Panther Shot Trap Still Not Trapping

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thanks, Ken.

However, I doubt that watching the behavior of ricochets will be enough to answer that question. I just spent a little time watching ricochets off the Panther glacis -- a uniformly flat plane outside of the machine gun bulge -- and there is a lot of variation in terms of direction, trajectory and velocity. Clearly there is some factor(s) other than angle of impact, which could include random variation.

This is probably something only Charles would know. Unfortunately, from the sounds of it he now exists in a separate dimension that only rarely intersects with our own, leaving us to puzzle over test results like Biblical scholars interpreting Old Testament verses.

[Redwolf]

Going back to the sketch on the first page (unfortunately the red arrow does not make a lot of sense) and looking at the geometry of the mantlet, I agree with Vanir Ausführung B that more than one in a thousand shots should ricochet downwards into the hull.

Best regards,

Thomm

That diagram is obvious nonsense. It would never actually obey to the principle of same angle in and out, because the projectile does deform some of the armor, not to mention itself, because bouncing off. So it would stay much more with it's flight path.

We should really stick to actual data, not some fantasy drawing somebody made up after physic 101 but before 102.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know who made the diagram -- I found it on a website -- but I'm pretty sure it was just intended to illustrate the general idea.

We should really stick to actual data, not some fantasy drawing somebody made up after physic 101 but before 102.

I thought that was what we had been doing.

[sfhand]

It is not that I don't appreciate your efforts, VaB, and not just in this instance. Your testing has uncovered a lot and I believe important changes have resulted, at least in part, because of it. So kudos to you there.

Earlier you replied to me:

"... Second, while it would be fair to say there is no proof that a change would be more realistic, to claim there is no evidence to that effect is not. Unless you don't consider two US tests that produced shot trap ricochets to be evidence?"

I consider those tests as valid as I consider pistol shooting range results when it comes to dismounted tank crew pistol performance. In the discussions about dismounted tank crews and their pistols of death almost everyone said that in a combat situation excellent pistol range results don't matter. Were I sitting in a Sherman, or any other tank that couldn't normally penetrate a panther, facing down a panther frontally I would give my eye teeth to have everyone get out of the tanks and have a shoot out with our pistols. The thought that I, on my very best day, might get a lucky shot after 8 because the best guy on a test range did would be bad news because that test range tank wasn't moving to save its skin after each shot nor was it subject to return fire. Or should the pistols, which I believe have recently been made less accurate, be made more accurate because of range results?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I consider those tests as valid as I consider pistol shooting range results when it comes to dismounted tank crew pistol performance. In the discussions about dismounted tank crews and their pistols of death almost everyone said that in a combat situation excellent pistol range results don't matter.

There is no indication or reason to believe that they were aiming for the shot trap or any other specific area. The purpose of those tests was to test ballistic performance of weapons vs. armor, not for the testers to work on their aiming skills.

[MikeyD]

There is no indication or reason to believe...

Actually, there is no indication to believe or disbelieve anything since instructions to the gun crew was not recorded. Its as likely as not that they were asked to place shots into different parts of the frontal area in turn to assess the damage. That's an unknowable.

If mantlet deflections were as easy as some people want to claim then Panther killing from the frontal arc by anything including Greyhounds would have been commonplace. Which they weren't. From a German perspective, if they had got word back of five instances of shot deflection on the Eastern Front and three on the Western that alone would be reason enough for them to redesign the whole turret - which they did. Panther F was on the assembly line being built as the war came to an end.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Actually, there is no indication to believe or disbelieve anything since instructions to the gun crew was not recorded. Its as likely as not that they were asked to place shots into different parts of the frontal area in turn to assess the damage. That's an unknowable.

Right. What we do know is that the hit distribution was over the frontal area of the tank, not concentrated on any particular spot.

If mantlet deflections were as easy as some people want to claim then Panther killing from the frontal arc by anything including Greyhounds would have been commonplace.

Absurd statement. If the chance were raised to say, 3% of rounds that hit the mantlet, and if we were to estimate that around 20% of all hits are on the mantlet then only about 1 in 165 hits on the Panther would be a ricochet onto the deck. And not all of them would necessarily penetrate. Small caliber rounds such as the 37mm on the Greyhound should have a lower chance of penetration compared to 75mm and up.

From a German perspective, if they had got word back of five instances of shot deflection on the Eastern Front and three on the Western that alone would be reason enough for them to redesign the whole turret - which they did. Panther F was on the assembly line being built as the war came to an end.

I assume you're joking.

[John Kettler]

Sgt Joch,

I'd not seen that Patton Museum picture before. Ouch! Did that kill the tank or just jam the turret?

Vanir Ausf B,

There are several other possible outcomes when a projectile strikes armor and doesn't penetrate, one of which was in evidence in Desert Storm: The projectile partially penetrates, then sticks into the armor. Reports from Desert Storm indicate a number Abrams tanks came out of battle looking like they had very large darts in them. True. These were the long rod penetrators used in the 125mm 2A46 cannon of Saddam's T-72s. Would imagine there were some very happy tankers, considering what could've happened, when they saw those things festooning their Abrams tanks after the battles.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

A partial penetration is a type of penetration.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Semantically true, but in assessing KE projectile terminal effects vs armor, not terribly useful. Very good discussion (with links) of useful KE penetration criteria here.

http://www.panzer-war.usual /page33.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

LOL, Tell the tank crew that those pieces of metal flying around their heads are semantics.

Your link is, of course, broken.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

There can be partial penetrations with no spalling whatsoever. Indeed, the U.S. Army's penetration assessment criteria explicitly allow such events, which are treated as there having been no penetration. The Army's criteria deem that no penetration has occurred unless light can be seen from the outer armor face clear through the back side of the target armor plate. No light passing through = no penetration. Spalling isn't penetration, either, but I certainly wouldn't discount the likelihood of crew casualties as a result.

As for my link, I face Hobson's choice. Either I put up an intact link to a .com site (not YT) and run the real risk of getting dinged by Moon, or I comply with the rule and annoy my readers. Moon has explicitly stated, when asked by me, that the no-commercial-link rule is in effect here, too, not just the GDF. I would love to see some modification by Moon of the basic rule, as opposed to the current blanket prohibition, but I believe that many who post .com links here do so at Moon's sufferance, not his encouragement. Unless/until he says that as long as we don't post to rival game ordering pages ("Buy X; it's way better than BFC's CMBN!") we're good, I deem it wise to err on the side of caution.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

There can be partial penetrations with no spalling whatsoever.

And how often did this happen with relatively thin (compared to modern tanks) WW2-era steel armor? All of your examples are from modern M1 Abrams tanks with thick composite armor. I have seen a small number of pictures of AP shells stuck in the armor of WW2 tanks, but it was usually not apparent if they had penetrated the interior and it appears to be quite a rare event in any case.

[MikeyD]

I recall one anecdote about 'emcha' in Russian service. Russian tankers were impressed with the quality of Sherman armor, most notably the lack of interior spalling which was a real hazard in T-34. I believe the tendency of German armor to spall rose over time as their ability to adjust the mix of the steel diminished. By the end it was becoming rather over-hard and brittle.

[Amizaur]

There are several other possible outcomes when a projectile strikes armor and doesn't penetrate, one of which was in evidence in Desert Storm: The projectile partially penetrates, then sticks into the armor.

It was mentioned. Here's an example:

But it is much less likely in case of sloped armor. There are large lateral forces acting on the shell which cause it to turn, slid or tumble - it doesn't help in "staying in place" in the pierced hole.

In case of sloped armor (let's say over 30deg) the shell would usually either penetrate completly or slid/bounce and fly away. Sometimes it can break and half of it would penetrate the armor, the rest would fly away tumbling.

This ilustration doesn't show such break-up, but I don't have one that shows .

[JasonC]

"Allied armor, for the most part, considered the Panther invulnerable to the front"

This is very far from being true. Modern tactical wargamers maybe, but not WW II reality.

The WW II reality is that, first off, few Panthers were fielded during 1943 and they suffered very serious automotive teething problems in their early combat history. All the Panthers built before Kursk had to be sent back to the factory for complete rebuilds of their drive train, and the 200 fielded then still had huge automotive problems. Of the 200 sent, 184 were operational at the start of the battle but only 40 were operational 2 days later, and by Guderian's account, only 10 by the evening of July 10th.

Guderian reported that all the bugs had been worked out in March of 1944. The peak operation Panther strength on the eastern front was 522 vehicles and was achieved in September of 1944. Basically, thoughout 1943 the number of runners went from zero before Kursk and 40 to 50 by the end of it, to at most a few hundred later in the year.

So they did have combat experience then - against a weaker gun mix than faced in 1944, but some combat experience - but not a heck of a lot. The Panther was basically a 1944 tank in operational terms. Its presence before then was about as limited as the presence of Tigers. Yes production was ramping up, but there were long delays getting them to units, getting those units trained, and then getting them back to the field. Even in mid 1944, lots of Panther battalions were training on their vehicles in Germany, rather than fighting with them at the front.

I go through that history to address the question why it took them a while to come up with the shot trap correction.

But further, I wanted to address the claim that the Allies considered them frontally invulnerable. The reality is the Americans outscored them outright in both Normandy and the Lorraine. Entire Panther battalions in the Panzer brigades were lost in a day or two, in the latter period. In Normandy the German commanders report that the short initial ranges in the hedgerows largely negated their advantages. US TDs with 76mm guns had no difficulty penetrating the turret front at the ranges actually seen, which were 100 to 400 yards. The same happened on the Lorraine fighting, where fog rather than hedgerows contributed to short initial LOS. Short ranges also make for easier side shots, to be sure. But there is no sign of any frontal invulnerability of Panthers in the west. Did they dominate plain 75mm Shermans at medium or long range? Certainly, and especially when standing on defense. That just rarely happened in the west.

At any rate, none of that is evidence either way about shot traps, because even at 1-2% chance per front hit it is too rare to be operationally significant. British 17 pdrs and US 76mm TD guns didn't need ricochets to kill them from the front - they just drilled the mantlet outright. The Panther was a good tank because its glacis was impenetrable and because it took upgunned shooters to penetrate the turret front, not because of any imaginary frontal invulnerability.

Imaginary frontal invulnerability actually features in the historical accounts only negatively and about the Tiger I. Guderian reported that it was a myth and that crews who believed it exposed their tanks unnecessarily and that this led to serious losses by 1944, when Allied guns had improved. Proper tactics did not rely on frontal invulnerability but instead on proper use of both cover and stealth. It is modern tactical wargamers who believe in frontal invulnerability and dramatically overrate its historical importance.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, the Panther was a 1944 tank rushed into service in small numbers at least 6 months before it was ready.

BTW, getting back to a previous point...

Actually, there is no indication to believe or disbelieve anything since instructions to the gun crew was not recorded. Its as likely as not that they were asked to place shots into different parts of the frontal area in turn to assess the damage. That's an unknowable.

I went back and looked at the Isigny test and the aimpoint is listed for all shots fired. All shots were aimed at either the glacis or the "nose", which seems to be what they call the lower hull plate. So they were basically aiming for center of mass.

[c3k]

So, all those Sherman tankers talking about their 75's being worthless against the front of the Panther were wrong???

Panther losses were staggering. They were outflanked, over-extended, and self-destroyed. However, frontal penetrations were rare. 76's helped. 90's were good.

C'mon. Let's not mix up unit stats with individual combats and facings.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

No. I merely used the Abrams in GW1 as a recent example of partial penetration wherein the penetrator fails to breach the armor but remains stuck in it. In no way does my argument rest on the Abrams case, though. The U.S. Army penetration criterion clearly recognizes the occurrence of a bulge on the interior face of the armor, but without spalling. If you doubt this, may I refer you to the Shoeburyness tests here, where no less than five partial pentrations are listed, with both depth and extent of bulge shown. Am no fan of WOT, but the article on U.S. and CW weapon tests against the Panther from the front is first rate and full of grog goodness. Search this term, please. Not a link! Ike's scathing comment on the 3-Inch/76mm gun is well based. No penetration frontally against Panther glacis of turret front! And that's a potent gun compared to the vanilla Sherman's 75mm. And if I had a Panther, I'd be worried about speedy M8s which could pierce my tanks flanks and rear from 600 yards out.

The Chieftain's Hatch: US Guns, German Armour, Pt 1

Amizaur,

Great pic! Never saw that one before. As for what hit, we can safely exclude 45mm.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Apocal]

So, all those Sherman tankers talking about their 75's being worthless against the front of the Panther were wrong???

Sherman 75 crews weren't "most" armor crews the way most people use the word though, which is what JasonC was saying. Off top I seem to recall 20 SP TD battalions in Normandy, along side however around 35 tank battalions (I'm not sure off the top of my head and my source is down) and maybe close equal numbers of both tank and SP TD battalions during Luttich, when they were actually called to fight large numbers of Panthers.

[JonS]

I make it 17 TD (SP) bns and 27 Tk Bns in Normandy by the end of the campaign. That alone makes the 75mm Sherman "most" armor crews, however you define "armor crews," and on top of that is the nose count which has markedly more tanks in each Tk Bn than there are SPs in an SP Bn.

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

JonS makes an excellent point. A full strength U.S. Tank Battalion consists, no matter how you slice it, of 50+ tanks, with the high end of possible configurations being in the low 70s (50+ Shermans + a 17 tank Stuart company + 6 x Sherman 105)! By contrast, the SP TD Battalion, which was based on Artillery TO&E, was 36 x TD. 3 x 4 gun Battery = TD Company x 3 TD Companies = TD Battalion.

Given the above, counting battalions of tanks vs TDs gives grossly incorrect insights, despite the apparent reasonableness of the method. Therefore, it's quite clear that Sherman crews were indeed the predominant armor crew type.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

JonS, John - the allies fielded more upgunned answers than the the Germans fielded uparmored threats. They fielded a higher portion of them, even, roughly 1/3rd of the AFV fleet vs about 1/4 uparmored in the much smaller German AFV fleet. And they fielded them earlier, with upgunned answers in the field in numbers a year before the threats were there. Nobody else did a better job of having the guns out before the armored plate they were needed against.

But that still meant then lower portion of the allied AFV fleet was outmatched when it faced the heavier portion of the German fleet.

Nevertheless, German armor doctrine was so aggressive and reckless, and German operational handling so bad by the late war period in which they had heavies, that the German armor edge never mattered operationally, over the whole course of the war. It mattered tactically for full offensives - armies for a day or three - maybe 3 or 4 times. For armies plural for months plural, it never mattered.

Shermans included upgunned types - fireflies and 105s and later US 76s with tungsten - plus the flocks of TDs, which got more numerous and better armed continually.

[Battlefront.com]

3 pages ago I suggested (for a second time) that tests be done with a 76mm or 17pdr gun to see what the differences in the test might be. And 3 pages later it's still stuck in repeating the same things found in this thread already.

For such a relatively minor issue this is sure getting a lot more attention than it deserves without further ingame testing.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

*sigh*

Fine. What's another 5 hours of my life for a "relatively minor issue"? I'll test US 76mm at 800 meters.