Panther opinion WW II U.S., post '45 French

[John Kettler]

Moon,

This is information only and NOT a game purchase solicitation! To make it even more pertinent, it specifically discusses German experience in Normandy!

(Begin post)

Here is new military-technical information on the Panther tank, as seen by the U.S., the Germans themselves and the post war French. Lots of new material here and deep insights into all sorts of groggy issues. A real must read for resident treadheads and new arrivals alike!

http://worldoftanks.com/news/1757-chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/

Regards,

John Kettler

[passeur]

Interesting read, thanks!

[Lt Belenko]

Interesting read, thanks!

+1

...and 8 (or more) additional characters

[CharlieMike24]

Perhaps, to represent the reliability issues, if one purchases three panthers for a QB, there should be a fair chance that only two enter the battle....

[Blazing 88's]

Perhaps, to represent the reliability issues, if one purchases three panthers for a QB, there should be a fair chance that only two enter the battle....

Well then, the Allied (player) should then be subject to having less experience and such to even out the wargame no? With these games already being staged late war, the German's are already at a disadvantage material wise so... Just my two bits.

[YankeeDog]

Perhaps, to represent the reliability issues, if one purchases three panthers for a QB, there should be a fair chance that only two enter the battle....

Sure; you could do that. But then you'd have to adjust to point cost of Panthers downward to compensate, so there would really be no point.

QB purchase points are inherently unrealistic; their only purpose is to establish a system whereby two sides end up with something in the ballpark of an even fight. So there's really not much point in trying to make them "realistic" in any way.

If anything, the place to represent mechanical unreliability of a unit would be in the rarity points required to purchase such a unit. Less reliable = more often in the repair depot = "rarer", at least in the context of the CM battlefield.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, because the CMx2 Off-Road rating for vehicles is badly messed-up Panthers have much worse off-road performance relative to other tanks in the game than they did in reality -- about the same or slightly worse than the Sherman in-game, which is clearly absurd. So you could read into their increased bogging chance a nod towards poor mechanical reliability, if you try real hard.

What I would like to see is modeling of the 20+ second delay between the spotting of a target to the gunner firing.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Here's a real Panther off-roading it. Also shown is the T-34/76. Stole this from my #140 in the Op Bagration thread. That Panther seems to go cross country just fine.

BFC!

Please, please, please fix the tank/assault gun pivoting issue! Since the CMBO Beta Demo this has been a problem, and it's still a problem.

If you look at Manner Gegen Panzer, you can clearly see how a T-34/76 can execute a nearly 90 degree pivot in around four (4) seconds (13:17-13:21), and that's with only one track going and the other braked!

As we've repeatedly shown, the equivalent German tanks that can neutral steer can have both tracks going opposite directions, so can pivot even faster. This Panther, which is much heavier than the T-34/76, can also pivot at least as far in the same four seconds (:43-:47)

Yet we're still stick with pivoting rates that, frankly, are ridiculously slow and expose tanks generally, and assault guns in particular, to wholly unnecessary flank attack.

A Tiger 1, in dead slow reverse and being babied, for all its weight pivots 90 degrees in ~22 seconds (:53-1:15)

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fenris]

Half of the abandoned Panthers found in Normandy in 1944 showed evidence of breaks in the final drive.

It takes only one weak link to break a chain. The Panther had many fine qualities. But here we find a severe weakness.

In order to prevent these breaks it is recommended that the following points be closely observed: when driving downhill and in reverse as well as on uneven terrain to be particularly careful when shifting to a lower gear. In addition, a Panther should never be towed without uncoupling the final drive previously. Finally, under no circumstances should both steering levers be operated simultaneously * regardless of the situation.

American tankers often observed that the Panther could “neutral steer” – it could pivot in place by moving one track forward, and the other backwards. The Sherman did not have this capability.

But it appears that experience has told the French never to USE this capability. It is an advantage to be able to pivot a tank in combat. But not if the result is an immobilized tank.

Wasn't this being discussed in another thread?

edit - added info from this thread to this one - http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107179&page=15

-F

[c3k]

That was an enjoyable read, but there is something that fairly screams against using the experiences of the 501st and 503rd French Regiments as a hard baseline.

First, I FULLY agree that the final drive was a weakspot for Panthers. The Germans admitted it themselves. (They blamed the lack of rare minerals needed to create a stronger gear steel alloy. They did not blame the design. They eschewed a simpler design due to the disruption to production.)

The French Panthers came from a group which predominantly were abandoned due to mobility issues. Be that caused by fuel, final drive failure, or some other reason. If most of them had been abandoned due to final drive failures, well, what are the French going to replace the failed drives with?

The Panthers with "good" final drives were not abandoned.

As a study, there is a serious feedback loop present.

Ken

[Chudacabra]

Great blog and interesting post. I wonder if we'll see this contraption in future CM games...

[Maarten]

Isn't that the Medium Lawnmower M7? After encountering the hedgerows in Normandy the US Army realized they needed better gardening tools so they introduced the M7.

What I would like to see is modeling of the 20+ second delay between the spotting of a target to the gunner firing.

This is what raised my eyebrow as well. Not that the rest isn't interesting. Great find, John!

[John Kettler]

c3k,

A most effective argument of unintended bias in the estimator! The Germans did indeed suffer for the want of certain materials to make steel alloys, thus later wound up with weaker armor generally and earlier, heavier guns than the Russians.

Maarten,

Glad you're enjoying it! I knew the French had put some into service, but I knew little beyond that.

Chudacabra,

Welcome aboard! This assumes I haven't already done so.

Clearly, that thing is an American Kettenkrad--designed by a committee!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Isn't that the Medium Lawnmower M7? After encountering the hedgerows in Normandy the US Army realized they needed better gardening tools so they introduced the M7.

Unfortunately development of this potentially decisive weapon system was delayed and it didn't achieve limited production until after the war when it was relegated to mowing the lawn in front of the CG's quarters on various posts as well as the Pentagon. Many examples were auctioned off for cents on the dollar and were snapped up by Toro and LazyBoy. Suitably modified, the design was destined to make those and similar manufacturers tens of millions of dollars.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Chudacabra,

With those tiny wheels beneath him, instead of ski or skids, the operator effectively becomes a snowplow! Talk about not thinking the problem through all the way. And for real fun, frozen muddy slush. Woo hoo!

Regards,

John Kettler

[snake_eye]

I haven't read the article yet, but I have in mind the fact that the Panther gun was closely looked after the war by the French and slightly modified to be finally used in the AMX 13. That much to say that the gun was a pretty good one.

About the fact that the Panther could pivot in place by inversing its tracks, that has been used I am certain with the AMX 30. I don't recall if it was done on the AMX 13.

That pivoting was only permitted when fully stopped and on movements restricted urban position. On open grounds, there was no need to use that facility.

[dieseltaylor]

I have been seeking the full Armee report for a couple of years or more. Quoted extracts always make me want to see the whole article.

[Amizaur]

About the fact that the Panther could pivot in place by inversing its tracks (...) pivoting was only permitted when fully stopped and on movements restricted urban position. On open grounds, there was no need to use that facility.

And that should be remembered!

Pivoting in place in a field, even more at battle - was dangerous, rarely used, and probably prohibited - could easily throw off a track, or clog the suspension with dirt/mud. It could also just break something in the drive train - for example the final transmission gears, because pivoting in place strained the mechanisms. A breakdown like that would often mean a lost tank in 1944/45.

And at last - pivoting in place was SLOW. It would be much faster to just move forward - even for few meters - gain some speed and then turn sharply. Pivoting would be used only, if for some reasons it was not possible to turn while moving (lack of place). It was not "new cool way of turning". Just a rarely used feature of the Panther's gearbox, with lot's of restrictions and risks connected with it's use in terrain other than a flat concrete/stone surface.