The Panther gun's incredible ability to penetrate armor

[John Kettler]

This is one of the most remarkable WW II combat anecdotes I've ever seen, so am sharing it. Source is here.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/P_Reply/Normandy.php

Fair use.

Creative Armour

Canadian tank crews were forced to invent their own armour protection directly in the Normandy battlefield. General Radley Walters, then a squadron commander, welded discarded German tank tracks to the hull of his tank to protect his crew from armour piercing shot. But even with jerryrigged "appliqué" armour the Sherman could not withstand direct fire from enemy tanks:

Just outside Carpiquet I saw a single shot from a Panther knock out three Shermans. It went through two of them before stopping in the third.

Three tanks with one shot! Anyone have the engagement's details?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vulture-suc4]

Good link. Makes a very interesting read

Vulture

[John Kettler]

Vulture-suc4,

Glad you like it! Considering I knew almost nothing about the topic, I found the critique most useful. Now, though, I need to track down the referenced documentary film!

Regards,

John Kettler

[michael kenny]

It would be easy to forget that the Allied Armies pushed the Germans back day by day until they finaly broke and ran. Manpower caualties were more or less even and even the much touted massacre of Allied armour only gave a 2:1 exchange ratio in the German favour. You can find a number of examples where German armour attacked and was decimated but this rarely gets a mention.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

even the much touted massacre of Allied armour only gave a 2:1 exchange ratio in the German favour.

Which massacre would you be referring to? Goodwood?

I can think of a couple of instances where the exchange rate was around 10:1 or better in the German's favor.

[ChrisND]

Key word there, a COUPLE. Their extreme nature lends to them being remembered and recounted more easily than the masses of "dull" and standard tank engagements.

[GreenAsJade]

The CM AP modelling is RETARDED.

I've _never_ had an AP shot go through more than one tank!

GaJ

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

The CM AP modelling is RETARDED.

I've _never_ had an AP shot go through more than one tank!

GaJ

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Which massacre would you be referring to? Goodwood?

I can think of a couple of instances where the exchange rate was around 10:1 or better in the German's favor

I was talking in general terms, i.e the uber-panzer myth with each German tanks surrounded by 5 burning Shermans.

Goodwood only has a high exchange trate if you compare every damaged British tank to German total losses.

I would be interested in any 'better than 10:1' kill ratios

[Kingfish]

Just off the top of my head:

Worthington Force

Les Mesnil Paltry

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Just off the top of my head:

Worthington Force

Les Mesnil Paltry

Great. Guess what scenario I'm playing. Nice map, though.

[michael kenny]

The German tank loss figures for these actions are?

[Kingfish]

Worthington Force lost 47 tanks atop hill 195. There were no German tank losses.

At Les Mesnil Paltry 37 Canadian tanks were lost vs 3 German.

In both cases my source is Steel Inferno.

Goodwood only has a high exchange trate if you compare every damaged British tank to German total losses.

What would the exchange rate be if you discount German losses from the RAF bombing? AIUI, the Germans lost 75 tanks and assault guns total, but of these 47 were from the bombings.

[michael kenny]

.

At Les Mesnil Paltry 37 Canadian tanks were lost vs 3 German.

Reynolds stated that most were destroyed by infantry weapons. Were all the tanks lost and nor recovered?

What would the exchange rate be if you discount German losses from the RAF bombing?

Give me the number of British tanks destroyed by pak/infantry rather than panzers and I will try and work it out.

AIUI, the Germans lost 75 tanks and assault guns total, but of these 47 were from the bombings.

#

This would be the highest total of bombed tanks I have ever seen and hardly believable. The German loss figure is not known and thus all attempts are speculation but 75 is not the highest I have seen. As Goodwood attacked into prepared defences I believe minefield losses would enter into the picture and Richard Anderson gave the number British of 'write-offs' for Goodwood as 146 and the German figure as 86.

[ May 20, 2007, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Reynolds stated that most were destroyed by infantry weapons.

I'm looking at the book now but can't seem to find this. I see the mention of the 12th SS Pioneers armed with fausts and magnetic mines, but nothing else. If anything, it appears the main killer on that day was from long range fire, whether it was from PAK or tanks I can't tell.

Here is another source on Les Mesnil Paltry:

First Hussars

Scroll down to "June 11th-the black day of the Hussars".

Were all the tanks lost and nor recovered?

I don't know.

[Redwolf]

That report is highly questionable.

The side armor's thickness of a Sherman is almost a third of the Panther's total penetration capability, so that's 1.5 tanks.

However, the projectile deforms in and tumbles after the first plate, so you can't even expect the 1.5.

[John Kettler]

Redwolf,

While I take your point, strange things happen in war. I know of a case in which an M5 Stuart came around a corner, spotted an 88 about 100 meters or so away, and before the Stuart could reverse, took a through and through turret hit. In one side and out the other, yet not a man scratched! At the ironclad battle of Lissa, one of the warships actually managed to get a gun inside the casemate of the rival flagship and fired. Results? Basically nil! Why? The gun crew got so excited it forgot to load a shell! There was also that little "mishap" at Hastings in which King Harald took an arrow smack in the eye, taking him out of the battle.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Redwolf]

How does a 88mm penetrating two Stuart sides say anything about a 75mm penetrating 5 Sherman sides?

[JonS]

The Shermans were prechambered with squibs, clearly.

[John Kettler]

Redwolf,

My point is that all kinds of weird things occur in war, many of them decidedly counterintuitive. To show you, though, that it is possible to get a through and through on even a heavy tank, please read the following and note that an 88 went clean through the front of a King Tiger turret and out the back, as attested by the carefully captioned photos. This was from 400 meters.

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123

JonS,

ROFLYAO Would've said ROFLMAO, but it wasn't that funny.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 20, 2007, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[JonS]

It wasn't meant to be funny, certainly not for you anyway.

You see fantasies and conspiracies everywhere, which pretty much makes anything you say unreliable and worthless. In the post that Redwolf questioned you on, you have confused basic, repeatable physics (ie, a 75mm has the power to penetrate the equivalent of three Sherman 'sides') with mere chance (Harold getting an arrow in the eye, or Ancona's gun crew forgetting to load the shot) and the mere banal (an 88mm getting a through and through penetration on a Stuart is about as surprising as the Sun coming up this morning).

Edit: By the way, how are you going on the major earthquake watch? My prediction was rather terrific, don't you think?

[ May 20, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Don't you have anything better to do than stalk me? Your constant need to denigrate me says far more about you than it does about me!

I cited the source, to which Redwolf remonstrated. Neither of us was there, but a then squadron commander, who rose to become a general, says it happened.

Nor would I hold a live Stielhandgranate 39 in my hand until the grenade went off and expect to survive, let alone with all limbs and fingers intact, yet Screaming Eagle Donald Burgett had exactly that happen to him while playing "hot potato" in the hedgerow with a German counterpart in Normandy. The blast knocked him out, blew off his clothes and left him temporarily deaf. Not exactly what the physics would predict, is it? Read his CURRAHEE! for the story. Care to test the physics personally?

That an 88 could get a through and through at spitting range on a Stuart's turret from the side doesn't surprise me; what surprises me is that such a tiny manned turret could take such a hit with nothing but unwanted ventilation as the result. That, though, is precisely what a man who was in the tank when it was hit reports.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Nor would I hold a live Stielhandgranate 39 in my hand until the grenade went off and expect to survive, let alone with all limbs and fingers intact, yet Screaming Eagle Donald Burgett had exactly that happen to him while playing "hot potato" in the hedgerow with a German counterpart in Normandy. The blast knocked him out, blew off his clothes and left him temporarily deaf. Not exactly what the physics would predict, is it? Read his CURRAHEE! for the story. Care to test the physics personally?

More of the same from you, huh? You aren't dealing with physics there so much as statistics. Nearly the same mechanism is at play for survivors of close artillery impacts. I wouldn't want to try it personally (because you don't, for example, hear from all the squadies playing hot potato who lost when the timer ran out) but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that someone did survive such an event to write about it.

What that has to do with armour penetration I have no idea.

what surprises me is that such a tiny manned turret could take such a hit with nothing but unwanted ventilation as the result.

It shouldn't.

It shouldn't not because it was a common event, but because if shoot at a target* often enough** you will eventually hit all parts of the target. Including, at some point, those few places were the round can go through without injuring the crew.

* the target being "Stuart turrets" in general, not "this particualar Stuart turret"

** i.e. "often enough" being all Stuart turret penetrations during the war

BTW: I'm not denigrating you. If you don't like people pointing out that you deal primarily in fantasy and conspiracy perhaps you could, you know, cut out all the fantasy and conspiracy.

[ May 20, 2007, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Incidentally, that linked article is rather poorly written and very misleading. For example:

The bottom line was that despite the skill and bravery of individual crews, most Canadian tanks were brewed up (hit and set alight) directly they exposed themselves to German anti tank guns and Panzers. The tactical result is that when Canadians attacked in Normandy, armour did not lead. In the attack, Canadian Infantry was sent in alone, behind a creeping artillery barrage.

Most Canadian tanks were not "brewed up directly they exposed themselves to German anti-tank guns and Panzers." It is true that Shermans, in particular, had a propensity to burn if penetrated, and that most German guns (ie, 75mm and up, be it PaK or tank mounted) could reliably penetrate the Sherman at typical combat ranges, but that is rather different to what is written.

For example, "The tactical result is that when Canadians attacked in Normandy, armour did not lead." Tanks leading anyone's attack, anywhere, in WWII was the exception rather than the rule implied above.

For example, "In the attack, Canadian Infantry was sent in alone, behind a creeping artillery barrage." Aside from the rather obvious point that infantry attacking behind a creeping barrage is hardly what you'd call "sent in alone", this description fails to understand the way that armour supportted infantry in the attack. There is no requirement for tanks to be literally alongside the infantry as they advance. They - the tanks - can give perfectly adequate support from the flanks and the rear. Tying the tanks too close to the infantry is a sure way to neuter both arms.

And that is from just one paragraph. Still, TV&TH isn't widely regarded as terribly good history, so Kettler using it as a source isn't terribly surprising.

[ May 20, 2007, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[John Kettler]

JonS,

I claim no particular expertise on the Canadian Army to begin with, and said as much in the post from which I excerpted the quote. I found the critique to the documentary (which I only recently learned of and have yet to see) was worth my time, but I didn't then rush out and try to systematically parse it. That didn't, though, stop you from slamming me yet again. If you feel compelled to demean me every time I post, I must scare you to death.

Regards,

John Kettler