45mm Penetration of Panther at Kursk

[rexford]

Does anyone have any data on the ranges at Kursk where 45mm anti-tank guns penetrated all areas on Panther except front hull. Or the 76.2 penetration ranges.

The Russian Battlefield has data on Panther penetrations by ammo type and size, and angle, but no ranges.

There is one penetration of Panther mantlet by 45mm APCR, so range must have been short.

There has to be some data hiding somewhere. Posts on the Military Forum and AFV NEWS went unanswered.

[Jeff Duquette]

This is a bit of a tall order to fill. I don't think very many Panther ended up seeing combat at Kursk so AAR's are perhaps scant. References to 45mm vs Panther are maybe even more rare. Some general blurbs on 76.2mm crash boom and what I could find regarding 45mm vs Panther from Eastern Front Operational reports contained in Jentz “Panzertruppen Vol 2”, and Jentz “Panther, Quest for Battlefield Superiority”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The attack is to quickly penetrate into the depth of the

opponents defensive system, take out the enemy artillery and

ensure that armored infantry and infantry are accompanied

forward.

Following the high losses during the first few days, fur-

ther losses were relatively higher. The number of Panthers

that started into battle each day was very small (at times only

10 Panthers). Therefore, the defenders could easily repulse

the attacks.

The enemy defence consisting of 7.62 cm anti-tank and

tank guns succeeded in knocking out Panthers only with flank

shots. Penetration of the frontal armor was never achieved.

Close attention must be paid to guarding the flanks of

the Panther attack! All the other available weapons must be

employed in this effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The weapons functioned free of problems. The Panther

often succeeded in killing T 34 tanks at ranges over 3000

meters.

A large number of Panther losses occurred as a result of:

Hits: The frontal armor is sufficient, but not the 40 mm thick

side armor which was cleanly penetrated. This caused very

many total write offs, since Panthers burnt out when the am-

munition or fuel ignited.

Also, the roof armor is too weak. Armor piercing rounds

that hit the lower half of the gun mantlet were deflected and

penetrated the roof plate. This resulted in driver and radio

operator casualties. Strengthening the armor is not possible,

since the suspension is not adequate for a larger load.

The new hatch design caused problems, especially for

the driver and radio operator. When hit, the hatch cover jams

and can't be opened. If the Panther was to catch on fire, in

many cases the driver and radio operator couldn't evacuate.

In action crews don't close the hatches and accept the loss

of protection so that they can still quickly evacuate if a fire

occurs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Armor: The armor on the front of the Pz.Kpfw. Vis very good.

Armor piercing shells of 76 mm caliber penetrate the front to

a lesser depth than 45 mm hard core projectiles. A Panther

fell out due to a direct hit on the front from a 152 mm high

explosive shell that ripped the hull. The driver and radio op-

erator remained uninjured. Almost all of the Panthers in the

Abteilung have received frontal hits from 76 mm without any

ill effect on the operation of the Panther. In one case, the gun

mantlet was penetrated by a hit from a 45 mm anti-tank gun

from a range of 30 meters. The crew remained unhurt.

However, in contrast, the armor on the sides is very vul-

nerable. The turret side of one Panther was penetrated by a

small caliber with a hard core of about 15 mm diameter. The

hull of another Panther was cleanly penetrated by a smaller

caliber. All of these hits were sustained during combat in vil-

lages or in brushland, where defence of the open flank was

not available.

A direct hit from an artillery shell on the lower front plate

broke all the weld seams back to the middle and broke a

triangular piece several centimeters long out of the glacis plate

and the hull side. It can be argued that the thick armor plates

are not deeply enough welded.

The Schuerzen have been successful. The hangers are

too weak and impractically mounted. Since the Schuerzen

stick out about 8 centimeters from the Panther, they are eas-

ily ripped off by branches and small trees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Weak spots: Pistol port plugs were hit (possibly by 45 mm

armor piercing shells) and shot into the inside of the turret. A

loader and a commander were killed. The rim of the pistol

port plugs should be reinforced. The communications hatch

on the left turret wall was cracked by a direct hit (possibly by

a 76.2 mm armor piercing shell) and incapacitated the turret

crew.

There is concern, that rounds hitting the lower half of the

gun mantlet will be deflected downward and penetrate through

the roof of the crew compartment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

The Grossdeutschland Divisions attached Panther battalion under Count Saurma was apparently somewhat more successful during Citadel than some of the other Panther Units. Perhaps combing Divisional Histories or Divisional Reports for Grossdeutschland Division during Kursk might help with this question. Unfortunately I have no unit histories of the GD division.

[Panther131]

Great stuff Jeff Duquette. Great stuff. That just made my day.

I love information like that. It reads well and is very informative.

Thanks.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

The Grossdeutschland Divisions attached Panther battalion under Count Saurma was apparently somewhat more successful during Citadel than some of the other Panther Units. Perhaps combing Divisional Histories or Divisional Reports for Grossdeutschland Division during Kursk might help with this question. Unfortunately I have no unit histories of the GD division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have Spaeter's official history of the Division in English and can flip through it for you. What am I looking for? I can tell you they don't go into fine tactical detail, though they do have some first person accounts. Certainly no penetration info.

[Jeff Duquette]

Michael:

I think Rexford is hunting for poop on ranges of engagement and areas hit (ie was side armour hit, front armour, rear...etc) in duels between Panthers and the Soviet 45mm ATG. AARs describing range of engagement and #'s of rounds fired, and where hits may have been occurring. 45mm engaged Panther at 300meters, side of Panther

Hit twice...one penetration...Panther burned are the sort of thing that would be most useful (I know this isn't asking too much ...sarcastic). In lieu of more detailed AAR's, any references to 45mm vs Panther maybe helpful.

Thanks for any help

[ 04-22-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm off to help a friend move, but unless someone beats me to it I'll see what I can find. You may want to post the question at www.feldgrau.com too.

[Michael Dorosh]

From Spaeter's history. Not much on penetrations, etc., but perhaps this will be of interest for other reasons?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The Panzer Regiment GD and the panther brigade were supposed to attack with (III Battaillon, Füsilier Regiment GD), however they had the misfortune to drive into a minefield which had escaped notice until then - and this even before reaching the bolshevik trenches! It was enough to make one sick. Soldiers and officers alike feared that the entire affair was going to pot. The tanks were stuck fast, some bogged down to the tops of their tracks, and to make matters worse, the enemy was firing at them with anti-tank rifles, anti tank guns, and artillery. Tremendous confusion breaks out. The fusiliers advance without the tanks. What else can they do? The tanks do not follow.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Michael Dorosh]

From the diary of Pz Gren Rgt GD

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

1000 (5 July 1943) - Order from Division Ia to Panther brigade: advance on point 210.7....execution delayed by halt in front of anti-tank ditch...

1100 Bridge is built over the Gerzovka bottom land

1430 - leading elements of I Battailon and Panther brigade at the anti-tank ditch

1530 - Panther breaks through temporary bridge over Bersovyi bottom land

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pesky Panthers were not just setting themselves on fire, apparently! If they weren't bogging they were breaking bridges!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

At dawn on 7 July the panzers and elements of II Bn PZ Gren Rgt GD first took Dubrova, before veering NW with I Bn Pz Gren Rgt GD. Unfortunately for the attackers, at this point the Panthers suffered enormous losses in tanks knocked out...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't say why or how, though....

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, I'm past Akhtyrka and into August 1943. I fear Spaeter's history is too broad to provide the detail you are looking for. There is a newer book out dealing with just Panzer Regiment GD that may be better. Sorry, gents.

[Jeff Duquette]

Oh well. It was worth a shot. Thanks for digging.

[rexford]

Thanks for responses.

The Russian Battlefield lists knocked out Panthers examined by Russians, hits and penetrations by 45, 76.2 and 85mm guns, plus a bomb dropped on a tank that landed atop the panzer. No anti-tank rifle hits listed, and only a few minefield track breakage.

[Grisha]

Interesting info. Does the German data/records imply that PzVs had little impact at Kursk? I'm finding this confusing ... were heavy tank references mainly PzVIs?

[Skipper]

The list is here (in russian):

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/losses/losses6_r.html

It does list several 45mm side penetrations, a couple ricochets and even a frontal penetration of gun mask on this tank:

[Skipper]

Not about a Panther, but there was a report (Voronezh Front , 1943) that Tigers can be successfully engaged by a 45mm AT gun at distances of 300m or closer. To quote "a morally strong fighter can rather easily hit the tank's vulnerable spots".

[Jeff Duquette]

I think The photos at the Russian Military Zone were what actually initiated the question (read first post by Rexford). There are no details regarding range of engagment on the site. But thanks anyway.

[rexford]

Why we need some data regarding the penetration ranges is because there is just enough data to compute face-hardened armor resistance at angle, which would allow face-hardened penetration to be "ball-parked".

Backing into face-hardened penetration data for some Russian ammo would allow others to be roughly estimated. Since there is no published face-hardened pen. stuff, anything would be great at this point.

One would think that tactically smart Russians would have tabulated penetration ranges against captured panzers, based on their many tests, and we would have all sorts of actual data. Just where is this stuff?

45mm L66 gun could penetrate Tiger side armor at close range using AP type ammo, and at further ranges using APCR. 45mm L46 gun would have to aim at lower side armor or use APCR at close range.

Regarding cheesy gun penetrations, how does the much bally-hooed 37mm on Stuart pierce the side of Tiger II's? 80mm armor seems way beyond the penetration stats for that 1.5" peashooter. Even if it did get in, so what?

37mm is solid shot, and light, and if it penetrates it probably wouldn't have much energy left so might fall inside tank without being noticed.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

One would think that tactically smart Russians...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a whole other argument in itself, isn't it?