Panthers In French service

[Capt Cliff]

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.

Whoah dude take your Prozac!!

But reving the engine should create an exhaust plume as well as noise. Enemy infantry in the area could hear it rev it's engine, especially if the Panther was set for ambush. The point was your not running your engine at max revs, BTW the 3000 rpm gave max hp of 700 per the Maybach site I found. There was also the problem of coordination of the driver, reving the engine and the turret operator (or who ever had the controls) to work together to get the turret spun around to the correct angle then hand cranked to the exact angle. Might be difficult with the engine reving, unless they had head sets for the Panther crew. Unknown to me. With these factors it might take a bit longer than 10 sec to zero in on a target with a Panther turret. I guess the Sherman turret was operated by only one person and indepentant from the engine rpm, so much more responsive and faster.

[MikeyD]

Panther was an ubertank only head-on. If your commander's compelled to gun the engine to slew the turret around 90 degrees at max speed that means he's about the get holed through the hull side by a maneuvering 75mm gun Sherman. All the fine adjustment with gun & hull facing front would be with the hand wheel

[wokelly]

Panther was an ubertank only head-on. If your commander's compelled to gun the engine to slew the turret around 90 degrees at max speed that means he's about the get holed through the hull side by a maneuvering 75mm gun Sherman. All the fine adjustment with gun & hull facing front would be with the hand wheel

A properly maintained traverse system for the Panther was supposedly quite able to lay the sights on target with the foot peddles alone (the less pressure exerted, the slower the turret moved regardless of max traverse at X rpm). How well that system could be maintained in the field is debatable, but people running restored functioning panthers are quite vocal in their praise for the accuracy of the hydraulic system. There were wheels there as backup, either if power was lost or if maintenance issues reduced the accuracy of the system.

[Bastables]

Whoah dude take your Prozac!!

But reving the engine should create an exhaust plume as well as noise. Enemy infantry in the area could hear it rev it's engine, especially if the Panther was set for ambush. The point was your not running your engine at max revs, BTW the 3000 rpm gave max hp of 700 per the Maybach site I found. There was also the problem of coordination of the driver, reving the engine and the turret operator (or who ever had the controls) to work together to get the turret spun around to the correct angle then hand cranked to the exact angle. Might be difficult with the engine reving, unless they had head sets for the Panther crew. Unknown to me. With these factors it might take a bit longer than 10 sec to zero in on a target with a Panther turret. I guess the Sherman turret was operated by only one person and indepentant from the engine rpm, so much more responsive and faster.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

[winkelried]

503rd Armored Division in Mourmelon

I don't know if this is a translation problem, or a accuracy issue with the source.

The Panther's were fielded in the 503e régiment de chars de combat (503rd Tank Regiment) equipped with ARL44 and Panther's. In addition some were used in the 6e régiment de cuirassier.

[Capt Cliff]

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

Same to you Sport. Your not thinking of the practical application only what the possible max performance of the turret is AND not ANY battlefield conditions. Gee in Saving Private Ryan they could hear the German tanks coming down the road, so I guess Speilberg was wrong about the squeaky German tank bearings??

Oh and it was uncool highlighting my text like that. It miss leads people that you know what your talking about. At least I am honest about what I am unsure of instead of just shooting my mouth off. What's the saying "Best to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if your a fool instead of opening your mouth and confirming you are a fool too all listening."

[dieseltaylor]

I did wonder if this was a traversing issue. However I think if it were simply traversing it would have been stated explicitly - a periscope is irrelevant. I am not familiar with the internal sighting systems of the two vehicles but I can easily understand why having a wider view quickly may be advantageous when picking out distant or obscured targets following a bearing from a commander.

However without knowing the exact circumstances that lead to the comment I have to accept that perhaps it is a meld of traversing small amounnts and actually lining up the gun.

The Panther II project, according to Chambers and Ellis, "was to have abuilt-in stereoscopic rangefinder, and a a gyrostabiliser for both the sight and the gun based on that fitted in American tanks. As part of the experimental work for this a standard Panther was fitted with a gyrostabiliser for firing trials and proved to have its accuracy and effectiveness doubled."

Interesting stuff - though my first reaction is it is a German engineers wet dream to have even more complicated kit to add. The second thought is that operationally how robust would it have been. Third and most significant is the concept that the accuracy was doubled!!! Que? All the bumf we see suggest the Panther was 100% accurate pretty much up to 1000 metre so doubling seems an inadequately brief claim.

The stereoscopic viewfinder does indicate the Germans thought it advantageous - quicker target acquisition springs to mind.

[Bastables]

Same to you Sport. Your not thinking of the practical application only what the possible max performance of the turret is AND not ANY battlefield conditions. Gee in Saving Private Ryan they could hear the German tanks coming down the road, so I guess Speilberg was wrong about the squeaky German tank bearings??

Oh and it was uncool highlighting my text like that. It miss leads people that you know what your talking about. At least I am honest about what I am unsure of instead of just shooting my mouth off. What's the saying "Best to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if your a fool instead of opening your mouth and confirming you are a fool too all listening."

Whole load of piffle. Do you have any reports of training documents where where German Panther crews place such a premium on noise discipline they did not max the RPM's when needed? Because the fact that at the production side they had to govern the engine to 2500rpm to avoid overheating would indicate yes Panther Gunners in fact Mashed their foot down to achieve 3000rpm (and later 2500rpm) in combat situations. Aka they did not trust or bother training the drivers to not "redline" becasue hey in combat one tends to push their equipment.

Your other contention is no in tank comms systems. . . because you don't know if it had an intercom. Funny thing when the Germans were building larger tanks with enough space that the commander could not just communicate by nudging the driver with his knees or foot, the Germans designed a internal veh communication system. Or do you think that the German tank crew was given orders prior to turning on the engine and during incidental combat the commander just sort of let the driver, gunner radio operator and the loader just do their own thing. Have you ever been in a section, detachment or crew?

Maybe read about the subject at hand, as opposed to creating little mental vignettes based on how little you know.

[Bastables]

I did wonder if this was a traversing issue. However I think if it were simply traversing it would have been stated explicitly - a periscope is irrelevant. I am not familiar with the internal sighting systems of the two vehicles but I can easily understand why having a wider view quickly may be advantageous when picking out distant or obscured targets following a bearing from a commander.

However without knowing the exact circumstances that lead to the comment I have to accept that perhaps it is a meld of traversing small amounnts and actually lining up the gun.

The Panther II project, according to Chambers and Ellis, "was to have abuilt-in stereoscopic rangefinder, and a a gyrostabiliser for both the sight and the gun based on that fitted in American tanks. As part of the experimental work for this a standard Panther was fitted with a gyrostabiliser for firing trials and proved to have its accuracy and effectiveness doubled."

Interesting stuff - though my first reaction is it is a German engineers wet dream to have even more complicated kit to add. The second thought is that operationally how robust would it have been. Third and most significant is the concept that the accuracy was doubled!!! Que? All the bumf we see suggest the Panther was 100% accurate pretty much up to 1000 metre so doubling seems an inadequately brief claim.

The stereoscopic viewfinder does indicate the Germans thought it advantageous - quicker target acquisition springs to mind.

Chamber's and Ellis have been superseded by Jentz work on primary German documents. Panther II project was quietly killed in 43 and never even received line drawing for a proposed new turret. No gruppen-nummern was ever assigned to the proposed Panther II turret it did not exist.

The Small turret for the Panther ausf F was to have a stereoscopic ranger finder by Zeiss (sight was never actually built) not a view finder. It had a 4 degree view, it was not meant to locate targets but instead a auxiliary component that increased accuracy on a located target at range.

The actual gun sight was originally to have been a T.Z.F 13 mono telescope fabricated by Leitz with magnification of 2.5x/6x with a view of 28 deg and 12 deg respectively. only two were manufactured. wapruf 6 settled on a stabilized periscope gun sight for actual series production S.Z.F.1.

Reason for the shifts were to avoid damage to optics as experienced in the Panther D/A/G turrets when hit in the mantlet. First by moving out of the mantlet and on to the turret front with the T.Z.F 13 then to remove it from the turret front entirely with a periscope sight S.Z.F.1. How operationally robust: well the point was to have the sights in places where it was to suffer less from impact vibrations from striking vibrations.

Pictures of a Schmalturm mounted on ausf G chassis (fgst nr 120413) completed in May 1944 show no hole for telescope, but holes for Periscope sight and the stereoscopic ranger finder. Photos of a captured (British war booty, the Shattered half is viewable in Bovington painted yellow, red, and white after firing range tests). Schmalturm at the DB plant show a turret with all three (4) apertures as they tested sights before accepting for production.

[dieseltaylor]

Have you ever been in a section, detachment or crew?

Lets not get too animated on other posters views. Its not helping the thread .

As to the relevance of peoples experience I am afraid that only a Panther crewmans view would be of true interest. Modern armies are significantly different in both equipment, threats, and knowledge.

And let me declare I have never served or been in a modern tank even a WW2 one. I have been inside a WW1 one though - surely highly relevant : )

[Bastables]

I don't know if this is a translation problem, or a accuracy issue with the source.

The Panther's were fielded in the 503e régiment de chars de combat (503rd Tank Regiment) equipped with ARL44 and Panther's. In addition some were used in the 6e régiment de cuirassier.

Note that both units had clapped out ausf A and ausf D, the drivable ausf A at sumner meausem is one of the war booty ones. Testing the turret transverse at max 2500 rpm was 18 sec to the left and 19 seconds right 360deg.

[Bastables]

Panther engagment drill 1943

this should not be significantly different to the PIV or PIII

Panther is moving as part of a arrowhead. Commander is open hatched, gunner is using his scope on low power transversing the turret 30deg left and right watching arcs.

Commander sights T-34 to the right orders a halt nudging the gunner with his boot.

Using the intercom. . .

Commander : Load AP

Loader: AP loaded

Commander: 3'oclock, 800m, tank

Gunner: on the way.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46202104/Panther-vs-T-34

Note how target indication is pretty similar to what we use today.

NZ/Aussie army target indication (for infantry sections) is range (100) direction/location (ridge line, base of tree's, immediate front ect) type of target ( 3 men moving left to right) then a fire order.

It's almost the same thing but we want range before direction/location.

[rune]

hey bastables, are you sure on that? [panther II turret] I'll have to re-find the quote, but supposedly Bovington has a Panther II turret. Could be a mis-quote, so hence, the reason I am asking.

Rune

[rune]

Ahhh answered myself, someone did say it was the Panther II turret, but in actuality, well, will let the author speak for himself:

"The only reference to the Panther II turret ( under development then ) lies in the drawings H-Sk A 86176 ( the date was Nov, 7,1943 ) and is in some measure a "Schmalturm" ( Narrow turret ) though isn´t the Schmalturm of Bovington, developed for the Panther ausf F. The drawings were labeled " Turm Panther 2 ( schmale Blendeausfürung )" . That turret has, like the Schmalturm for Panther F, 120 mm front plate and the mantlet was 150 mm thick too.

The development of Schmalturm with 8,8 cm Kwk 44 started in January of 1945. Wa Pruef 6 considered both the designs of Krupp and Daimler Benz. Some mock ups were made. Those turrets are somewhat different; Krupp´s turret is a Schamlturm with few modifications, designed from the start for to be installed in any Panther send to rebuilt. Daimler Benz turret has a wider turret ring and more modifications."

Rune

[TrailApe]

Bastables, I think anybody who has dabbled in any type of Fire Orders would recognise that sequence, and I must admit I found it difficult to understand the claims that it would take 30 seconds for a Panther to acquire a target.

We were trained with

GRIT

Group - 'Left Section'

Range - '500'

Indicate - Reference White Building 8 o'clock, enemy section

Type - Rapid Fire

Well thats how the reg infantry would do it.

We TA gunners (dragged away from our toys to do a bit training at ground pounding) were more like - Bad Hats over there, bust some caps lads!

(well artillery is supposed to be an area weapon)

[MengJiao]

Rather explodes the notion that the Panther is a superior tank?

According to some sources, the Sherman with a 76mm gun was 3 times as effective as the Panther, mostly because it was easier to operate and

stayed in service at a much higher rate. The faster gunner on target time for the Sherman due to the gunner's Periscope also is noted in other sources.

The areas where the Panther was superior didn't make all that much difference in battle where spotting and firing first are more important than the exact parameters of armor and guns.

[dieseltaylor]

Not being in a tank must improve visibility immensely TrailApe : )

Now to be fair we only have Bastables assertion that Panthers would use max revs for speedy traversing. It would not surprise me if Panther drivers did not play silly buggers and driving about is a very important attribute for a tank. Therefore max revs for traversing was not the default, conserving the engine was possibly the most important aim.

And I do think there is an element of truth that idling was the preferred option both to reduce fuel usage and to reduce tell-tale signs like vibrating camouflage!. To max up the revs would possibly make the Panthers lair much more obvious to as yet unseen Allied tanks and planes so that might also tend to towards playing it safe with revs.

Being used to low light levels , as we are in the UK, I am not totally impressed with the Panther /T-34 litany - which may work perfectly well on the Uktranian steppes but may be not so effective in a cluttered Western European landscape.

I have been fooled in wooden terrain missing someone in dappled sunshine at 30ft standing by a tree. In good sunshine I have ssen cars and trucks at over 5 miles range in the UK. However having 5 miles of sea inbetween did make it very easy. :0

Just suppose the target is not moving and camouflaged does the Sherman sight allow a speedier acquisition than a Panther momocular sight. Unless we can lay hands on the French work and they give greater detail we are a bit stuffed. However I am not going to call it nonsense.

[dieseltaylor]

The system of rotation of the turret is not powerful enough to move if the vehicle is tilted over 20 °. For this reason the Panthers are not trained to shoot moving over uneven terrain.

- The tilt adjustment of the canyon is simple only in the event that lose pressure stabilizer (it is filled with compressed nitrogen) the adjustment is complicated by a large way.

- The commander's cupola with seven periscopes, gives this member of the crew of a near-perfect vision. Periscopes damaged can be replaced quickly and easily.

- The gunner does not have, except for his excellent telescopic sight, no other vision system and the vehicle is moving in practice totally blind. This is to distance the biggest drawback of the Panther.

- The gunner's sighting system with two different levels of magnification, allowing a totally clear and clean. Thanks to it's possible to attack targets which are more than 3000 meters.

- Panther does not exist for any type of shaped charge ammunition.

- The explosive ordnance that fires the Panther can be fired with a delay of 0.15 seconds

- PzGr40 type ammunition to 1500 meters has better characteristics than the PzGr39, but loses from this distance faster speed.

- The high theoretical rate of fire of the Panther can not stay on too long as the barrel recoil system does not support such charges.

- Should not be exceeded, except in emergency cases, 20 rounds per minute.

- The chassis of the Panther perfectly absorbs the energy released during the trip, being in the same position you are in the turret.

- Once the commander says a goal pass in the best cases an average of 30 seconds until the gunner is in position to shoot. This figure far exceeds that of Sherman and is solely due to the lack of a periscope for gunner.

- The theoretical life of the mechanical components of the Panther is 5000 miles. The erosion of many of these components has been higher than expected. Chains and wheels have a lifespan of between 2000 and 3000 kilometers. Chain breaks have occurred only rarely and with the wheels can deform easily, especially in difficult terrain.

- The components of traction (with the exception of reduction gears to the driven wheels) have achieved the expected useful life. Changing a gearbox lasts less than a day.

- The engines have endured more than 1500 km (half-life is no more than 1000 km). Changing an engine by an NCO (mechanical) helped by eight men and a crane or Bergepanther can be done in eight hours. Changing the barrel with the same means is possible in only two hours. The German field workshops held during the war without a doubt an exceptional job.

- The Panther is not at all strategic tank. The Germans did not hesitate to protect the delicate engines, to use the railway to carry the Panthers, including the realization of distances to less than 20 miles.

- The weakest point of the Panthers are without reduction gears to the driven wheels. The average life of these components do not exceed in the best of 150 miles.

- Half of the Panthers lost to the Germans in Normandy were abandoned due to problems with reduction gears to the driven wheels.

- To try to extend the life of reduction gears must be taken into account the following points: on slopes and into reverse the driver must change gear slowly and tactfully. Never tow a Panther without having to Demont reduction gears and the driven wheels in no case should act to address the two levers at the same time.

- A shaped charge projectile, as such, drilling a thick shield of his own caliber. Therefore would need a 105mm projectile, or at least 88mm to pierce the frontal armor of Panther (Musing tests in 1946).

- A smoke grenade on the roof vents easily cause engine fire.

- Explosive projectiles can be easily damaged components of the Panther drive. Projectiles with a caliber of 105mm or higher can still stop the Panther.

- All areas of the Panther can be perforated by Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust.

[............]

The Panther is for the year 1943 without a doubt a special shield, which met in an exemplary fashion armor and firepower. Even so, and as acknowledged by German sources, this vehicle also had its drawbacks:

- Lack of strategic mobility, especially for the short life of your engine (the best engine life reaches ten refills). The vehicle can not make long journeys.

- Lack of mobility due to an unreliable steering box and a high frequency of technical faults.

- Panther's crew should consist of personnel: the official Wehrmacht as the commander, sergeant and gunner and driver. By the time the Germans did not have expert crews technical problems in the Panther reached unsustainable numbers.

http://www.panther-elmito.de/panther%20a/articulos/informe-le_panther_1947.html

From a Spanish site and Google translated. However it is quite explicit what the problem seems to be for the French. When moving the gunner is blind and therefore is seriously behind the game compared to a tank gunner with his set of sights who can actually be spotting. More eyes make better tank awareness.

[TrailApe]

Before we all get into a big fight about whether turret speed makes the tank Uber or not, lets just remember that for the most part the Germans were in prepared positions. They would have range cards and arcs of fire sorted to the nth degree.

Just suppose the target is not moving and camouflaged does the Sherman sight allow a speedier acquisition than a Panther momocular sight.

A very valid point dt, remember for most of the time the Shermans were out in the open moving forward.

So, you are an a Sherman moving to contact, there's a treeline ahead in which a Panther may/may not be lurking. I don't think the Shermy's crew were consoling themselves with the fact that they had a quicker turret and that they had another 50k miles to do before an oil change.

I know I wouldn’t – but there again you would not get me into one of those hot/cold smelly ‘apply flame to the blue touch paper and ignite’ machines in the first place – I’m far too good looking and I’ve got a note from me mum.

There again, the Panther crew (who are just about to put three rounds through the Sherman) may be hoping that when the driver puts the pedal to the metal and they hopefully depart from the scene backwards at a rate of knots, that the engine won’t give a whiffle and gently begin to smoulder. But even then, they have a chance to bail out and leggit and live to fight another day.

The lurker always has the advantage in this type of shoot 'n scoot. Tellingly, when the Panzers had to go to counter attack mode they often got a good kicking that would rival the Allied tank losses, but they didn’t have to attack day in day out.

[dieseltaylor]

Perhaps you missed the latest evidence TA!

Panther is moving as part of a arrowhead. Commander is open hatched, gunner is using his scope on low power transversing the turret 30deg left and right watching arcs. Commander sights T-34 to the right orders a halt nudging the gunner with his boot.

Using the intercom. . .

Commander : Load AP

Loader: AP loaded

Commander: 3'oclock, 800m, tank

Gunner: on the way.

SO the french report

- The gunner does not have, except for his excellent telescopic sight, no other vision system and the vehicle is moving in practice totally blind. This is to distance the biggest drawback of the Panther.

Seems to suggest otherwise. So waving the gun backwards and forwards may be fun and frighten the enemy but until the tank stops the gunner is not doing much.

[Sergei]

I wouldn't trust the French report too much.

[Noltyboy]

I wouldn't trust the French report too much.

'Cos dammit they are french!

[TrailApe]

I wouldn't trust the French report too much.

Whoa Sergei!

I thought it was just us English that had problems with the French!

On a serious note, you are making a valid point, who commissioned the tests and what was the context.

If it was the French military or the French tank industry , I can imagine they would have several reasons to highlight any problems and play down any strengths.

[MikeyD]

Reading that French report, what's in there to dispute? It all sounds pretty much spot-on to me. When you read the German 'to fix' list from the initial Panther trials vehicles you roll your eyes over some of the absurd design mistakes that were made. That's what happend when you build a revolutionary design from the ground up in a matter of months, then don't have the luxury of tinkering with it afterwards. About the report being overly critical, you get the same thing with reports on the Shermans. If the object of the report is to identify and correct defects you don't waste half your time praising the quality of the brass gear teeth on the handcrank.

[Charlie Marlow]

The results at Arracourt sort of support the French report. The Germans, with lots of Panthers were the attacker, in low visibility/short range environment where things like mobility, turret speed, and fast target acquisition would be keys (all things somewhat lacking according the the French). They also had relatively inexperienced crews (the French state that experienced crews should be used). They got their clocks cleaned.

The environment minimized the Panther's frontal armor and firepower strengths, and would have maximized the disadvantages of the sort that the French report highlights.