17lbr v Panther

[WinOrLose]

Just wondered at what sort of ranges the 17lbr can KIA a panther from the front?

Regards.

[noob]

Just wondered at what sort of ranges the 17lbr can KIA a panther from the front?

Regards.

Test it in the scenario editor, put a 17pdr behind low bocage on a flat map about 250m x 2500m, then place the Panther 2500m away with a small cover arc so it doesn't fire back, then if the gun fails to penetrate at that range, reduce the range by increments of 125m until it does, and once you have established the guns maximum penetration range, post the results in this thread.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Depends. The front of the turret or the front of the hull? Is the 17 pdr firing APCBC or APDS ammo?

The turret can be penetrated by either ammo type to ranges over 1000m, and probably over 2000m. APCBC will normally not penetrate the upper hull at any range, but APDS should be able to out past 1000m

[dieseltaylor]

It would be helpful to mention how many shots it takes to get a hit and also the kill.

[womble]

It would be helpful to mention how many shots it takes to get a hit and also the kill.

And then it would be useful to redo the test a couple of dozen times so you've got some actual data to base your conclusions on, rather than a potential "outlier".

[undercovergeek]

It would be helpful to mention how many shots it takes to get a hit and also the kill.

in a pbem, 17 hits at 1000m didnt dent the paint work

and no the crew didnt get out

[WinOrLose]

I'm surprised the question hadn't been asked before or that there is no data on it.

Thanks for the help anyway.

[dieseltaylor]

The crew were very brave then! Most crews did not take kindly to hits as there is always a possibility of an unfortunate result taking out the gun. optics, or deflecting from the turret front into the hull in the case of Panthers.

The number of hits seems excellent. Was that from an ATG or a tank? And whay was the Panther not retaliating ??!! : )

[Baneman]

The Panther couldn't see its oppo, but it could be seen ( if it's in our game which seems likely )

I think the 17 shots UCG refers to were spread across more than 1 Panther - 2 or 3 I think. All from Fireflies I think. Not sure of the exact range - somewhere between 1200m and 1400m I think ( although he'd know better since I never saw the shooter ).

1 Panther took the bulk of the pounding though and while the crew never bailed, practically all subsystems took damage and several are knocked out. It did eventually pop smoke of its own accord, but it stood and took it for about a turn before that happened.

Regarding brave crews - unfortunately CM2 doesn't appear to model any kind of crew-memory, so it seems that unless a hit adds a whack to the suppression meter, next turn it never happened.

Nevertheless, in our game, all Firefly shots of 1000m plus that hit did not cause a KO on a Panther ( all frontal hits ). Either he has the worst luck, or the 17pdr is a little ... meek ... at those ranges.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It sounds like he was just lucky the turret didn't get hit.

[Streety]

Not sure about the game's chances of a kill, but in real life the question has not only been asked before but tested in 1944 on US army ranges, comparing various 17lber and 76mm rounds against the front of a panther at various ranges: http://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-1944-firing-test-no3/

The test was to determine effectiveness at penetrating the main sloped front armour plate (known as the glacis plate) in a fair hit (rather than any bit of luck like hitting an old wound, an imperfect joint or lucky glance down onto the turret ring, etc). Essentially the results showed that though the 76mm was a little more accurate than the 17lber, and the 17lber was a little more penetrative than the 76mm, neither could be expected to reliably penetrate the average quality panther glacis plate even at short range (200m). However, they discovered a wide variability in the panther armour plate quality, so a kill was still possible.

This lack of success against the front of a panther matches what I've seen and read elsewhere, that frontal hits just tended to bounce off or do little damage unless a lucky deflection into the turret ring, or through to the front of the tracks etc, disabled the panther, or a round happened to hit a previously damaged and weakened spot.

[WinOrLose]

Interesting link -thanks.

It seams that armour quality was more important than the rounds used. Does any one know if this is modeled in game?

[womble]

Interesting link -thanks.

It seams that armour quality was more important than the rounds used. Does any one know if this is modeled in game?

Armour quality is certainly included in the penetration modelling. I'm pretty sure Charles is 100% aware of those range tests.

[Sgt Schultz]

That is why you should only buy VA(Late) Panthers, if you are buying them at all for a QB.

The earlier ones won't pop smoke, and the later ones have crappy armor quality that may give you WTF moments.

The manual has notes on each version's upsides and downsides. Know both your weapons and thine enemy's. RTFM.

-

Panthers, Jagdpanthers, and King Tigers seem to be all-but-immune to glacis penetrations or frontal attacks by the present Allied choices at medium to long ranges... except for low-percentage deflections or armor quality issues. You want an SU-100 or better on the scene before you want to try and go toe-to-toe with any large Cat.

17 lber gives you a boost in JPzIV, StuG, and other medium-tough kills, but you still want flank shots on the big boys until we visit our Soviet bretheren.

-

[Bastables]

Interesting link -thanks.

It seams that armour quality was more important than the rounds used. Does any one know if this is modeled in game?

In the CMBB and CMAK games they modelled it with percentages tied to particular models.

A Panther A Early would have armour at 100% effectiveness, A Panther G late would have it's glacis at 85% effectiveness thickness due to poorer quality.

90% armour effectiveness in StuG G late, T34/85 etc. I'd be surprised if they modelled this issue with less fidelity than those old games.

They also modelled "quality" of the rounds so things like shatter gap would occur.

[Amizaur]

I think that for tanks that had known problems with armor quality, the quality should be RANDOMISED at the start of the scenario to be between 100% and some value - let's say 85% for Panther G. Of course - the actual value should be unknown to the player.

This would be the best way to model it. Even quality of each armor plate could be randomised independantly, but of course it would take a bit more coding .

[slysniper]

Just run the test, you are going to find out in the game, you can kill them at a good distance.

I did a test against the king Tiger against the 17lbr the day we received the game and poisted the results on a thread here. Cannot remember the result without looking up the thread. But it ws happening out at something like 1700 meters and we were questioning if it was special ammo that was doing the kills, which likely should not be hitting at that distance.

Anyway, as is mentioned. In game chances would be rare in that not only does it take multible shots but you also need to be able to do it without being shot back at.

But as we play more open maps , this will become a result that might suprise some and the questions will start to fly as to if they have it correct or not.

[PzKpfw 1]

90% armor quality on the T-34-85 seems rather optimistic IMHO. ie, reports on T-34-85 examples in 44/45 found poor or incomplete welding, with visible gaps throught the joints of some of the models exhaimed. This was attributed to poor QC or an effeort to increase production. Post war US examination of T-34-85s found in Berlin, showed the 45mm plate greately varied in impact resistance from 4 to 14ft/lbs Charpy notch impact resistance.

Also anylss of T-34-85 armor showed it contained no nickel, Vanadium, or Molybdenium, & about 50% less Chrome then german plate. Compared to a German report dated June 1942 on the T-34-76 that showed armor composition as:

C, .22 to .25

Mn, 1.30-1.50

Si, 1.35-1.45

Cr, .80-.90

Mo, .15-.25

V, 0.0

Ni, 1.30-1.50

Basicly it apperars Soviet armor production was suffering from the same problems as late war German production. I'd say an 85% quality rateing would apply to Soviet armor as well.

An report on the* Panther glacis, reported that the inferior toughness was attributed to" a combination of incomplete transformation to martensite upon quenching and temper embrittlement". The plate was quenched incompletely, or too slowly, which would leave the center of the plate not sufficiently quenched (transformed to martensite), although the outer sections would be completely quenched to martensite. & that the armor may have been tempered in the temperature zone which leads to embrittlement (400-1000degF). This would degrade the quality of the steel in both "good" and "bad" sections, leading to overall poor quality due to brittleness. The Panther glacis was of adequate hardness, but inadequate toughness, throughout the cross-section. A zone at the center of the section was even more brittle than the outer zones. Basicly from the report one could say the entire plate was flawed, with an seriously flawed layer at the center.

*Data from Robert Livingston.

Also i'd add that a Soviet report on the Tiger B armor, stated the Panthers armor they had analyzed at the same time, had superior ballistic protection to the Tiger B they examined.

Regards, John Waters

[A Canadian Cat]

This is interesting. Is the gun in a Fire Fly the same as a 17lbr? I thought that it was. I ask because I am currently playing a scenario where I have Panthers and my opponent has Fire Flys. Those Fire Flys are deadly. He has sliced and diced my Panthers from all directions including the front from ranges between 200 and 700m. I have to treat those as able to kill a Panther with a single shot at any time from any direction.

[womble]

This is interesting. Is the gun in a Fire Fly the same as a 17lbr? I thought that it was. I ask because I am currently playing a scenario where I have Panthers and my opponent has Fire Flys. Those Fire Flys are deadly. He has sliced and diced my Panthers from all directions including the front from ranges between 200 and 700m. I have to treat those as able to kill a Panther with a single shot at any time from any direction.

I think people are saying the QF Ordnance 17lber has difficulty at longer ranges than that. I'd count 700m as still a short range shot for that class of laser cannon gun.

[slysniper]

This is interesting. Is the gun in a Fire Fly the same as a 17lbr? I thought that it was. I ask because I am currently playing a scenario where I have Panthers and my opponent has Fire Flys. Those Fire Flys are deadly. He has sliced and diced my Panthers from all directions including the front from ranges between 200 and 700m. I have to treat those as able to kill a Panther with a single shot at any time from any direction.

For in game purposes at those ranges, yes, Fireflies are deadly to panthers, from the front you might get the rounds to bounce off because of the angle, but they will kill your panthers from the front if given a few hits for sure.

The 76's can do it also, but are a little more likely to bounce rounds off.

[A Canadian Cat]

I think people are saying the QF Ordnance 17lber has difficulty at longer ranges than that. I'd count 700m as still a short range shot for that class of laser cannon gun.

Oops my bad I read some of the earlier posts wrong. I read @Vanir Ausf B's 2000m as 200m.

[PzKpfw 1]

in live test fireing vs Panther tanks conducted @ insigny, & Balleroy in 1944 the US/UK determined that 76mm T4 HVAP & 17lb APCBC were the 2 best rounds vs the PzKpfw V ie,:

c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.

17lb APDS was ruled out because it was to innacurate ie,:

6. Conclusions

a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.

Lorrin Birds research on 17lb APDS provided the following.:

2. while the British report predicted that all hits on the 57° Panther glacis (+2° ground angle during test) would fail from 150 to 950 meters, 2 of 17 fair hits penetrated between 200 and 800 yards.

The following ranges represent target range intervals where all 17 pdr APDS hits are predicted to fail at the given compound angle:

0 degrees.....none

5.............0-200m

10............0-350m

15............150-950m

20............300-1100m

25............500-1300m

30............650-1450m

35............750-1550m

40............800-1600m

45............750-1550m

50............600-1400m

55............300-1100m

60............0-700m

When 17 pounder APDS strikes the Tiger II turret front head-on, the compound angle is 10° and the hits should penetrate normally beyond 350m. However, if the APDS strikes the turret front at 11° from armor facing the compound angle is 15° and hits fail from 150 to 950 meters.

When 17 pounder APDS struck the 82mm Tiger side armor at a 50° angle and 3511 fps, the hit failed. But when the rounds struck 82mm Tiger armor at the same angle but 3131 fps, it succeeded.

The bottom line is that theory and practice show that APDS had a tendency to fail against the very targets is was designed to combat, Tigers and Panthers and Hetzers (tests which support theory used 67mm to 102mm armor thickness).

Here are some added figures on APDS versus Tiger and Panther front armor:

If the posted table is what occurred on the battlefield, 17 pdr APDS would not penetrate the Panther glacis or nose on more than an occasional basis at 300m to 1100m. And the Tiger 25° nose armor would beat back APDS hits at 500-1300m. The Tiger driver plate (10°) could survive 17 pdr APDS at 0-300m.

Regards, John Waters