M. Bates Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Quick question, how was the Tiger 88mm less effective against enemy tanks than the Panther's 75mm? I looked at the numbers of the info sheet in CM, and the penetration for the Panther is higher. I have always blindly bought Tigers because I think they are the best value tank in long range engagements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 One of the true grognards must know the detailed answer to this one. I do know that the Panther's 75 had a very potent muzzle velocity; it was a terrific gun, and a lot of people (Stephen Ambrose included) erroneously think that the Panther had an 88 because it was such a good tank killer. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 Excellent, thanks for the answer! So in which situation would a player buy a Tiger, and when would he buy a Panther, assuming that he can only afford one in a game? Advice appreciated. I can see the Tiger having better HE performance, but it surely has better all round armour (80 on sides and back I think), and the Tiger when I play appears to be pretty resiliant to infantry grenades and bazookas. It also gets lots of deflections at long range. So why choose a Panther? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Well, the ability of a WW2 gun using AP ammo to penetrate armor is based upon three things (primarily): 1. Size of the round 2. Velocity of the round 3. Quality of the ammunition A given guns muzzle velocity is largely dependent on the length of the barrel. The longer the barrel, the longer the round is being pushed by expanding gasses, and hence the faster it is moving when it leaves the barrel, at which point it immediately begins to slow down. The 88mm gun on the Tiger is a direct copy of the 88mm FlaK gun. It has a size of 88L56. That means it is 88mm in diameter, and 56x88mm in length (~4.9m). The 75mm gun on the Panther is a 75L70. hence it has a total barrel length of ~5.25m. So, its round has a (significantly) greater velocity. IIR my HS physics correctly, the basic kinetic energy of an object is 1/2m*v^2. Velocity is very important. The greatly higher velocity of the 75mm AT round from the Panther makes up for the lower weight of the round. Now, there are an abundance of people on this board who can give you a *much* more detailed explanation. I have generalized a bit. Now, just think about what that means for the King Tigers 88L71 gun. It comes in at ~6.2m in length... Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 The Panther's gun has a longer barrel and far higher muzzle veocity which gives it wicked penetration for it's size. Panthers are waaaaaaay sweeter for long range fights. Their sloped armour will bounce most shots off... only the yanky 90mm and brit 17 pounder have a real chance agianst them. An that 75/L70 gun will punch threw 145mm at 1000m, more than enough to deal with most allied tanks. Add to the mix that the panther's turret is faster and it has more speed than the Tiger 1 and its worth the extra 20 odd points to get a Panther in almost any situation. The Panther is prolly the best all round tank in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A given guns muzzle velocity is largely dependent on the length of the barrel. The longer the barrel, the longer the round is being pushed by expanding gasses, and hence the faster it is moving when it leaves the barrel, at which point it immediately begins to slow down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So that seems to get to the heart of the question, food for thought! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Add to the mix that the panther's turret is faster and it has more speed than the Tiger 1 and its worth the extra 20 odd points to get a Panther in almost any situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And have people beaten Jumbos with the Panther? It can be hit and miss with the Tiger at times. Plus the Panther has significantly better speed... I think I have found a favourite new tank!! (The other great thing is, as a German player I can always say, "right I'll send you a setup, let's exclude Tigers and Jumbos to keep the game interesting". Hehe. Also the Panther is classified as a medium tank, muhaha!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Before we dismiss the Tiger I completely it is important to note that it has two significant advantages over the Panther which make it worthwhile in *certain* situations. First, it has thicker side and rear armor (later top armor as well) and this makes it valuable in when you know there will be bazookas and Sherman 75s creeping around and getting in side shots. Second, the Tiger I's 88L56 is better vs. infantry. I'm not arguing that the Tiger is a better tank than the Panther, but it does have some advantages that can make it worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Well so is the Easy-Eight... ------------------ Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Tried out the effect of barrel length on velocity one time with blow-guns in the jungle. They are just a length of bamboo tube, so the natives had all different lengths (of the same diameter) for different types of hunting, using the same type of poison dart in all of them. It made a BIG difference how long a tube I picked, both in velocity and accuracy. Apparently the short ones they used were handy for packing around and getting quick shots at stuff they could get fairly close to, whereas the long ones were tougher to make, pack around, and set up but invaluable for picking off animals that had to be stalked from a distance. Sherman 75 vs Panther 75, in a sense. It did take a lot more breath to 'fire' the long tube. I guess that's why the Panther's 75mm, KT's 88L71, Firefly's 17 pounder etc were all such long shells with so much propellant. Barrel length only gets you so far without the extra charge to take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 And CM models all this beautifully. I had to watch one turn in a recent scenario over and over and just shake my head with appreciation. A King Tiger and a Churchill VII engaged each other at just under 1200m. Both fired at the same time and, oddly enough, scored first round hits. The amazing thing was watching the 88 fly on a nearly flat trajectory, while the 75 arched well above it. Its one thing for game mechanics to account for this, but another altogether to graphically represent it. Needless to say, the Churchill ended up a burning pyre while the 75 bounced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kking199 Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 Well this blows the bigger is better theory all to hell!! ------------------ Arghhh!!.... I'm Hit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kking199: Well this blows the bigger is better theory all to hell!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Au contraire, mes ami! According to the arguments here, size does indeed matter! (as far as anti-tank guns go). If yr going into a typical Combined Arms battle, a Tiger I is the best choice --- it's tough (armor is always rated at 100%), has a gun that works equally well against armor, infantry, and buildings. Why buy a Panther? So what if it's faster? You expecting to get into a road rally? Most of the armor engagements I've been in involved creeping up to the crest of a hill and trying to pick off the enemy armor at long range, then moving in to mop up the now hapless infantry. If you really expect to be involved in some long-distance calling, dial 1-800-Jagdpanther: Low silouette, nice slope to the frontal glacis, and a 88L71 gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 There are 2 different types of 88mm guns. I have no clue what the names are, but there's the short ones on Tiger 1s and 88mm flak guns. For real long range killing, nothing can beat the 88 longs. They're on Tiger IIs, 88mm AT guns, and the jagdpanther. They'll penetrate almost any allied armor at any range. And for really long range killing, there's always the jagdtiger, with a 128mm gun. IMHO it's overkill, though. ------------------ No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game edited because I don't know as much html as I thing I do. [This message has been edited by 109 Gustav (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 This is kind of an interesting exercise. Calculate the kinetic energy of the respective munitions of the Panther and Tiger I. K.E. = ½ x M x V^2 K.E.= Kinetic Energy of penetrator M= projectile mass in kilograms V^2= muzzle velocity squared Here are the vital stats: Panther 75mmL70 Pzgr 39/42 935 m/s 6.8kg Pzgr 40/42 1,120 m/s 4.75kg Tiger 88mmL56 Pzgr 39 773 m/s 10.2kg Pzgr 40 930 m/s 7.3kg Apparently Pzgr39 was the most commonly available munitions for both AFV’s. Kinetic Energy for the Panther’s 75mmL70: Pzgr 39/42 KE = 2,972,365 Pzgr 40/42 KE = 2,979,200 Kinetic Energy for the Tiger 88mmL56 Pzgr 39 KE = 3,047,398 Pzgr 40 KE = 3,156,885 In both cases the Kinetic Energy of the Tigers 88mm is higher than that of the Panthers 75 lang. Hmmmm… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 To go along with this argument, you can't discount certain Sherman guns. The Jumbos and 76mm varients can handle Panthers pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 The last item you seem to be missing is the aamount of armor that the kinetic energy has to defeat to penetrate, also a key component in the equation. Fatter rounds like the 88 for example, has to displace more than a 76. For the logical extension, move forward 50 years and look at the new "arrows" shot by the M1 Abrams that is little larger than a finger. Super velocity + high density + miniscule cross-section = enormous penetration power. ------------------ To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kking199: Well this blows the bigger is better theory all to hell!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try convincing my wife of that statement! Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 Very good Herr Oberst…you win a cookie. Calculate kinetic energy per unit area at impact: Tiger Pzgr39 Diameter = 88mm Panther Pzgr 39/42 Diameter = 75mm Cross sectional area of 88mm round = 6079 mm^2 Cross sectional area of 75mm round = 4415 mm^2 Kinetic Energy per unit area at the point of impact: Tiger Pzgr39 = 2,972,365/6079...or about 501 J/mm^2 Panther Pzgr39/42 = 3,047,398/4415...or about 673 J/mm^2 In other words the Panthers Pzgr39/42 has approximately 35% more kinetic energy per unit area over the Tiger I's Pzgr39. Fun with physics. In addition the 88mm's larger cross-sectional area presents a larger pig to move thorugh the air. As it speeds its way toward its intended victim it has to push a great deal more air out of its way than the more lithe 75mm Pzgr39/42. Increased air resistance...increased friction in the system...decrease in penetrator velocity at a faster rate. My wife always told me thicker was better as well. [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: In addition the 88mm's larger cross-sectional area presents a larger pig to move thorugh the air. ... Increased air resistance... increased friction in the system... decrease in penetrator velocity at a faster rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not so sure about this conclusion. Drag (air resistance) is proportional to the velocity cubed, for any given body, and the constant isn't only based on cross section but density and overall shape as well. I'm pretty sure that the AP from the 75L70 drops speed faster than the 88, so at some distance (more than 1000m) both AP have same kinetic energy, and beyond that the 88 has more energy. About barrel length: It's not exactly as simple as saying longer barrel mean higher velocity. What it all come down to is inner ballistics, i.e. what happens inside the barrel. Muzzle velocity is projectile acceleration integrated over the time spent inside the barrel. It's obvious that the time increases with barrel length. Acceleration, OTOH, has to do with the gas pressure in the barrel, and this has virtually nothing to do with barrel length. A couple of options present themselves with elongating the barrel: - Reduce pressure while keeping muzzle velocity constant. This yield better precision and lesser barrel wear. Allows also the use of more fragile shells and detonators. Requires a slower gun powder. - Gain muzzle velocity with the same propellant. Squeeze more energy out of the gun powder, having a lower gas pressure at the end. Will also increase precision. - Keep gas pressure high, increasing muzzle velocity significantly. Requires a slightly slower gun powder, but more of it. The blowpipe example shows the second alternative above. Propellant is the same, but used more efficiently with a longer pipe. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts