Panthers In French service

[Boche]

Whoa Sergei!

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

.

Anyone that shares borders with the french...has a problem with the french...

[Xavierisback]

In CMBN, german tanks engage enemy tanks while moving. Is it historically correct?

[gunnergoz]

Disagree that Germans routinely used Panthers from fixed positions. The German tankers knew that movement on the battlefield was critical to survival. They were offensive minded and the tanks were the cutting edge of the offensive sword.

If one wants to speak about relatively static AFV defenses, that is what the StuG's did (as well as PzJag's) and were good at. But to envision a Panther statically waiting for an American attacker, while it did happen on occasion, does not correctly depict how how these two tanks typically encountered each other. Not to mention that in the CMN time frame, the most commonly encountered tanks were Pz IV's, but since this discussion began over Panthers, I won't belabor that point.

[gunnergoz]

In CMBN, german tanks engage enemy tanks while moving. Is it historically correct?

A well trained, experienced German tank crew could and did engage at closer distances while on the move, but the tank was not optimized for it. It was just one way to get the jump on an enemy. A lot depended upon terrain, movement conditions, lighting, etc for that to work. It was probably more common on the Eastern Front when the Germans happened to find themselves close in in the midst of milling T34's.

The Panther was not the Abrams, able to shoot with great accuracy while on the move and had no mechanical stabilization like the Sherman, which had it in the vertical axis only if the Sherman crew had bothered to train in it and to maintain the system. But the Panther's gun had such velocity and flat trajectory that close in, if the gunner could sight the enemy, even if the Panther was moving, there was a decent chance to hit the target. It was much harder if the target was also moving and movement rates and angles relative to each other were critical factors in the equation.

To see a stationary tank shooting at moving targets is of commonplace, but again much depends upon crew training and experience. Learning to lead a target correctly is something of an art form and not everyone accomplishes it equally.

[Stoppelhopser]

Not to discount the source, but it is an excerpt, of only negative points right?

I would like to see the full report. Even the piece of crap described in this report must have had one or two good features, not?

Allied reports on aircraft, for example BF109 or FW190 of course made mention of bad points and weaknesses but also there you might find about what was good about the design or what allied pilots had to be careful of tactically, eg: try not to do a head on with a Focke Wulf...

[dieseltaylor]

Stoppelhoser - Actually it is pretty complimentary on the good points. So i see no reason to feel it is just being picky for no reason. It identifies a major weakness.

gunnergoz - tanks firing on the move AND HITTING another tank I would maintain was rare particularly later in the war when even the British had given up on pre-war fire whilst moving. May work with a 2pdr gun but not something 20ft long.

As for tanks moving, of course they did and that is why we had shoot and scoot in CMAK. Essentially it is Fire and Movement, the "and" being the important word. I suspect some people, through games or training, thought tanks in WW2 could reliably fire on the move. *

*Given a large hill in the distance, a minor palace at 500 metres with a smooth road and a slow speed no problem. In fact even a Panther gunner would probably be able to aim under those circumstances ad hit where he wanted in the palace example.

You allude to the clip you linked to with the Panther and the M-26. The idea that he thought the M26 would stop to fire seems very much more likely given what we seem to know now about Panthers and tactical problems.

When the game was released we had threads mentioning Panthers moving turning their turrets and nailing Shermans at range whilst continuing the move - it does seem quite CMSF. I have not seen any film of that example though.

[Stoppelhopser]

dieseltaylor: Thanks for clearing up. English not being my first language and reading too fast I sometimes miss subtle meanings.

[MikeyD]

Just recently I read through a PDF of the Sherman gunner's manual dated April 43. There was only one passing reference to firing on the move (only do it at point blank range - under 600m), but otherwise no instructions, no training procedures, no drills, not even helpful hints. And this was a tank with a gyrostabilizer fitted!

[Stahler]

Hi Folks,

a couple of days ago i stumbeld also about this artice on a hunt for German tanks in use after the WW2.

Some points are more or less rubbish: Which tank in WW2 was designed to withstand a Panzerfaust? Which tank can withstood an 105 HE in its running gear?

I you play the Panthers game with your Sherman you are dead. Wide open ground, as was he designed for. As an other Gamer mentioned it.

The troubles with the gearboxes where well known, an there where plans make a new one. This was than completed after the war for the french Panthers i think.

The 20to 30 seconds for enganging an Tank are the worst case is think.

Also who made the report? Pure Technicans? Or Technicans and Soldiers who fought with this Tank?

Every Soldier in the word can tell you the weaknesses of his own tank at best.

[MengJiao]

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

When they were knocked out, which is all anyone seems to bother noting about Shermans. If both sides were moving or the Sherman was stationary, then all the advantages go to the Sherman (at least to the Sherman with the 76mm), but since under those circumstances Shermans did perfectly well, no big losses occurred and no big stories resulted.

[gunnergoz]

Just recently I read through a PDF of the Sherman gunner's manual dated April 43. There was only one passing reference to firing on the move (only do it at point blank range - under 600m), but otherwise no instructions, no training procedures, no drills, not even helpful hints. And this was a tank with a gyrostabilizer fitted!

The army figured out rather late that its practical training to tankers was inadequate. Most tankers gave up on the stabilizer, which was only for the vertical axis anyway. Another army training problem was that the tankers in the armored divisions were getting better and more intense training than those in the separate tank battalions that supported the infantry divisions. The armored divisions also did a better job of training their tank-infantry teams to coordinate. The army had listened far too long to General McNair, who wanted to pool the separate tank and TD battalions into reserve pools and as a consequence, training was never a priority and when the infantry divisions finally did get paired up with a tank battalion and a TD battalion after Normandy, there was a stretch of time where both arms had to learn to work together. Tankers complained that the infantry commanders used them up without regard to their vulnerability without accompanying infantry. Infantry complained that the armor withdrew in the face of enemy armor like Panthers and Tigers. It took a while for the two sides to adjust to reality and work together like a team.

Gen. McNair was a victim of friendly fire during the Cobra bombings and while he made many positive contributions to the army's wartime preparations, he also left a legacy of branch divisiveness that took years to shake off. He was an artilleryman and that mindset never quite left him.

[winkelried]

'Cos dammit they are french!

merci beaucoup!

[winkelried]

Anyone that shares borders with the french...has a problem with the french...

except for the Swiss we rarely had issues with the "Grande Nation".

[Capt Cliff]

BTW; this is an ancient thread topic. I found on Google a thread on this forum, that's in the archieve, from 2000. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=17187&page=9 There are some of the same people posting here as posted then with the same tired agruments.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If by "the same people" you mean Bastables. Everyone else in that thread is long dead.

[Ron]

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.

I would think survival would be the most important aim, period.

[dieseltaylor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Wouldn't the above effect every tank in CM then as well?, under the same criteria it questions the whole aspect of even modeling a traverse speed in the game as a seprate model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does.

I was wondering where all the stories of Shermans outrunning the Panther turret traverse are comming from if the turret could be traversed 360 degrees in 18 seconds. I think part of the answer is found in the fact that the Panther gunner could not utilize the faster turret traverse to actually bring his gun on target. To find the target, he had to slow down the turret traverse speed.

The problem is that the Panther gunner had his monocular 2.5x or 5x sight with a field of view of 19 and 15 degrees respectively as his only means of vision. Turning the turret at max. speed, the target would be in his sight for something like a second.

You cannot pick up a target that way, you have to slow down the traverse speed to allow you to see what the hell is going on.

Our Sherman gunner, on the other hand, can view the world through his periscope with a much wider field of vision (42 degrees IIRC) and thus has a much better chance of picking up the target even at max. traverse speed (15 sec/360 degrees).

In other words, the Panther gunner would be dependent on his commander to find the target and direct him in the general direction, probably using fast traverse. But then the gunner has to slow down turret traverse considerably to actually get the target in his sights. The Sherman gunner can use his periscope to lay his gun vary precisely on target and then switch to his sight either the one built into the periscope or his direct-fire telescope.

As it says in the 1947 French report on the Panther (Spielberger: "Panther..." p. 160ff):

When the commander has found the target, it takes between 20 to 30 seconds before the gunner can open fire. This time, which is considerably higher than that of the Sherman, can be attributed to the lack of a gunners periscope

The fact was not lost on the Germans, as can be seen in the Panther Schmalturm which sported not only a monocular sight, but also a periscopic sight (and a steroscopic rangefinder).

So what the game should portray is the slower target aquisition of the Panther vs the Sherman. If the turret traverse is the primary factor here, allowing the Panther to turn its turret at 19 seconds/360 degrees will give it an un-historical advantage.

Claus B

Which was the best argument from the thread found by Capt. Cliff.. I must admit to missing the point about speed of traverse to decelerating a 20ft pole to lock on to a single degree of arc.

If anyone has played with pistols and rifles we all know the shorter the barrle the easier it is to get it pointing in the right direction - and elevation. : ) So I am more than happy that the French got it right.

It is quite interesting to see that it is the traversing rate which seems to get all the attention - and always in seconds for 360. Rather a bizarre sort of measurement when most of the action would be hopefully in the front 180 at most , or even a lesser arc. So to my mind the interesting statistic would be how long to move say the gun 12 degrees and acquire a target 500 metres away.

And then try that with a moving Panther and a moving Sherman - oops perhaps someone did that. Is the vision provided to the Sherman gunner whilst moving a help, is the reduced mass/length of the Sherman gun easier to lay quickly, and is using the wider field of vision provided on the Sherman ana dded bonus. Basically one would think there are three yeses there.

[Bastables]

Perhaps you missed the latest evidence TA!

SO the french report

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.

The point is that in 1943 the gunner was waving his gun around because he was using his sight in low power to cover his own arcs, which was apparently 30degs. He's not doing it blind, he's using it in the same way a gunner is using the Sherman periscope.

[Bastables]

If by "the same people" you mean Bastables. Everyone else in that thread is long dead.

I did not realise everyone else was so much older than me in the 90s . This board used to have a really high calibre of gongards. Compared to people like Rexford and Claus old salt ect.

[dieseltaylor]

And grognards : )

Your previous comment. I thought the French report suggested the Panther gunner could not effectively use his sight whilst the Panther was moving. Are you suggesting they are wrong?

[Bastables]

And grognards : )

Your previous comment. I thought the French report suggested the Panther gunner could not effectively use his sight whilst the Panther was moving. Are you suggesting they are wrong?

Well yes if the Germans by 1943 doctrine were using the sight (while veh was moving) to cover arcs on low mag while the French could not post war. Well it seems that there was something wrong with French crewing of the Panther.

The Sherman lacked a counter rotating clock indicator that enabled the panther commander to bring his gunner on target by vocal commands but the Sherman commander had an override that could slew the gun towards the target and then just order engage tank front.

[Bastables]

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.

.

Err and German training/troop manuals

http://ia700304.us.archive.org/25/items/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung1944119S.Scan_text.pdf

Wenn dir ein panther leben lieb ist! concerning 2500rpm-3000rpm (refrencing a 2500 to 3000 rpm part of the pie graph: if you want long panther life: cartoon chap pulling the indicator down from 3000 rpm with the text HALT!)

Fahren/ driving speed/rpm 1500rpm to 2500rpm

That cite the sweet spot for long engine life of the panther is not to go over 2500rpm for long periods of time. Here's the thing that's now the max rev on all panthers in the western front as the engines had a governer on them restricting them to 2500rpm. The "new max" of the panther is the rpm judged to give the 1000-1500km engine life.

18secs 360 deg transverse at 2500rpm

[dieseltaylor]

I'll raise your 360 degs in 18seconds with

The problem is that the Panther gunner had his monocular 2.5x or 5x sight with a field of view of 19 and 15 degrees respectively as his only means of vision. Turning the turret at max. speed, the target would be in his sight for something like a second.

You cannot pick up a target that way, you have to slow down the traverse speed to allow you to see what the hell is going on.

You will note that rotating the turret at full speed does not impress me as a meaningful combat tactic and no matter how many times it is repeated I would still prefer a time for coming to a halt and picking off a designated target. And that is what I think the French were also interested in.

[Bastables]

I'll raise your 360 degs in 18seconds with

You will note that rotating the turret at full speed does not impress me as a meaningful combat tactic and no matter how many times it is repeated I would still prefer a time for coming to a halt and picking off a designated target. And that is what I think the French were also interested in.

The French also state that it is impossible to use the gunners sight on the move: This is at odds with the German training and doctrine of the gunner using the sight to scan his forward arc while attacking/moving.

The Commander and the Gunner had counter rotating 360 indicators, commander sees enemy tank looks down calls out the clock number and the gunner slews the gun to the indicator and picks up the target. Max speed is important to get on the ordered arc

What some to be arguing is bringing the panther targeting times down based on issues that a post war French unit had in operating a foreign vehicle no longer in production. The French say they could not physically scan for targets while moving, why? Because the Germans did scan for targets with the gunners sight while moving. The Germans in designing the new ausf F turret did not go the down he Sherman route of providing the gunner a fixed mag sight and a observation periscope. Instead they moved the duel mag telescopic sight to a duel mag periscope sight increasing the viewing area at 2.5 to 24 deg, which approved the old binocular ausf D 2.5 at 29deg viewing area.

French unit using Panthers after having used Sherman complains that the sighting set-up and the German idea of providing the commander with all the viewing devices and provides situational awareness: complains that being a gunner in the panther is not the same as a Sherman.

It's sort of like complaining about the lack of targeting lines of infantry sections in CMBN compared to Cmx1.

Personally I don't think any of the tanks should be shooting on the move, they only people who doctrinally though it was a good idea were the British during the early part of the war who envisaged fleet combat but on land. yet the thinly armoured electric traversed turrets of the crusaders came off second best to hand cranked P III turrets that shot from the halt. They also pre war rejected the Czechoslovakia 38's citing it was impossible for the gunner to shoot on the move. Even the Russians would shoot from the halt and the T-34 had a 360deg time of 12 seconds. I don't think any tanks should be shooting from the hip, even the vertical gyrostab Shermans. Even 100m long ships had problems hitting each other at sea.

[JasonC]

I find it just fascinating that the only topics being discussed and disputed at target acquisition times and firing on the move. (For firing on the move the answer is simple - any tank could but in WW II it wasn't going to hit anything, at all).

The most important parts of the report don't have anything to do with either.

The most important parts of the report are an operational lifetime of the final drive before it would fail of 90 miles, and a life for the engine of 600 to 900 miles (mean and maximum, respectively).

This figures are so short, they relegate the Panther to a specialized and short lived weapon, fine for one battle, but unable to survive a single operational campaign, let alone for months on end in operation after operation. For that matter, trying to nurse them through even a single operational breakthrough would depend on cannabilized parts to keep a fraction of them moving.

Those figures mean the tank is a piece of ammo being fired off at the enemy when sent into action, not a durable asset of the formation equipped with them. If a formation expects to use some of them continually, it can only achieve that by using only a portion of them, saving the rest, or by having a continually replacement stream of fresh vehicles. We know the latter was pretty much out of the question, for strategic and production limit reasons.

Trust me, these are a lot more important than whether an enemy tank could be picked up in 10 seconds or in 20...