dieseltaylor Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Lately there was a thread on target acquisition times. I thought this seemed very interesting. French forces used Panther G and JagdPanther post WWII - 503rd Armored Division in Mourmelon had 50 of these vehicles. French experience with these vehicles was put on paper in "Le Panther 1947" - here are some excerpts from the report: (I don't have all day to type, so I'll just center on the negative qualities which remained in the Panther G models): - Turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more that 20 degrees. - Elevating the gun is normally simple, but made difficult if the stabilizer - operated by compressed nitrogen - has lost pressure. - Engine not operable over 1500 km. The average engine life amounted to 1000km. - The truly weak spot of the Panther is its final drive, which is of too weak a design and has an average fatigue life of only 150 km. (Half of abandoned Panthers in Normandy in 19444 showed evidence of breaks in final drive). - As a Result, the Panther is in no way a strategic tank. The Germans did not hesitate to economically increase life by loading the tank onto railcars - even on short distances (25km). - In order to prevent these breaks it is recomended that the following points be closely observed: when driving downhill and in reverse as well as on uneven terrain, to be particularly careful when shifting to a lower gear. (Panther drivers were also advised not to steer when in reverse) In addition, a Panther should never be towed without uncoupling the final drive previously. Finally, under no circumstances should both steering levers be operated simultaneously - regardless of situation. - A smoke grenade thrown onto the rear deck or the vent openings of the engine will start a fire. - The running gear is sensitive to HE shells. Calibers 105mm and greater can render the vehicle immobile (Rammersmatt, 8 December 1944) - Fragmentation shells or 75mm rounds which strike in the same spot of the front plate can penetrate it or cause the weld seams to break (Munsingen, 1946) - No place of the Panther is so armored that it can withstand a Panzerfaust or Panzershreck. - Once the commander has located the target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner (only the sight). - Operations required generally specialized personnel: In the Wehrmacht an officer or Oberfeldwebel as tank commander, Unteroffiziers as gunner and driver. Once the Germans no longer had any experienced tank crews, it was apparent that the Panthers were no longer employed operationally or were abandoned because of Mechanical breakdowns. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?135850-Was-it-the-right-decision-of-Germany-in-WW2-to-build-high-quality-tanks/page14 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 - Once the commander has located the target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner (only the sight). :eek: ! (padding) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Cliff Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Very interesting if it's true. The actual French Army report would be better than some guy's ramblings on a blog forum. But I have heard that German tanks had to be stopped and taken out of gear or the "clutch depressed" before the main gun was fired. That it would strip the tranmission gears if the main gun wasw fired while they were in gear. I believe this was with the PZIV, but not sure, since it was continually up-gunned but nothing was done to address the recoil. An that the Panther had a slow turret I also heard or read about. If the Shermans keep moving and firing on the move, with the gyro-stabilizer, a Panther had a hard time hitting. But once it did hit ... bye bye Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Panther turret's hydraulic transverse from the Ausf a with the governed engine (1944) was 18sec 360 deg so 20 deg a second. This is not slow. Most modern AFV have a 360 deg time of 15 sec for instance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 IIRC, the turret in the Panther was powered directly from the engine, so it was a fast as the RPMs given by the engine at that moment. Plus, unable to turn when the engine wasn't working. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 All of this depends on the model of the Panther. Stuff like these didn't remain the same through 1943 to 45. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 IIRC, the turret in the Panther was powered directly from the engine, so it was a fast as the RPMs given by the engine at that moment. Plus, unable to turn when the engine wasn't working. Yup it also had two speeds based on the rpm, Pedals for top speed transverse and a lever that one throws forward to swing the turret left or pulled back to swing it right. Plus of course the transversing and elevation wheels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 All of this depends on the model of the Panther. Stuff like these didn't remain the same through 1943 to 45. Ausf D= 60 secs Ausf A 3000rpm = 15 sec Ausf A/G 2500rpm High = 18 sec 2000rpm High = 23 sec 1000rpm High = 46 sec 2000 rpm low = 45 sec 1000 rpm low = 93 sec Ausf F = 30 sec (Never saw combat service) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Once the commander has located the target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner (only the sight). Very interesting, this certainly isn't modelled in CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Very interesting, this certainly isn't modelled in CMBN. It's not modelled in WW2 either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 So this only started to happen after WW2? Interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 So this only started to happen after WW2? Interesting. Well, it's an interesting source, to put it mildly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Very interesting, this certainly isn't modelled in CMBN. Yes, but the Panther's sight had both 2.5X and 5X settings, so the gunner was not always looking down an narrow field of view. The Sherman's sight had only 5X but to compensate, he also had his own periscope. The Panther's arrangement was superior in that the gunner never had to take his eyes out of the sight, whereas the Sherman gunner lost time moving back and forth between the two viewing means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Cliff Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Ausf D= 60 secs Ausf A 3000rpm = 15 sec Ausf A/G 2500rpm High = 18 sec 2000rpm High = 23 sec 1000rpm High = 46 sec 2000 rpm low = 45 sec 1000 rpm low = 93 sec Ausf F = 30 sec (Never saw combat service) It appears we have comflicting data from this posting and the thread orginator. I don't see the fast times ever being in use. At 2500 rpm that would put that Maybach engine in the Panther almost at red line, or at least at the max 700 HP @ 3000 rpm. That's really reving the engine. In a combat situation would you rev the engine making all that noise and most likely an exhaust plume possibly giving away your position. I am not sure what the 1000 rpm high and low means but 1000 rpm is close to idle so splitting the differents is take 60 sec to transverse 360 degrees. So 20 - 30 sec with the engine at idle is not that far off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinoza Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Well, it's an interesting source, to put it mildly... Oh no please ,I beg you,not the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' again.. I don't think I'll be able to survive another forum meltdown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Cliff Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Yes, but the Panther's sight had both 2.5X and 5X settings, so the gunner was not always looking down an narrow field of view. The Sherman's sight had only 5X but to compensate, he also had his own periscope. The Panther's arrangement was superior in that the gunner never had to take his eyes out of the sight, whereas the Sherman gunner lost time moving back and forth between the two viewing means. But the Sherman could shoot while it was moving and the Panther had to be stopped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Rather explodes the notion that the Panther is a superior tank? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Oh no please ,I beg you,not the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' again.. I don't think I'll be able to survive another forum meltdown. Hah, the cheese is on you! Wait, that makes no sense... no wait, that does make sense!.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 But the Sherman could shoot while it was moving and the Panther had to be stopped. The Sherman had vertical stabilization only, which generally only helped the barrel stay aligned correctly in the vertical axis when the vehicle stopped to fire. It was by no means a modern, shoot-on-the-move system, though it might offer some minor advantages very close in. The US found that tank crews quickly tired of maintaining the system and it fell into disuse; later replacements did not even know how to use it. In close, there are historical examples of Panthers firing the main gun while on the move. It took a skilled crew to do it but for many months, the Germans had those. The Sherman's main strengths in a close in knife fight with a Panther remained its relative maneuverability, decent speed and comparatively rapid turret traverse. If it could not successfully maneuver to get a side or rear shot, it was better to withdraw to fight another day...assuming that was still possible. In an earlier thread I posted links to actual WW2 footage of a duel between a Panther and first a Sherman and then an M26. You might find it interesting to watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 - Turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more that 20 degrees. 20 degree incline limit isn't really so bad. Sounds better than the M10 TD and a lot better than the King Tiger. That's why the M10 had those huge 'duck bill' counterweights bolted on the turret rear. Not to make it look cool but the try to get the darned turret to rotate. When I saw the topic title I was wondering if there was going to be mention of the long-rumored abandoned French Panther tank around Dien Bien Phu. U.S. pilots a decade later swore up and down they had spotted a Panther carcass in the middle of a rice paddy. Turned out it was just a myth. No record of a French Panther ever being shipped to Vietnam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 It appears we have comflicting data from this posting and the thread orginator. I don't see the fast times ever being in use. At 2500 rpm that would put that Maybach engine in the Panther almost at red line, or at least at the max 700 HP @ 3000 rpm. That's really reving the engine. In a combat situation would you rev the engine making all that noise and most likely an exhaust plume possibly giving away your position. I am not sure what the 1000 rpm high and low means but 1000 rpm is close to idle so splitting the differents is take 60 sec to transverse 360 degrees. So 20 - 30 sec with the engine at idle is not that far off. Err no 3000 is the red line and it was then governed down to 2500rpm in the production of the ausf A to cut down on overheating in the engine bay: 2500rpm was the safe max RPM. In combat do you really think you'd be concerned with noise disapline when you're in a 700hp tank shooting at 38 ton tanks both with 3inch sized shells travelling at anywhere from 600 to 900 m/s. I don't remember recon maintaining hand signals and noise discipline when involved in fire fights with militia in Timor, They'd yell out target indication and fire and movement orders while firing very loud guns unfortunately giving away their positions in order to kill the enemy. Do you have any sources or troop instructions where panther crews were to hold noise discipline's even to adversely effect their ability to shoot at other tanks, you know in combat? High and low is because their was 3 gearings for turret transverse by hand, hydraulic by rocket pedals (high) and hydraulic by stick (low) on the gunners right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 In combat do you really think you'd be concerned with noise disapline when... That was a problem with Panther and caused them endless headaches. The Panther's left side cylinders tended to overheat and catch the tank on fire. They hit on the solution of running left side carbs extra rich which mitigated cylinders overheating but dumped raw petrol into the the exhaust causing BANG! monsterous backfires. An annoying tactical giveaway, especially at night would shoot huge blue flames into the darkness. That's when you start seeing odd Panther A muffler arrangements only on the left side. Even in the midst of combat the Panther driver had oto be VERY careful not to flood the engine. That's not the only vehicle in the world to have that problem - I hear the Army M9 armored earth mover was notorious for producing loud bangs and blue glames. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 It's not modelled in WW2 either. Sorry I had to laugh at this one witty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokelly Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Yes, but the Panther's sight had both 2.5X and 5X settings, so the gunner was not always looking down an narrow field of view. The Sherman's sight had only 5X but to compensate, he also had his own periscope. The Panther's arrangement was superior in that the gunner never had to take his eyes out of the sight, whereas the Sherman gunner lost time moving back and forth between the two viewing means. The 2.5x sight has something like a 24 or 25 degree FOV, which is still pretty narrow all things considered. Still it was about twice the FOV of the Sherman 3x and 5x sights (depended on the model). Anyways having seen the Sherman turret setup I doubt it took more than a second to switch from the periscope to the gun sight, they are fairly close together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Oh no please ,I beg you,not the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' again.. I don't think I'll be able to survive another forum meltdown. I remember a certain contemporary French philosopher in defending Strauss over the raping hotel maid issues pointing out that Hotel maids always travel around in brigades of two. It's far too easy: For a French man a brigade is two hotel maids. Two maids gives one the same fearful reaction as encountering 3000 Blue jacketed Prussian conscripts armed with breech-loading "needle" guns. It (European history) all makes sense now. . . One Hotel maid though well. . . John Stewart does it so much better http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-19-2011/la-cage-aux-fools 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.