The Panther's mew

[caralampio]

I had a concept of the Panther as a monster tank. The Tiger, to a lesser degree. I mean, the history (myth?) goes that most Allied guns could not penetrate it frontally. And how they had to use superior numbers and tactics to flank it and get a side shot. And what about that general, I don't recall his name, who said that on the average his army lost 5 tanks for every Panther they destroyed.

I've been playing Woody's Croosroads. An exciting scenario with tons of tanks on both sides. In fact, playing it for a second time to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong.

But something seems not to be right with my Panthers. Every time a Sherman shoots at their frontal facing (I take good care of not exposing flanks) the round goes in as if the Panther's armor were butter. A hit is a kill. A hit is a kill. A hit is a kill. Good for play balance, as every tank in the scenario seems to be able to kill every other with any hit, but somehow I don't buy it.

So, who is wrong, history or the game? Were Shermans the equals of Panthers? Is all this talk about the big German cats' superiority a lot of bull, made up to justify the 5-1 proportion in losses which would otherwise be due to incompetence?

[Windopaene]

Sounds like the Sherman's are loaded with Tungsten rounds. Tungsten will go through just about anything. Otherwise, those Sherman's will bounce shot after shot off the Panthers...

[ParaBellum]

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

I had a concept of the Panther as a monster tank. The Tiger, to a lesser degree. I mean, the history (myth?) goes that most Allied guns could not penetrate it frontally. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there are quite some "myths" about german armour being almost invincible.

Fact is that at the relative short engagement distances in CM almost every gun can achieve frontal penetrations.

The Panther's got a better chance of survival than the Tiger due to its sloped armour but still it's far from beeing "bulletproof".

You got to use this tanks according to their strenghts, e.g. use them as stand-off weapons to eliminate enemy armour at longer ranges.

Engage Shermans at 1000+ meters and your chances of knocking them out without yourself getting toast will increase a good deal.

[russellmz]

well, there are many factors that go into penetration?

what type of sherman was it(more precisely, what gun did the sherman have)?

what date was it?(tungsten ammunition, when avaliable, KILLs)

what was the range?

what type of panther was it?(which type had the "shot trap" that bounced a shot into the weaker part of the armor?)

76mm + tungsten + close range = burning panther

[Mr. Hankey]

Quick and dirty answer. Panthers are Medium tanks. Tigers are heavy. So basically you have it backwards. Additionally, the armor is of varying thickness on the turret, upper and lower hulls, typically the upper is thickest.

True, it's easier to get a kill on a German tank from a side shot, but it's not always necessary, especially on a Panther.

I'm sure someone with the numbers will fill in these huge blanks in my answer.

Bottom line. Don't get too hung up on the "German Ubertank" thing. It will just get you killed.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Mr. Hankey ]

[Dirtweasle]

Can't tell you how many times I've had my little M4s pinging ricochets off them big beasts.

[Abbott]

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

Can't tell you how many times I've had my little M4s pinging ricochets off them big beasts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking the same thing. I rarely see a frontal kill from a stock Sherman. Even the 76's have trouble without the "T" rounds. The MKV is not a super tank however it is a huge threat when employed properly or conditions favor it.

[Redwolf]

The Panther is not a very thick tank. The point about that tank is to get a medium tank with decent speed that has sufficient (not overwhelming) armour again, after the Panzer IV and before it the Panzer III lost here.

If the Allies say they lost 5 other tanks for each Panther, maybe, but they were on the offensive and less experienced that the crews that were given Panthers. Several other factors come to mind that can explain this number -even if it is right- without making the Panther much than it was. The tank you are talking about should be 76mm or fireflies, though.

As said in this thread, the single factor that really made the Panther a very dangerous one-sided threat is its longer range, which is especially useful on the defensive, but doesn't play a role in CMBO.

[caralampio]

I've not played as the Allied side yet so I don't know if they are loaded with tungsten rounds. Could be, as a play balance thing. Most of the American tanks are 75 Shermans, some 76 as well as M10's and Hellcats. However, the 75's are doing as much "cat skinning" as the others, which is what I found odd. Did they make tungsten rounds for 75's?

The scenario is otherwise really cool. A battle royal.

[jgdpzr]

No, there was no 75mm tungsten. Not to sound like I am challenging you, but I have not experienced 75s routinely taking out Panthers frontally. I had a Stuart take out one from 80m with a weak point penetration on the mantlet. And a few times I have seen a Panther go down to a 75mm from the front, but this was always a weak point penetration. The only explanation I could have would be weak point penetrations, as both historically and as modelled in the game the 75mm simply doesn't have the kinetic energy to penetrate either the glacis or the mantlet of the Panther. Not even close. My experience with the game is consistent with this. One thing I have learned, however, is it is possible to run into a serious run of bad luck in terms of statistical outliers. In other words, it sounds like you are running into far more weak point penetrations than should be expected. But rest assured, in terms of the penetration tables, the game has it right.

Now the 76s and the 17pounders are a different story entirely...

Ooh, I forgot to add that the 75mm will penetrate the lower front hull quite readily. I have lost more than a few that way. Be sure to check where the penetration is occurring, and to note if there are weak point penetrations.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[Michael Emrys]

You've gotten some pretty good replies here, caralampio. The only thing I would add is to remind you that CM allows unlikely things to happen, just as they did in real life. This is known around here as the "**** happens" factor. Even if you were fighting in conditions that were not optimum for the Shermans, in any one or two games there is a slim but real possibility that they just might get lucky and go on a romp. It can happen. To get really representative numbers, you should conduct a test where conditions are equal and run it about a hundred times. That way any quirky luck factors would be more likely to even out and the true probabilities emerge.

Michael

[Gen-x87]

Hey dont feel bad. In the last two games I have played against the AI I lost a panther in each game to a friggin Daimler AC. This is a full frontal shot from about 300m.

Sickening.

On a side note I had my Hetzer + 75 AT and an opponents Sherman Jumbo exchange shots at 1000m. We must have ricocheted about 20 shots in 2 turns off each other before I said screw it I am wasting my op rounds

Poor AT gun was then decimated by the Jumbo.

Gen

[Panther131]

On the contrary, Tungsten rounds penetration effectiveness drops off significantly against sloped armor.

Tungsten penetration table as indicated:

100 m 500m 1000m 2000m

0deg 249 219 185 132

30deg 190 175 149 100

60deg 83 75 66 50

Panther turret design has 11 degree slope however Panther upper and lower hull has 55 degree slope effctively doubleing armor protection.

Turret 110/11°

Upper Hull 80/55°

Lower Hull 60/55°

Panther is most vulnerable to tungsten at its turret.

Is this correct?

I have had two Panthers KO by weak armor spot penetration. And one Panther taken out by a 75mm Sherman round at very close range (within 40m)

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Panther131 ]

[JasonC]

"Panther is most vulnerable to tungsten at its turret."

Yes, that is right. The U.S. 76mm even with T will generally not get through the front hull. If firing downward from a hill, the angle can be reduced enough to let a T get in there (I've seen that). And T rounds from 76mm will go through the turret front.

The normal way Panthers die is a side shot, hull or turret. 76mm T hitting them while they are hull down is the probably the next easiest to pull off.

Incidentally, the Tiger is less armored from the front, and T rounds will go through them, any spot. On the other hand, their side armor is much better, making 75mm Shermans much less effective against them.

Since either type kills essentially any Allied tank they hit (cept Churchills and Jumbos from the front), they are certainly superior tanks and outclass the standard Shermans in tank duels.

[KiwiJoe]

Panthers are great tanks when used right. The problem is there front turret armour isnt that great. 110/10 degrees @ 85% = 93.5/10. Considering around 60-70% of shots hit the turret of a tank + in QBs the allied player is going to buy the "better" equipment...Panthers can be killed from the front with a little bit of skill.

In the real world most tanks would have been 75mm shermans with little chance of a frontal kill. But in a QB with no rules next 2 nobody picks 75mm shermans. Thus the Panher doesnt quite live up to its reputation.

It would be intesresting to play a game with 75mm shermans vs Panthers but I feel shermans are too expensive to allow for this type of battle. I mean 5:1 kills in real life means a sherman sholud be around 40 points if a Panther is around 200 points. I know the sherman is a better infantry killer and as such is worth more points.. but come on I'd take a Panther vs 2 sherman 75's anyday. Simlpy keep the Panther back with good los, kill the shermans, then rape the infantry.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Panther131,

Seems that your table isn't from the latest version of CM (1.12). Tungsten penetration got lowered against sloped armor and increased against non-sloped armor.

All panthers (and jagdpanthers) in CM suffer from the low quality armor modifier (85%). And according to some very knowledgeable participants here, it seems that the 0,85-modifier should only be applied to the upper front hull plate, not on the whole structure as currently is the case. Also in reality not all Panthers were made of crappy alloys, thus making some of them much more resistant than any of their clones in CM. A Random armor-quality modifier has been proposed for the next versions of CM.

Panther's frontal turret is considered to be curved in CM so the 110/11°-values don't tell the whole story. Version 1.12 marks curved mantlets with 'C' in the data display. And when the 0,85-modifier gets applied it's only 0,85*110mm=93,5mm @11°.

Also it has been suggested that the US 75mm gun has a boosted armor penetration performance in CM (about +10%) if compared to the US army's test results.

So these kind of little things have a cumulative effect on the final combat results in CM. In reality an occasional panther with 100%-quality armor may have wreaked havoc among opponents with considerably weaker armor and weaponry. On the other hand there were also panthers with really crappy armor as we have seen in many pictures even on this forum.

Ari

[Warmaker]

Yeah, ever since the 1.12 patch my Panthers' survivability has greatly increased. Tungsten rounds bounce off harmlessly except for very short ranges against the hull's sloped armor.

[Jeff Heidman]

Goof points from everyone.

Just one comment:

The 5:1 ratio is not a kill ratio, it was the ratio that US commanders thought they needed to ensure destruction of the Panther.

With a 5:1 ratio they were confident that they could maneuver the Shermans such that one or tow could get side shots and take it out before the Panther could kill them all. This might result in 2, maybe even three of the Shermans getting waxed, but it might result in one or none getting taken out also.

The poor side armor is a major weakness of the Panther. It can be penetrated at will by almost all Allied tank guns, and it is even a juicy target for bazookas.

Berkut

[CombinedArms]

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

I've not played as the Allied side yet so I don't know if they are loaded with tungsten rounds. Could be, as a play balance thing. Most of the American tanks are 75 Shermans, some 76 as well as M10's and Hellcats. However, the 75's are doing as much "cat skinning" as the others, which is what I found odd. Did they make tungsten rounds for 75's?

The scenario is otherwise really cool. A battle royal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Sherman 76s, Hellcats and M10s all have 76mm guns. With tungsten, these will go right through the front of a Panther. W/o tungsten--plain AP--they may penetrate, more often so at closer ranges. The 75 gun did NOT have tungsten and will penetrate a Panther frontally only rarely--there's a shot trap on all but the late model Panther that will sometimes lead to a 75 frontal kill. Any and all of these tanks can FREELY kill Panthers from the sides. And the more tanks you've got shooting at you, the more likely one of them has a flank shot on your Panther.

All in all, your Panthers are probably SLIGHTLY better than the Allied tank mix, but they may outnumber you and you've got to treat their capabilities w/ great respect. Fire at range from hulldown positions and prevent flanking as much as possible. If you wade in to mix it up with the Sherms you're sacrificing your advantages.

BTW, the Allied tanker phrase was not that they lost 5 tanks for each Panther killed but that it TOOK 5 tanks to kill one Ubercat--I think the usual reference was to a Tiger. One guy would engage the CAT from the front from cover while the others raced up the sides for flank shots. The stat I've heard for the Hellcat was that IT had a 10-1 kill ratio against Axis AFVs. I take this with a grain of salt, but it's a sign you must treat them with respect.

[Panther131]

mistake in post

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Panther131 ]

[Echo]

If you want to see those horrific results of early allied armor against the panzers, set yourself up in a QB (or any other battle), in June of '44. You will not have the luxury of 76's or tungsten there. Sounds like you in a 76 rich enviroment with that scenario.

[sable-]

Or just play "Le Leroy - A Hard Stand" off the CD and watch Barkmann's Panthers pop a wide assortment of early Shermans and TD's. Lot's of fun.

Seriously though, the Panther outclasses just about every allied tank head to head. The only ones I'd worry about "facing up" would be the Pershing, Jumbo and Firefly. The Jumbo and Pershing are somewhat resistant to the Panther's gun, and the Firefly and Pershing can both penetrate the Panthers turret at reasonable ranges(like 500-1000m). But here's the great thing about the Panther ... if you run into something that is actual a danger to you frontally just use your excellent manueverability to find an advantageous spot to brew them up from. Yes the side armor is weak, but this is true for pretty much every tank.

Sable