Jagdpanther, the ultimate weapon?

[bardosy]

I like the jagdpanthers since Panzer General I, but I thought, the wargames made an unrealistic mythos around this APC...

And now I'm confused... I trust everything whatever happen in CM, becouse this is a very realistic wargame. And this weekend I try a scenario with 4 jagdpanther against 12 T-34 and 4 IS-2... The 4 jagdpanther knock out the full Red Band (no one survived). It's realistic?

PS: the jagds was veteran, the reds was regular

[Foxbat]

Well that depends of course, the Jagdpanther had massive armor and a super-duper gun. So in a well situated defense it was unbeatable, assuming the enemy came it at and din't flank surpress or simply bypass the thing.

A human player would probably be capable of using his numerical superiority in such an event to make you pay for his losses.

In real life the thing had a few more important failings, while usefull as instant pillbooxes you couldn't really do anything with them.

You don't want to move them anywhere because they'd break down. They use more fuel than you can afford, due to some major overloading of drivetrain components they were maintainence intensive, Ugly as hell too.

[Foxbat]

Basically it's a Hetzer with the flaws of a Maus

[Soddball]

Try changing the terrain to City and see how much success the Jagdpanther has then.

A place for everything, and everything in its place. The Jagdpanther belongs on the open steppe.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

In real life the thing had a few more important failings, while usefull as instant pillbooxes you couldn't really do anything with them.

You don't want to move them anywhere because they'd break down. They use more fuel than you can afford, due to some major overloading of drivetrain components they were maintainence intensive, Ugly as hell too.

Err the Jadgpanther weighed about the same as the Panther at 45/46 tons. The Panther itself was as reliable as the PIV by 1944 considering the chassis, drive train etc was identical to the Jadgpanther I don't see how the Jadgpanther was "unreliable." Plus being the Panther chassis it could "neutral steer," spin in place with one track reversing and the other moving forwards, an obvious advantage for a AFV with limited gun traverse.

Fuel consumption considering identical chassis, suspension and weight of the Panther would still be 6 litres for every 100km of paved road. Very respectable versus the Sherman III 6 litres for 100km and the T34-85 4 litres for 100 km

[ November 04, 2002, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Brightblade]

Bastables,

interesting numbers you offer. 6 litres of fuel per 100km. For a tank that´s extraordinary! Many modern cars use more than that...

Guess you meant litres per 1km. That´s realistic.

And Foxbat,

what are talking about ugliness of the Jagdpanther? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I know, but for me the Jagdpanther absolutely is a beauty.

[ November 04, 2002, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Bah, if you think JagdPanther is uber, you can try a Ferdinand !

Anyway if you make a 3000m range steppe meeting, even 1 Panther, Tiger or even Nashorn can kill 2 full companies of Russkies tanks (any model) and escape, with a little luck !

Make this in a wooded hilly area, with low vis or in a city, or give the Russkies some smoke arty or air support and things will end up differently !

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Err the Jadgpanther weighed about the same as the Panther at 45/46 tons. The Panther itself was as reliable as the PIV by 1944 considering the chassis, drive train etc was identical to the Jadgpanther I don't see how the Jadgpanther was "unreliable."

Because the weight was less evenly divided. Putting moore stress on the individual components.

Plus being the Panther chassis it could "neutral steer," spin in place with one track reversing and the other moving forwards, an obvious advantage for a AFV with limited gun traverse.

Which is good, but still not as good as a full-blown turret (imho I'd rather have the turreted Panther than JagdPanther)

Fuel consumption considering identical chassis, suspension and weight of the Panther would still be 6 litres for every 100km of paved road. Very respectable versus the Sherman III 6 litres for 100km and the T34-85 4 litres for 100 km

Which, all else being equal, would be good. But all else wasn't equal and germany was suffering from an accute fuel crisis. I say go with the hetzer, smaller chance of stranding it too.

[Aussie Smith]

Damn straight - she's a beaut she is - those smooth lines - those curves - that chassis....oh we're talking about a tank

In terms of looks - she's right up there with the Panther - for WW2 a lovely designed tank.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

Bastables,

interesting numbers you offer. 6 litres of fuel per 100km. For a tank that´s extraordinary! Many modern cars use more than that...

Guess you meant litres per 1km. That´s realistic.

And Foxbat,

what are talking about ugliness of the Jagdpanther? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I know, but for me the Jagdpanther absolutely IS a beauty.

Nope German comparisons of fuel consumption are litres versus 100km travelled. The Germans themselves noted that Sherman V with its 30-cylinder Chrysler Petrol engine had the highest consumption at 9.5liters per 100km

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate this statement because I don't have any reports detailing this as a deficiency or even existing as a problem.

[Brightblade]

Bastables,

believe me, it´s litres per 1km.

The Tiger for example had a range of 100km on a road and of 80km off road. It had several hundered litres of fuel on board. I can´t remember the numbers of the Panther right now, but they were similar.

Even nowaday tanks use so much fuel (the Leopard 2 about 4,5 litres per km on the road, about 7 litres off road). The gas turbine of the Abrams needs even more...

BTW, it´s Jagd, not Jadg...

[ November 04, 2002, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Plus being the Panther chassis it could "neutral steer," spin in place with one track reversing and the other moving forwards, an obvious advantage for a AFV with limited gun traverse.

Which is good, but still not as good as a full-blown turret (imho I'd rather have the turreted Panther than JagdPanther)

[/QB]</font>

[Hurricane]

This might shed some light on the issue (from http://www.wwiitech.net/main/germany/vehicles/pzkpfw6/)

For power, the Tiger was originally fitted with a Maybach HL 210 P45 V-12 petrol engine. But, as with the later Panther, this was soon found to be underpowered, and was replaced with the HL 230 P45, which produced 700hp, in May 1943. However, this was still the same as the HL 230 P30 fitted to the Panther, and the Tiger was around 12 tonnes heavier. This meant that the Tiger had a power to weight ration of 12.3hp/tonne, compared to the Panthers Ausf Ds 15.6hp/tonne. The later King Tiger, weighing almost 70 tonnes, was fitted with the same HL230 P30, lowering the power to weight ratio even further. Not only was the engine put under great strain through normal daily use, as the engine was intended to deal with the original weight of 45 tonnes, but other things affected the Tigers reliability. Among these was the fact that routine maintenance was often missed out due to the high demand for Tigers in the front line. Also, Tigers being used to recover other Tigers put a great strain on the already over worked engines. And this practice was common even though it was forbidden from the highest levels. This meant that engines had to be replaced often, which fortunately for the mechanics was a relatively easy task. All the extra weight and strain put on the engine also meant an increase in fuel consumption. And this at a time when Germany would soon need all the fuel it could get. However, even though the Tiger had an engine designed for a lighter tank, it was not as bad as some other, lighter, tanks. For example, the Tiger I’s power to weight ratio was only slightly lower than the American Sherman. Also, the Tiger, at around 38km/h when the engine was limited to 2,500rpm, was faster than the much lighter Sherman. The Tiger carried approx 540 litres of fuel, carried in four tanks, two either side of the engine, and this gave it a max range of 140kms.

That would make fuel consumption about 4 litres/km.

Edit: found this page about the JagdPanther: http://www.wwiitech.net/main/germany/vehicles/pzkpfw5/index.html#Jagdpanther

According to the table, the tank was 700 litres, which gave a road range of 210 km. That's only 3.3 liters/1 km.

[ November 04, 2002, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Hurricane ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

Bastables,

believe me, it´s litres per 1km.

The Tiger for example had a range of 100km on a road and of 80km off road. It had several hundered litres of fuel on board. I can´t remember the numbers of the Panther right now, but they were similar.

Even nowadays tanks use so much fuel (the Leopard 2 about 4,5 litres per km on the road, about 7 litres off road). The gas turbine of the Abrams needs even more...

BTW, it´s Jagd, not Jadg...

Nope that’s a different comparison (not engine/fuel efficiency) dropping the l/t resulting in the Panther eating 100km for 320liters or 250km max radius for 720liters. (all still refering to paved road range)

Jagd, yeh they're called typos.

[ November 04, 2002, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Brightblade]

They say 100km and 80km for the Tiger in the Tigerfibel, but I´ll look that up again.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

it´s Jagd, not Jadg...

And just how do you pronounce that? I've always wondered.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Brightblade:

it´s Jagd, not Jadg...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just how do you pronounce that? I've always wondered.

[ja:kt], according to my dictionary. How do you pronounce Jadg?

Bastables,

typos are OK, but as you misspelled it in each attempt in this thread, I thought it might be something else (nothing wrong with not being German ).

Unfortunately I didn´t quite get the meaning of your last posting. I´d be really nice if you explained it to me (I´m only a German and my English is not the best).

In the Tigerfibel (D 656/27) they say one litre of fuel is sufficient for 200m of movement. So 5 litres would be needed for one kilometer. In a example they say that with one load of fuel the Tiger can drive from Magdeburg to Berlin on the road (100km) or from Magdeburg to Brandenburg off road (85km).

In the Pantherfibel (D 655/27) they say that a full load of fuel (730 litres) will be enough for 150km on a road or 100km off road.

[ November 04, 2002, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Brightblade:

it´s Jagd, not Jadg...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just how do you pronounce that? I've always wondered.

[ja:kt], according to my dictionary. How do you pronounce Jadg?

Bastables,

typos are OK, but as you misspelled it in each attempt in this thread, I thought it might be something else (nothing wrong with not being German ).

Unfortunately I didn´t quite get the meaning of your last posting. I´d be really nice if you explained it to me (I´m only a German and my English is not the best).

In the Tigerfibel (D 656/27) they say one litre of fuel is sufficient for 200m of movement. So 5 litres would be needed for one kilometer. In a example they say that with one load of fuel the Tiger can drive from Magdeburg to Berlin on the road (100km) or from Magdeburg to Brandenburg off road (85km).

In the Pantherfibel (D 655/27) they say that a full load of fuel (730 litres) will be enough for 150km on a road or 100km off road.</font>

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Bastables:

It's a attempt to gauge fuel consumption efficency l/t+100km =

I never heard about that method, but that does not mean it´s not correct or wouldn´t be used of course. Only it seems to me like this formula is probably useful to determine the necessary supply, but not for anything else, lest for fighting crews. Other people might be more interested in the acutal engine usage, be it per km or per 100km.

Still seems strange that they give very different numbers in the Pantherfibel, published July 1st 1944 by the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, Generaloberst Heiz Guderian.

It´s a big difference between a range of 150km and 250km on road.

[Lindan]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

<snip>...Ugly as hell too.

Ugly as hell? Ugly? You're joking, right?

This is the most "sexy" AFV produced in WWII bar none. Pure grog-porn!!! :eek:

to the original topic: flank them with something fast and you can knock them out quite easily.

[bardosy]

JagdTiger is ugly, but JagdPanther is very beautiful...

And thanks for the answers!!!

[Dar]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

And just how do you pronounce that? I've always wondered.

"YAHGD-pahnt-er" is probably the best phonetic English spelling I can come up with... The "J" is pronounced like a "Y". The "a" is pronounced like the "a" in "father". And "th" is pronounced as "t".

"Tiger" is pronounced "TEE-ger" (like the Pooh character).

[Foxbat]

Everyone> Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder still it looks like the bastard son of a perfectly good tank to me

Bastables> I'll try and find a source on that, I'm pretty sure I read on one of the Panzerfan-sites so my word is as good as theirs (which might mean anything oon the web ).

As for the mech. issues it certainly is a fine piece of engineering. Having neutral steer is good, it has very good ground pressure for it's size etc. But for dedicated AT-defence the JagdPanther is imho not only overkill (the lowly Hetzer giving more bang-for-the-buck) but also isn't the optimal solution mobility-wise coompared to the smaller vehicles.

And compared to other AFVs (the question was whether it was the ultimate AFV after all), well I'll take a turreted version anyday. Even if it means losing the 88 and some armor protection.

[Ben Galanti]

Well, I was going to point folks to this wonderful German Pronunciation 101 thread, but it looks like the WAVs have been taken down. Apex still posts around here though, so maybe we can talk him into doing them again. They were nice for us non-Germans...

Ben