS the effective armor of the Panther glacis will be more than 200mm while against 122mm APHE it will be less than 150mm.
Quote:
They also went on to say that neither the 75mm or 76mm were capable of defeating any German late war tanks.
that is of course not true as any late war german tank armor could be perforated by 76mm and most of them by 75mm.
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
mooxe,
Quote:
So your message got out. The people that wanted the historical accuracy of driving indestructible tanks, and playing with severely depleted non-movable battlegroups who's forcepools are locked out got what they wished for and can play vs the AI too their hearts content because nobody will play a game like that multiplayer.
the most historical accurate CC mods are made for H2H .
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Dima,
You seem to have a special knowledge of the effects of the different shells on armor, and for all I know your figures could be fairly accurate. All I was trying to point out was that the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army was conducting tests on a few captured Panthers to see what it takes to crack the frontal armor. Obviously, the reports from the front were not good with the Shermans in dueling battles with the Panthers and Tigers. I had read that there were tests on captured Tigers from Tunisia back in 1943 and so they were well aware that there were problems with the 75mm gunned Shermans that far back. And yet because of the reasoning at the time that tanks were not to engage in duels with enemy tanks they were left under-gunned. Even when the 76mm gun was mounted in a number of the Shermans, many in the field, they were still inadequately armed as the guns mounted were a foot shorter than the field piece to make them fit into the turret. If what you are saying is true that the 75mm Shermans were able to penetrate the Panthers why was it that it was standard procedure for the German tank crews to especially target the British Fireflys? And why was there an urgent request to get the M26 Pershing into the European theater as soon as possible even though it would have arrived too late for any meaningful action?
"No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Moltke
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:56 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Schmal_Turm,
Quote:
You seem to have a special knowledge of the effects of the different shells on armor, and for all I know your figures could be fairly accurate.
well, your question was about effective armor values and I tried to show you that it totally depends on a shell it against.
Quote:
All I was trying to point out was that the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army was conducting tests on a few captured Panthers to see what it takes to crack the frontal armor.
I know that your quote refers to August 1944 Isigny tests. And these tests were only conducted to compare US 76mm and UK 17pdr guns so your quote:
"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47 inches)."
refers to 76mm shells.
while in July 1944 US 1st Army conducted tests of various guns against captured Panthers and 90mm AA gun with M82 shell could penetrate Panther glacis at 600yds while that shell had normal penetration of 160mm@500yds@90deg so it's easy to see that the effective armor value of Panther glacis vs 90mm APC M82 was less than 160mm.
Quote:
Obviously, the reports from the front were not good with the Shermans in dueling battles with the Panthers and Tigers. I had read that there were tests on captured Tigers from Tunisia back in 1943 and so they were well aware that there were problems with the 75mm gunned Shermans that far back. And yet because of the reasoning at the time that tanks were not to engage in duels with enemy tanks they were left under-gunned.
that's actually because of the false conclusion that Panther was same type of tank as Tiger - the Heavy tank which was to reinforce other formation and could be met in rare occasions but the shock of Normandy was that Panther was the main medium tank in PzDs instead. That's why no M4A1(76) was landed in Normandy in June although there were plenty of them in the UK already.
Another problem of Normandy were the narrow lines of advance where Shermans couldn't use their advantage in maneuvrability but had to engage German tanks head on. That's when the reports started coming from the front units crying for up-gunned tanks. And the US officials made quick moves by sending M4A1(76) in July, the new 3-inch HVAP (by air!) for M10 in August and 90mm M36 in September.
But...after the US Army could break out of bocages and in plain valleys of France where Shermans could employ their speed and maneuvre the reports from units started to ask for....105mm Shermans as German tanks were very rare in comparison to ATG or bunkers.
And they recalled about Panther problem again only during Battle of the Bulge when they saw a huge number of German tanks once more.
Quote:
If what you are saying is true that the 75mm Shermans were able to penetrate the Panthers why was it that it was standard procedure for the German tank crews to especially target the British Fireflys?
75mm Shermans could pefrorate side and rear armor of Panther at up to 1.500yds.
Well, Firefly couldn't penetrate Panther glasic at more than 300yds, but it could penetrate 80mm armor of PzIV at 1.000+m while 75mm could make it at less than 200yds. So obviously one would engage the main threat first.
Quote:
And why was there an urgent request to get the M26 Pershing into the European theater as soon as possible even though it would have arrived too late for any meaningful action?
that was after the Bulge due to reason mentioned above.
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder. Which could penetrate panther glacis, as per test counducted in summer 1944, even at 400 yards. But sure, 200 yards was more suitable...
Last edited by caruso on Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder. Which could penetrate panther glacis, as per test counducted in summer 1944, even at 400 yards. But sure, 200 yards was more suitable...
To be more specific 17pdr with APC/APCBC ammo couldn't realiably penetrate Panther glasic at any distance - but it had a little chance for penetration at less than 300yds.
17pdr with APDS ammo should have been able to penetrate but during tests only 25% of hits penetrated at 400yds hence my previous post about effective armor value of Panther vs 17pdr APDS, not to mention drastically poor accuracy of APDS that time.
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
Theorically it could be penetrated at 800 yds as well ....but sure, 200 yds, and less, was let's say the best distance...
once again, August 1944 Isigny tests showed that no 76mm ammunition but APDS could penetrate Panther glasic at 400yds.
well actually no standard 76mm ammunition could do it at 200yds either during tests .
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Dima,
Actually, I started this discussion in answer to one of the forum entries that was bemoaning the difficulty of penetrating the Panther from the front. So that is all I was referring to: defeating it from the front. If you were a Sherman tanker how do you think you would feel knowing that your gun was relatively ineffective against the Panther front, but oh, being told that you can defeat it by flanking it??? And ultimately, how many tanks are you willing to lose, as well as tankers, to take out one of those heavily armored German tanks? I am sure that would not give you much confidence. Since you mentioned the weak side armor; yes, the Wehrmacht was working to correct that problem with the Panther II. As I mentioned in a previous forum entry, any size gun was capable of disabling, if not destroying any tank if it is hit in the right spot.
"No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Moltke
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Schmal_Turm,
Quote:
Actually, I started this discussion in answer to one of the forum entries that was bemoaning the difficulty of penetrating the Panther from the front. So that is all I was referring to: defeating it from the front. If you were a Sherman tanker how do you think you would feel knowing that your gun was relatively ineffective against the Panther front, but oh, being told that you can defeat it by flanking it???And ultimately, how many tanks are you willing to lose, as well as tankers, to take out one of those heavily armored German tanks?
then yes, only 17pdr, 3inch, 76mm and 90mm could penetrate Panther front in Normandy.
but tanks don't fight tanks in a vacuum - flanking and cutting off supplies were/are the main combat maneuvres.
Although the Germans concentrated huge amount of tanks in Normandy (~2250 including 655 Panthers), by the end of Normandy campaign the Germans lost approximately 1.500 AVFs (including Marders) as total writes off vs approximately 2.500 AVFs (including Stuarts and M10) as total writes off for the Allies despite the Allies were mainly in attack...
Quote:
Since you mentioned the weak side armor; yes, the Wehrmacht was working to correct that problem with the Panther II.
I believe the prototype of Panther II had 60mm side armor vs 50mm of Panther - doesn't look like a huge improvement .
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Dima,
Right! And many of those German loses were due to artillery and aircraft attacks, as well as you mentioned, the lack of fuel and thus you have given the answer to the problem of defeating the Panther and Tiger. And so maybe the CC gamers who lament having to battle them can take note that it takes a correct strategy. When I play as the Germans against the AI I have to consider that every time a tank gets tracked or otherwise damaged that it may not get repaired the next round and so that means I have one less tank to counter the large numbers of Allied tanks, both Russians and Anglos. The Germans always get a smaller number of tanks compared to the enemy, and until the advent of the larger caliber tank guns they had their own share of problems, especially against the Russian KVI.
I did enjoy being made aware of the figures you produced for the different shell penetrations. And you are right, the Germans were only increasing the Panther II side armor by 10mm, but you can only go so far to protect a tank anyway.
"No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Moltke
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
If there is a "feat" that is staggering, it is that no KT were knocked out as I recall from frontal shots during the war. Damaged? Yes, but not outright killed.
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Schmal_Turm,
Quote:
And many of those German loses were due to artillery and aircraft attacks,
the AVF losses caused by aircrafts during WW2 are grossly exaggerated as f.e. in GJS sectors only 6% of Panthers, 2,5% of Tigers and 7% of PzIV were hit by air weapons as found out by the British investigations.
Quote:
And so maybe the CC gamers who lament having to battle them can take note that it takes a correct strategy.
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!
.
.
