Panther Vulnerability at Kursk

[rexford]

After the Panther attack where tanks got caught in bad terrain and were blown away by Russian 45mm, 76.2mm and 85mm guns, the Russians went out and analyzed the guns, ammo and impact angles that made armor penetrations. Ranges were not listed although one 45mm APCR hit was at 50m.

For those who like that sort of thing, the following is a summary of the widest wide angle penetrations by 76.2mm APBC that occurred against Panthers (source in in Archives section of Russian Battlefield, look for Panther damage report):

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/losses/losses6.html

Tank 95

Rear hull 40mm penetrated at 50° side angle

Tank 122

Upper side hull 40mm penetrated at 50° side angle

Turret side 45mm penetrated at 45° side angle

Tank 142

Rear hull 40mm penetrated at 65° side angle

Tank 170

Upper side hull 40mm penetrated at 60° side angle

Tank 615

Upper side hull 40mm penetrated at 50° side angle

The large compound angle penetrations are only possible, in many cases, with flat nose APBC. Flat nose APBC is less effective than Allied APCBC against vertical armor, but APBC really burns em on angled hits.

Based on little or no real data, I'am guessing that the ranges were 100m to 200m. There were no 45mm APBC penetrations of Panther upper side armor.

A 65° side angle hit on rear armor is odd, since the great majority of the tank target would have been side armor.

[offtaskagain]

The Russians must have been pretty damn well camoflauged to be getting all of these rear hull penetrations. Do you have any penetration data for the 45m APS round? I see one of those poked through the front mantlet on 634.

[Runyan99]

Wow this is some really good stuff.

Notice that tank 142 is a good example of those Gun Damaged hits that occur frequently in CM.

[offtaskagain]

Check out what a 100kg bomb can do.

[Username]

The website claims that 85mm AP were only used by AA guns. Werent there T34/85 or SU85 also making a debut at Kursk?

[offtaskagain]

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

The website claims that 85mm AP were only used by AA guns. Werent there T34/85 or SU85 also making a debut at Kursk?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they arrived in August. I think some may have participated in the Russian operations to push back the Germans after the battle.

[Spook]

POSSIBLY the SU-85, although for now I think the SU-85 started getting deployed in the fall of '43 instead. The T-34/85 started deploying even later, about in the early-'44 timeframe.

I believe that the SU-152 was on hand at Kursk, gaining the reputation of "Animal Hunter" due to its ability to take on both the German Tigers & Panthers of that time.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Check out what a 100kg bomb can do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously not much.

Why, even that fella at point blank is unharmed.

[Pzman]

I would have to say that the main problem the Panther had a Kursk was reliability. Some reports talk of burning tanks before they even got to the front lines let alone what those bombs could do.

[MikeyD]

One shock the Germans had at (or around) Kursk was discovering the Russian AT rifles (14.5mm?) could pierce the Panther's hull side above the road wheels! That's what spurred the design of the heavier Panther 2, but just hanging soft metal skirts solved that particular problem.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

The Russians must have been pretty damn well camoflauged to be getting all of these rear hull penetrations. Do you have any penetration data for the 45m APS round? I see one of those poked through the front mantlet on 634.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet AT defence belts at Kursk were massive, some sources put them at 470 AT guns per km, & all the AT defences included specialy trained tank destroyer Eng teams as well. 9th Army got mired in the first 2 belts.

45mm APS data @ 30^, 0^ in ( )'s :

300m - 53mm (65mm)

500m - 49mm (61mm)

1000m - 41mm (51mm)

45mm HVAP data @ 30^, 0^ in ( )'s

300m - 63mm (77mm)

500m - 54mm (66mm)

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[offtaskagain]

If thats all correct, then how the hell did a 45mm APS penetrate the front of the mantlet? Must have been horrible quality armor or gone through the gun sight. The picture for that particular vehicle unfortunately is taken from the side, so you can't see the turret face for the shot location.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Its not that amazing when you look at how the panthers were deployed during Kursk. The commander of the Panther Abtulung just ran his tanks stright at the Russians, thinking the new tank would be impervious to AT fire. The Abtulung started with 200 Panthers and in a week of fighting were down to under 20. They pratically gave the Russians Panthers to examine.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Soviet AT defence belts at Kursk were massive, some sources put them at 470 AT guns per km, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't wait to see that scenario in CM2. Those Russians were some gamey bastards.

[Schrullenhaft]

At that density (470 AT guns/km) a tank couldn't help but run over an AT gun every so many meters. In a square km each gun, spread out evenly, would only get approx. 20.5m square ! In a real situation this would be almost wheel-to-wheel in lots of AT gun nests.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Try out my Prokhorovka scenario, plenty of dug in AT guns. I'm gonna need to convert that for the upcoming tanktatic. And as soon as CM2 comes in the mail.

[Username]

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

At that density (470 AT guns/km) a tank couldn't help but run over an AT gun every so many meters. In a square km each gun, spread out evenly, would only get approx. 20.5m square ! In a real situation this would be almost wheel-to-wheel in lots of AT gun nests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1000*1000=1000000 sq-m/470=?

[Stalin's Organ]

Remember that those guns weer NOT laid out in a single continuous line - they weer in separated belts, and included as "AT guns" heavy artillery sited with a view to possible direct fire roles.

But in addition there were, of course, supporting ATR nests - at home I've got a photo of such a "nest" with 2 ATR's and an assortment of moltov cocktails and RPG AT grenades. And as someone lese pointed out the russian infantry was also organised for AT defence.

In fact the whole Russian defensive effort was assigned to AT roles!

I believe the 85mm guns at Kursk may also have included the new 85mm field gun - not specifically and AT gun, it was intended as a replacement for hte 76mm field gun and had a low shillouette and of course useful penetration.

[Mace]

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

After the Panther attack where tanks got caught in bad terrain and were blown away by Russian 45mm, 76.2mm and 85mm guns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some references, one particular Panther unit was also caught up in an uncleared Soviet minefield near the jumping off point.

There was also the early teething problems with the Ausf D in that the engine sometimes caught fire, and the transmission needing improvement.

I also read somewhere that the SU-152 (not to be confused with the ISU-152) was first fielded during the Kursk Offensive.

Mace

[offtaskagain]

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

According to some references, one particular Panther unit was also caught up in an uncleared Soviet minefield near the jumping off point.

There was also the early teething problems with the Ausf D in that the engine sometimes caught fire, and the transmission needing improvement.

I also read somewhere that the SU-152 (not to be confused with the ISU-152) was first fielded during the Kursk Offensive.

Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The SU-152 was for sure at Kursk. They all deployed on the north against 9th Army. They were credited with killing several Ferdinands. Someone not too long ago posted a picture of a Ferdinand that an SU-152 had tried to KO frontally. That just doesn't work against a Ferdinad. It had two massive chips in the front superstructure but was still operational. That must have been hell to be in the vehicle when it took those hits.

[Schrullenhaft]

Lewis - the 20.5m is not the number of square meters (area), but the length of one side of the square an AT gun would occupy. In CM turns there would almost be one AT gun per "tile". Of course this is an unrealistic deployment, but it just gives you an idea of some of the concentrations of the AT assets the Russians had prepared.

[Username]

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

Lewis - the 20.5m is not the number of square meters (area), but the length of one side of the square an AT gun would occupy. In CM turns there would almost be one AT gun per "tile". Of course this is an unrealistic deployment, but it just gives you an idea of some of the concentrations of the AT assets the Russians had prepared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

20.5*20.5=420.25*470=?

I think the side is like 46m then isnt it? So its like 1 per 4 tiles?

[rexford]

45mm tungsten core ammunition at 0°

45mmL46 anti-tank gun

94mm at 100m, 84mm at 250m, 70mm at 500m

45mmL66 anti-tank gun

108mm at 100m, 97mm at 250m, 81mm at 500m

Both 45mm guns could hole the Panther mantlet at 50m with tungsten core ammo and a hit near the mantlet vertical center.

[rexford]

Any data on the ranges where those Panther penetrations took place?

[Grisha]

According to Glantz in his book Soviet Military Operational Art, the defense system at Kursk is really best thought of as 'bubbles' that were connected to each other. The density of these systems varied, and were designed to channel the German advance in specific avenues where the main AT zones lay. These prime AT zones were placed in areas that it was felt the German advance would focus on, like junctions, bridges, etc., and were packed with AT guns, as well as dug-in tanks.