Sherman 76 vs. Panther

[JasonC]

The US 76mm will kill a Panther through the turret at 200m or less, or through the side at any range. Tungsten ammo (only) will kill through the turret front at medium range (1 km or so). The Panther will kill the Sherman if it looks at it funny. Mobility and floatation are comparable if and only if the Sherman has HVSS suspension. MG and HE effectiveness are likewise comparable, with minor load differences not making any serious impact in practice. What counts is how long a tank is alive - if it delivers its full load it does plenty.

The best way to fight Panthers with Easy Eight Shermans is to use teamwork and distraction tactics while going for side shots. Second best is to exploit terrain to create a point blank range knife fight, preferably from multiple angles (e.g. in the streets of a town with a full grid of roads). The first shooter will typically win in such situations - though the Panther will occasionally be "saved" by its glacis for one round.

In the real deal, the US scored as heavily against Panthers as the Panthers did against them. Despite the quality difference. The US usually had numbers, and in addition the Germans frequently misused their Panthers for reckless attacks, instead of standing off at range and exploiting their gun and front armor advantages to the full. This was largely due to overly aggressive German armor doctrine.

The Germans also suffered somewhat from allied airpower and from their own shortages of fuel, as well as mechanical difficulties, inability to evacuate disabled tanks during operational retreats, lack of spare parts dealt with by cannabilizing some to keep others running, and the like. (Sometimes these interact with tactical issues. The Germans attack in poor weather or at night or in forests to avoid allied airpower, and find they have also avoided long range engagements in favor of knife fights). But you can find case after case of the Germans throwing away half their available armor in reckless counterattacks that were clearly hopeless. And in those, they lost more heavily than the US - even facing 75mm Shermans mixed with TDs.

Examples of German disasters with large numbers of Panthers include Panzer Lehr's counterattack in the US sector in Normandy in July, the Mortain counterattack, Arracourt in the Lorraine, the Bulge, and Alsace. The US outscores because the Germans are in their defensive system, well located and buttoned by US HE, and the US often gets the drop on them as a result. US dominance in the HE war stripped the Germans of combined arms and that made for favorable armor fights. The only way around that for the Germans was a attack on a massive enough scale that US HE couldn't immediately seal the break in - which they pulled off exactly once, in the Bulge. Even there, it only put off the end result for a few weeks and increased the scale.

The right way to use the technical advantages of the Panther would have been to stand on the defensive with large mobile reserves - panzer corps size - acting as "linebackers", and then shifted them - combined arms and all - to the points of Allied main effort. That would have resulted in typical engagements inside the German defensive system rather than the US one, with the German defenders choosing the tactical ground and often the range.

They didn't do this is practice. Mobile divisions were assigned defensive frontage, or they were scarfed up by higher HQs and used for grandious counterattacks. Putting a PD in reserve off the line was an engraved invitation to have it transfered out of your command to somebody else. It was a big ad saying "not needed to hold the front, immediately". The only way for a local commander to retain "ownership" of his PDs was to assign them frontage. And when the higher HQs swept them out anyway or a fresh PD came out of refit, they were typically used in the overly ambitious counterattacks explained above.

By the time the PD was allowed to defend tactically speaking, it often had half or less of its tanks remaining. Those might die pretty hard, but a few at a time they eventually would. (Since the unit was left in the line, with frontage, etc).

[ August 29, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The thing was you were testing at 800m. Bring it in to about 500m and the 76mm gun should start piercing the Panther more often.

Exactly.

[Mr. Tittles]

Sherman 76mm had other problems also. Its debut as the next great thing didnt pan out.

From Mycenius website...

Addendum - Blast effect of 76mm gun M1, in Medium Tank, M4A1, during firing tests. A total of four (4) rounds were observed from the tank commander's position. Blast obscuration timed in observing a target at 1000 yards varied between 3.1 and 5.8 seconds. It is not believed that tracer could have been picked up by a tank commander with field glasses under 1500 yards. Firing was conducted in a 5 to 10 mile, 12 o'clock wind, in a grassy field. There was absolutely no dust encountered. All obscuration resulted from muzzle smoke.

(Note: Many accounts say that the TC must be either heads out or have a ranging scope to observe fall of shot. Gunners are often not able to pick up the flight of the round. But the Sherman 76mm seems to produce such a smoke blast that even a exposed TC can not see the round)

The US AT capability was marginally improved by the 76mm shermans till they got HVAP ammo. The 75mm shermans were never improved with HVAP. The 90mm guns had better results with early shot against Panthers but an 'improved' M82 round with a larger HE content seemed to have problems also. The 90mm HVAP was probably the best answer to any Panther/Tiger head to head confrontation.

[Redwolf]

The Hellcat lovers shouldn't forget that a FlaK or autocannon-equipped vehicle positioned anywhere to cover the tank's flank can ruin your day pretty badly.

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Poppy:

What proportion of the Axis forces did the Amercian/British coalition fight. poppy

To answer your question, this one was posted on the board some time ago :

WWII losses

Sorts of puts things in perspective (be sure to read the footnotes).

D-Day "merely" saved Western Europe from communism (And this was by the way in the long term interest of the Anglo-Americans - see Churchill insistence to open the second front in the Balkans).

The IIIrd Reich was dead since late 42, some even will argue that all was lost since December 41.

[poppy]

Thanks Folbec, Iv got the site up now. poppy

[poppy]

HI Folbec It looks to me like the Germans and the Russians by fighting each other saved the world from Communism and Nazisam. Bad spelling and wrong forum maybe but to the point. poppy

[Wisbech_lad]

Oh just say "sod it" and put a Firefly on overwatch. A nice kitty killer, if you can keep it alive...

[CentaurII]

I can only comment on my experience relating to Panthers and 76.2mm Us armed tanks. In real battles both against AI and real people.

Set Firing tests are all well and good but the game engine is far more complex than that.

In My experience Shermans of all types have the luck of the irish on their side.

Example: a sherman was hit and penetrated 3 times by a 75L70 (panther) It did not get KO'ed it did not even rout. my opponent laughed because it did nothing.

In the same battle a Panther was hit by a 76.2mm at 700-850 meters. Result Front turret penetration at weak spot knocked out.

I have never seen a weak spot penetration on any allied Tank. I have also never seen a penetration on an axis tank that had no appreciable effect.

As for non Historical force buying when playing US you buy the biggest gun you can as cheaply as you can. A 76.2 mm armed bren carrier ( I know they dont exist) is better than a 76 armed sherman for tank hunting as almost all german tanks will penetrate either with ease. That argument is ridiculous and suggesting M18 Hellcats as your main tank force is in my opinion gamey.

In my experience and only my opinion is that the US 76.2mm gun should be inferior to its current performance. This is probably a factor of the luck element in the complex and often surprising hit effect system.

In relation to tests described as set out above at 800 meters a frontal penetration on a "well built" Panther should be in the region of 1%

Conversly a Panther with its 75L70 gun at 800 meters a frontal penetration on a Sherman M4A3

should be in the region of 99%+

It must be rememberd That the 75L70 was superior to even the much loved 17lb gun. The only reason for 17lb superiority was APDS ammo.

Of course it is possible to Kill panthers with almost anything as long as you are lucky and well prepared. I have Knocked out panthers with 6 pounders (an excellent gun often missed) and with a 75mm M4A1 (admittedly at 20 meters with a side shot)one of my friends lost one to a greyhound.

In short I feel Panthers Tigers and the poor old PZ IV are sold slightly short by the game engine.

So complaining that the Sherman 76.2 is weak is falling on deaf ears. Change your tactics, playing against humans rather than AI will change your opinion of the Panther and Shermans its like a different game.

[Mr. Tittles]

The 17 pdr with APDS had its problems also. The ammo was extremely sensitive to each guns characteristics. That is, each barrel seemed to fire the ammo differently.

The 17 pdr ammo was also very heavy. I believe it weighed (full cartridge) twice as much as 76mm HVAP).

Little known is that the tracer was extremely difficult to see. Even an observer outside the vehicle had problems observing it.

The US 76mm also had problems besides poor penetration (even the HVAP was marginal). The gun is described as poorly balanced and after each firing would be way off the mark. The blast and smoke made shot observation impossible under good conditions. The later use of a muzzle brake was as much for reduced blast effects as recoil.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by CentaurII:

I can only comment on my experience relating to Panthers and 76.2mm Us armed tanks. In real battles both against AI and real people.

In real battles?

[CentaurII]

In Real Battles As apposed to blank terrain firing test simulations, The main difference being the number of shots fired at reduced accurracy due to terrain and movement very few shots at front to front and the inclusion of a huge number of variables from poor identification to distraction by infantry and other anti tank fire. I am trying to get across the limited value of range testing when figuring out real (In game) combat effectivness. In addition I have played in excess of 20 different table top simulation systems from the basic to highly complex. All these come from authors who have different views and opinions that "colour" results. A game engine PC based or tabletop will always be innacurate to a point as a fuction of the limited variables and how they are applied in each system. An example is the application of angle modifiers to armour thickness. some systems take an average angle modified armour, others attempt to sub divide it, others yet apply the angle to the shell penetration factor. These will all give slightly different results under a specific same situation.

And no I haven't fought panthers vs shermans in real life, Thankfully I never had to and no one will in the future.

[Mr. Tittles]

After the D Day landings and the early encounters with Panthers, the US should have realized that the only weapon that could deal with them was the 90mm. Test shoots showed the short comings off most 75-76mm weapons against the front.

The US 90mm using solid shot could penetrate the hull at 600m or so and the turret much further out.

The 90mm weapon should have been field modified into AFV in any way possible. Even something like a fixed mount in a converted M7 Priest would have been better than nothing.

[Soddball]

Bear in mind the 75mm gun mounted in a half track that served as a 'tank destroyer' in North Africa. As I'm sure you know their nickname was the 'purple heart box'.

I don't agree with your assertion that a 90mm gun on any platform would have been as useful as, for example, a Sherman Firefly or Achilles.

Perhaps a better solution whilst the 90mm gun became available was for the Americans to manufacture the 17pdr under licence and fit it to more Shermans.

[Jack Carr]

Personally, I'd rather have a Tiger than a Panther. The heavier 88 rounds seem less susceptible to ricocheting off the Sherman than the higher velocity 75's.

Ah hell! My cat's get knocked out all the time by Easy 8's.

I'd have to give the Sherman Easy Eight the coolest looking tank in the war award though. A Sherman on steroids.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Bear in mind the 75mm gun mounted in a half track that served as a 'tank destroyer' in North Africa. As I'm sure you know their nickname was the 'purple heart box'.

I don't agree with your assertion that a 90mm gun on any platform would have been as useful as, for example, a Sherman Firefly or Achilles.

Perhaps a better solution whilst the 90mm gun became available was for the Americans to manufacture the 17pdr under licence and fit it to more Shermans.

The war in Europe lasted less than a year. By the time the allies got ashore and the US realized that they forgot to bring a worthy AT weapon, it did not leave enough time to start manufacturing 17 pdrs in the US and getting them across the ocean in any form.

The US did have 90mm anti aircraft guns and they were more powerful and accurate than 17 pdrs. To get them behind any armor so that they could back up the US tank battalions would have been worthwhile.

The US M36 Jackson was not available till the Fall of 44 I believe. Any tracked 90mm weapon, even one without a rotating turret, would have been a great AT asset.

[dieseltaylor]

In another thread the 17pdr comes over as extremely accurate. Do you have any data on the AA guns accuracy?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US M36 Jackson was not available till the Fall of 44 I believe. Any tracked 90mm weapon, even one without a rotating turret, would have been a great AT asset.

I point you once again to the failure of the 75mm halftrack in the desert, Tunisia 1942/43 and ask why you think a 90mm armed one would have been any more successful.

[Mr. Tittles]

The 17 pdr with APDS is so innacurate that it can be called unstable. It is accurate with APCBC ammo though.

I read that 90mm weapons could target individual soldiers out to several hundred meters. One source claiming that a German helmet could be hit at that range.

Most weapons of this size/barrel length when firing fixed AP ammo could cherry pick the major area regions on a tank type stationary target usually (under 1000m or so). That is, they could target the turret or hull).

The 90mm AP round could hole the mantlet on a Panther at 1000 yds and penetrate the turret vertical face even further.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US M36 Jackson was not available till the Fall of 44 I believe. Any tracked 90mm weapon, even one without a rotating turret, would have been a great AT asset.

I point you once again to the failure of the 75mm halftrack in the desert, Tunisia 1942/43 and ask why you think a 90mm armed one would have been any more successful. </font>

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US M36 Jackson was not available till the Fall of 44 I believe. Any tracked 90mm weapon, even one without a rotating turret, would have been a great AT asset.

I point you once again to the failure of the 75mm halftrack in the desert, Tunisia 1942/43 and ask why you think a 90mm armed one would have been any more successful. </font>

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The 17 pdr with APDS is so innacurate that it can be called unstable. It is accurate with APCBC ammo though.

I read that 90mm weapons could target individual soldiers out to several hundred meters. One source claiming that a German helmet could be hit at that range.

Most weapons of this size/barrel length when firing fixed AP ammo could cherry pick the major area regions on a tank type stationary target usually (under 1000m or so). That is, they could target the turret or hull).

The 90mm AP round could hole the mantlet on a Panther at 1000 yds and penetrate the turret vertical face even further.

What are your sources for these claims, in particular the instability of the 17pdr? If the weapon was that unstable, surely the British would have discarded it long before it made up 1/4 of the Shermans in the British forces - not to mention the Achilles and Wolverine?

[Guest Mike]

It wasn't the weapon that was unstable, it was the APDS ammo.

the trouble with it was, I believe, that the sabots would not discard evenly, thus pushing the round off target.

[Mr. Tittles]

Perhaps not. I read a report that each gun would fire it differently and each gun had to find its own adjustment to using APDS. It also had a poor tracer it seems.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Perhaps not. I read a report that each gun would fire it differently and each gun had to find its own adjustment to using APDS. It also had a poor tracer it seems.

The APDS was the tungsten round? Even without Tungsten, the 17pdr could deal comfortably with the majority of German tanks at 1km+ IIRC. Since tungsten was a scarce round anyway, that doesn't really impinge on the 90%+ of rounds fired by the 17pdr.