Manx Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 Another "Big Cat" - The Panther...Considered by many to have been the best all-round tank of WWII. Does it live up to it's reputation in CMBO??. Please comment on YOUR battlefield observations and tactical usage of this vehicle?. BTW - The M3/M3A1 Halftrack page is up. Thanks to all those that contributed to it. Remember, you can always add comments to any of the units done so far by sending it in to me via e-mail. ------------------ COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK [This message has been edited by Manx (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 BTTT ------------------ COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Well I wouldn't call it the all around best in the whole war ( not that I would know waht the best all arounder is, I've heard convincing arguments about the T-34 though), but in CMBO its really good. I find that it's really suited to the term "medium tank" Perfect medium of armor, speed, and stopping power. I love this tank. I played the the "Le Leroy-A Hard Stand" scenario and found it well suited to taking on Shermans. The turret speed (labeled as slow) seems faster than that in reality. I found that It was more than fast enough to rotate and track Shermans as they flanked me. The Tank isn't invincible though, but thats probably why it's a "medium" tank. All the stuff labeled "Invincible" is usually too heavy to even support it's own weight properly. All and all, a very fine piece of machinery! [This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 BUMP Did I mention that my Panther took a 75mm at point-blank and it bounced off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 If I had to man a tank during this period of time, I think I would opt for a Panther G (late) all things being equal. Speed, great x-country performance, very good armor (excellent in many ways), and a kick ass gun. The only reason I don't buy more of them in QBs is that I am a cheapskate and go for quantity over quality. Call me Mr. Mark Four Hehe... but if I was in a Sturmtiger I would have seen mortal combat only once, so there is that to think about Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 May be we have to see CM2 to see how T-34/85 performs. I can foresee there will be at least one thread comparing these two, if not, I shall start one! Since I usually play combined-arms troops in most QB I buy only one Panther, if not, the computer usualy grant me 1 Panther. In many more than once, my Panther is a nightmare to Allied tanks, and have at least 2:1 exchange rate. Hetzer may be king of anti-tank role, sometimes I prefer getting a all-round Panther than a Hetzer plus a STuH/Sdfk-251/9. I would again stress that Panther is not "ubertank" and proper handlings is required to keep it survive long enough, which sometimes I fail to do... Griffin. ------------------ "When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI." "Can't get enough Tank?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hehe... but if I was in a Sturmtiger I would have seen mortal combat only once, so there is that to think about <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, if you're going to go by that, then by all means, the best tank to be driving is the firefly IIc. I'm also a big fan of the panther... pretty fast, good gun, pretty good armor, very good front armor. It's hampered somewhat by the slow turret, but this isn't critical, particularly with the hull rotation change in 1.1. Much better against armor than against infantry, but not terrible as an anti-infantry weapon. There's probably two good ways to use the panther: in medium tank mode and in heavy TD mode. Medium tank mode, you use mobility, and terrain, and the turret to get shots off and restrict how much the enemy can shoot at you. Use for closer range engagements, or other situations where it's hard to restrict the enemy's ability to get a side shot on the tank. Heavy TD mode, you stick the tank somewhere with a long los to the front but protected from flank shots, and trust the superiority of your gun and your heavy armor to keep the tank alive. Use where you can restrict side shots to somewhere with a long los to somewhere the enemy armor is likely to pass. As always, use groups of tanks together. -John ------------------ sometimes i'd like to kick your f-ing head but i guess you're just a human too -EMBRACE, "SAID GUN" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 Thanks chaps - useful comments. The Panther page is now up and your comments have been added. Keep em' coming! ------------------ COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 The T-34 does merit a good argument as earning the title of best all around tank of the war just like the Panther. After all, the T-34 shocked Germany enough to develop their Big Cats. Both possess good survivability (frontal armor/slope), cross country, and ground pressure to not get bogged down (i.e. Tiger I/II). The Panther wins over in the main gun category with it's outstanding penetration, even over the famed 88's. The T-34's were upgunned however but later in the war. Also Germany was known to develop oustanding optics for their gunners and further lent to those 1000+ meter kills the Big Cats were known for. The Shermans and T-34's however were produced in huge numbers and the Panther/Tigers were a bit complex in engineering(further hampered by dwindling resources as time progressed) though the E-50/75 in development as the replacement for the Panther/Tigers was supposed to be simplified/standardized to ease up the logistical nightmare. But I still dislike the Shermans due to their paper mache armor towards German guns whereas the T-34 was much more survivable. In short, I'd rather be in a Panther series tank over the T-34. Sherman? Fahgedaboutit... 88mm in the front end and out the rear, ZIPP! ------------------ "Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: The T-34 does merit a good argument as earning the title of best all around tank of the war just like the Panther. After all, the T-34 shocked Germany enough to develop their Big Cats. Both possess good survivability (frontal armor/slope), cross country, and ground pressure to not get bogged down (i.e. Tiger I/II). The Panther wins over in the main gun category with it's outstanding penetration, even over the famed 88's. The T-34's were upgunned however but later in the war. Also Germany was known to develop oustanding optics for their gunners and further lent to those 1000+ meter kills the Big Cats were known for. The Shermans and T-34's however were produced in huge numbers and the Panther/Tigers were a bit complex in engineering(further hampered by dwindling resources as time progressed) though the E-50/75 in development as the replacement for the Panther/Tigers was supposed to be simplified/standardized to ease up the logistical nightmare. But I still dislike the Shermans due to their paper mache armor towards German guns whereas the T-34 was much more survivable. In short, I'd rather be in a Panther series tank over the T-34. Sherman? Fahgedaboutit... 88mm in the front end and out the rear, ZIPP! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know, I'd pick a Sherman 7,6cm E8 over a T-34/85 remembering that in Korea substandard optics and ammo (could have been Export 'quality') meant that the Sherman had the edge. Even without these the American 7,6cm gun out performed the 8,5cm Russian gun. Never mind that Russian armour was as flawed to the same degree late war German armour without the compensation of being as thick as the Panthers or German late war heavies.. The Panther as it stands in CM is the best Medium Tank the comparable M4A3E8 costs just as much and is not guaranteed to kill a Panther frontally unless hits on the Turret are achieved at sub 500m ranges. The promise of fixed APCR treatment will make the Panther essentially invulnerable in the glacis to 7,6cm APCR/HVAP unless the 7,6cm armed veh approach horrifically close (300m?) and will make even long range turret kills problematic. Besides causing problems for my redoubtable Fireflies. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-11-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 The only technical detail that make me hesitate about this tank is it's HE performance. Sure the AP is good enough against armour, but when you're engaging hordes of crunchies you really need some good explosives. Cheers Olle ------------------ Srategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 The T-34 was an outstanding and revolutionary vehicle in the early to mid war years. By the late war period (1944+) they were nothing special. The latest model T-34s were pretty much equivalent to the latest models of the M4, which were largely equivalent ot the latest models of the PzIV. The Panther was superior to all of them. As far as Korea is concerned, the M4A3E8(76) did just fine against T-34s, and the T-34s were surplus WW2 tanks (just like the M4s). They were not export models per se. They were exactly the same as the T-34s that were driven into Berlin. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 I think the Germans should have continued to mass produce only four tanks from 1943 on: Mark IV - the sherman of the German Army. A little outdated by 1944 standards but cheap to make. Mark V 'Panther' - all around best tank of the war. Stug IIIG - reused the Mark III chassis and good quality infantry support vehicle. Hetzer - reused Pzkfw 38(t) chassis and was very good quality tank destroyer that was relatively cheap to make. The amount of resources (manpower, money, time) spent by the German armaments industry in building the super heavy tanks and tank destroyers was a phenominal waste. Do you realize that it took over 300,000 man hours to make a single Tiger tank? [This message has been edited by Keith (edited 01-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by Keith (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kelly Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 I haven't had much luck with the Panther, but especially the "A." In a PBEM team game, a Cromwell VIII took my Panther A out with one shot from 1,000 meters. I thought I was taking advantage of its best features and decided to order an overwatch. Bad move! I haven't learned how to otimally manage this tank...any suggestions? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts