Incoming9000 Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 When I saw this picture, the impact in the mantlet imediatly caught my attention. This is a US army picture so it wasn't a russian tank that knocked him out. Also, the Panther was in hull down position and the mantlet is the most armoured area of the tank. So, what gun could have done that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Yeide Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 My guess is that's a hulk that they dragged in front of a hill as a test target. Could have been maybe 105mm HEAT or 90mm from pretty close in.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 It looks pretty well mired there, so maybe it got stuck under it's own power. Any shots (by the look of it) would have been coming from a higher elevation, reducing the effective thickness conferred by the slope. The mantlet is what, 100mm thick? a 76 mm gun would get though the centre section of that out to ~1000m (assuming that it hit - that's a pretty small target) The damage done looks more like a metalugical fault across the mantlet. (in my humble and not so well informed opinion) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I think Harry's right.Take another look at those infantry.No weapons, no webbing and by the way they are standing out in the open, it's not near the frontline! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 that definetly looks like a 90mm gun. Or it was cheez whiz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Lack of webbing, etc. doesn't necessarily mean anything - the location might have once been on the front lines, and the picture could have been taken several days after combat had taken place in this area. It looks like the panther has been sitting derelict for a while - the hull MG is missing, minor pieces have been stripped from the hull, etc. It could be hulk used for target practice, though I can't see any evidence of hits on the tank or the surrounding ground other than the two on the glacis - two hits on a test hulk is actually very few. There is some scoring on the hull that looks like it might be hits from smaller caliber rounds or shrapnel, but nothing that looks like a hit from a 75mm+ AP or HEAT round. As noted, the nose-down orientation of the Panther substantially reduces the front armor slope. If the Panther is in a defile (which seems likely given the mud and the slope behind), then the shooter might have been at a higher elevation, further reducing effective armor slope. Given these factors, either 76mm or 90mm AP could have scored these penetrations at reasonable combat ranges. Also, how do you know the Panther is in a hull-down position to likely shooting locations? Do you have a wider shot showing this? My WAG: Panther got stuck in the mud. Crew abandoned. Allies came along, spotted the abandoned tank, called up a TD and sent a couple of rounds into it to make sure before continuing the advance. That's just a WAG, though. It could be any of a number of things. Cheers, YD [ October 21, 2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by YankeeDog: ...I can't see any evidence of hits on the tank or the surrounding ground other than the two on the mantlet...Well, there are two very noticeable holes in the glacis. The one higher up between the driver and hull gunner could have been made by a 90mm and the second lower down near the driver's feet could either be 90mm or 76mm. Hard to tell. I agree that by the time the picture was snapped, the Panther had been sitting there for a while, possibly even months depending on what the weather had been like. Also hard to say whether the holes were produced in the fighting or later target practice. If the holes were indeed made by 90mm, then it most likely happened after the fighting as IIRC the only recorded kill of a Panther by a weapon of that caliber was in an urban environment. But of course, if it were done by a 76mm, it could have happened anywhere any time. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Whups. I typed 'mantlet' where I meant 'glacis'. Michael, you caught me. I have edited my post accordingly and it hopefully makes more sense now. . . There is clearly damage to the Mantlet as well, but I can't tell if it's from a hit, or from an internal explosion. Whatever the case, the gun is clearly knocked off it's carriage, taking the mantlet with it. . . Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dressler Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I'd be inclined to suspect that the tank got bogged and the crew scuttled it, causing the mantlet damage. I've seen photos of a scuttled Tiger 1 where the mantlet was blown out like that. Likely as not, an American tank spotted it after and put a couple of rounds in it just to make sure no one was home. Or then again, it could've been knocked out by the two in the glacis and then an internal explosion displaced the mantlet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Mike E said "If the holes were indeed made by 90mm, then it most likely happened after the fighting as IIRC the only recorded kill of a Panther by a weapon of that caliber was in an urban environment" Are you joking? 90mm killed Panthers routinely. There are any number of Bulge AARs that say so. Through the turret front is the obvious vulnerability. At close range (under 400m), plain US 76mm did the same. As for the picture, the holes look small to me and my guess would be 17 pdr. The inclined probably helped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 The only reason I did not suggest 17 pdr is that those are clearly US Army Officers climbing on the tank. It's quite possible that Commonwealth and German forces were engaged at the location in the past, though, and it has since gone over to US control. I agree, though, that the holes look more 76mm/17 pdr sized than they do 90mm sized. Hard to tell for sure. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Uber General Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 There are no tacks on the tank - its been dragged there and used for target practice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalistdoginchina Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Sir Uber General: There are no tacks on the tank - its been dragged there and used for target practice. You beat me too it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Sir Uber General: There are no tacks on the tank lol forest for the trees, gents... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by JasonC: Mike E said "If the holes were indeed made by 90mm, then it most likely happened after the fighting as IIRC the only recorded kill of a Panther by a weapon of that caliber was in an urban environment" Are you joking? 90mm killed Panthers routinely.Sorry, I was thinking of the M26 and forgot about the M36. Any idea how many M36s saw action, BTW? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Which GI wrested this beastie upsidedown? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Something to consider is that the Panther could have been hit whilst moving down the slope. If so, then the armour would have been presented at just about 0 degrees to the firer and thus could have been penetrated by a number of guns I would imagine. For those who dont know his is something modelled in CM by the way This is of course assuming that the vehicles wasnt being used as a target range. Although it does have no tracks these could be mash into the mud somewhere, hehe. Dan [ October 22, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 The tank upside-down in the ditch is...? I count maybe 5 roadwheels, a fairly well sloped lower hull front or rear and a fairly thin gun with a muzzle brake. From the size and the rest, I'd guess a Panther. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 FK, Your sig is closer than your guess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crank_GS Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sort of reminds me of reading Jean Restayn's work. Great work, no doubt. I enjoy it very much. Trouble is, it seems to me, that he will almost NEVER allow that a Panther, Tiger or King Tiger was destroyed in combat. While there is no doubt that the German cats were truly impressive machines, and while it is true that many of them broke down/ran out of fuel and were destroyed in place by their crews, many of them were also destroyed in combat by US crews fighting in US tanks that mounted US guns firing US ammunition. Great picture. Lots of interesting speculative possibilities for conversation. Why is it that almost nobody suggested that Panther may have just been blasted in place? Thick armor/trackless state/hull down position notwithstanding? Just an observation... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crank_GS Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 (Crank straps on goggles and garbage-bag suit... waiting for the sh*t-storm) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Crank_GS: Sort of reminds me of reading Jean Restayn's work. Great work, no doubt. I enjoy it very much. Trouble is, it seems to me, that he will almost NEVER allow that a Panther, Tiger or King Tiger was destroyed in combat. While there is no doubt that the German cats were truly impressive machines, and while it is true that many of them broke down/ran out of fuel and were destroyed in place by their crews, many of them were also destroyed in combat by US crews fighting in US tanks that mounted US guns firing US ammunition. Great picture. Lots of interesting speculative possibilities for conversation. Why is it that almost nobody suggested that Panther may have just been blasted in place? Thick armor/trackless state/hull down position notwithstanding? Just an observation... German tracks were used exensively in CW armour units as additional armour; it is possible that an Allied salvage crew has stripped the tracks for use in uparmouring a Sherman or Churchill. One might think the vehicle too badly bogged for that, but tracks come apart very easily - pull the pin out - and perhaps the bottom part of the track is laying under the wheels where we can't see it. If only pictures could talk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by TANK ACE: that definetly looks like a 90mm gun. Or it was cheez whiz. The first picture in this thread is from the December 1944 firing tests conducted by the Americans with a variety of 90mm ammunition. From what Robert Livingston found, the tests took place a day or two before the Battle of the Bulge start. [ October 23, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Stone the crows, rexford strikes again! I'm presuming that you have book/reports on this, so i'll ask a few questions. Was it engaging on the flat (full slope on the Panther) or from an elevation? What happened to the mantlet? It looks extensively damaged 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Over 1000 M36s were fielded. They were the most common vehicle type in TD battalions by the time of the Bulge, equipping 21 out of 52 TD battalions in the ETO at that date. 10 had M18 and 10 had M10, 11 were towed. That portion remain through the end of the war. Towed units upgraded to the other types as more AFVs became available. By the end of the war it was 22 M36, 15 M18, 13 M10, and only 4 towed. The Jackson was not a late war, limited type. It wasn't available for Normandy, but arrived through in the fall period and was present for the Bulge. If you read the US official history of the Bulge, they appear in a number of key fights and made a difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.