Panthers In French service

[Bastables]

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...

Of course it is important Jason, but the 10 or 20 sec figure can be applied to CMBN, Operational reliability is irrelevant unless one is playing a operational game or planning campaigns with 1940s technology. The Soviets seem to have found away around it by making measured planned attacks and not overextending their lines to leave transmission shattered T-34s by the road, at least after Stalingrad.

Things like a Overloaded PIV or Panther breaking down before the battle area can be modled by not any tanks on map.

[Battlefront.com]

I've only read have this thread. The 20-30 second gunner target acquisition time seems really, really, really off to me. That's a very long time in tank on tank warfare. It would come on top of whatever time the Commander took to identify a target as well, so that's really puzzling.

Agree that from a CM perspective the operational limitations have no meaning. Tactical stuff does, though I don't think too much weight should be given to this particular report. Steve

Steve

[gunnergoz]

If the French took 20-30 seconds to acquire the target and open fire, I'd check the ready ammo bins for empty bottles of vin rose.

[Capt Cliff]

I've only read have this thread. The 20-30 second gunner target acquisition time seems really, really, really off to me. That's a very long time in tank on tank warfare. It would come on top of whatever time the Commander took to identify a target as well, so that's really puzzling.

Agree that from a CM perspective the operational limitations have no meaning. Tactical stuff does, though I don't think too much weight should be given to this particular report. Steve

Steve

I respectfully disagree. There are too many variables to say 20 sec is a long time, 30 maybe. But that maybe be from spotting the target by the CO, alerting the gunner and driver, the driver increases rev's (most likely not reving an engine to max under no load that is a bad idea dynamically for the engine), spin the turret till it's close via the hydraulic's and then hand cranking the turret to the target. If the target is moving the gunner needs to guestimate how much he leads the target and the gun elevation for long range shot. So 5 sec for the CO to alert the crew, another 5 sec for gunner and driver to coordinate the turret spin via intercom (foot tapes on shoulder wouldn't work), 10 to 15 sec to spin the turret close at 1000 rpm or idle engine speed and then 5 sec to aquire the target in the gunners sight and another 5 sec to guesstimate a lead. So that 20 to 30 sec maybe ok. Then this is repeated if the next target is outside the gunners sight angle.

[Battlefront.com]

The report stated that the target was already identified by the Commander, so the 20-30 seconds stated is simply for the gunner to find the target to engage. Certainly it is entirely possible for circumstances to cause 20-30 seconds to go by. In fact, in CM:BN we have examples of engagements taking even longer or never happening at all. But what are those circumstances? Certainly not if the target is dead ahead at 500m, I'd say.

It's like so many anecdotes that one reads. Without context and some sense of statistical merit, it's not very useful. It's certainly not useful to us and therefore we aren't going to do anything with this report.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Talk about anecdotes without context, there seem to be a LOT that follow this line almost verbatun : "He came into sight at 600m and we put four (five, six) rounds into him, all of which bounced off." Which implies the Panther was stationary, the Sherman was stationary and the Sherman had placed 1-2-3-4 (-5-6) rounds in succession on target without the Panther locating him and returning fire. Shermans became famous for their lightning fast 'quick-draw' reaction times. One then asks lightning fast compared to what? Compared to a Panther's typical reaction times?

[dieseltaylor]

To class the French Armies report in with "It's like so many anecdotes that one reads.,,,,,,, , it's not very useful" seems rather dismissive.

BF have not modelled it and have no intention to do so but I suspect it is a commercial decision rather than anything being wrong in the French report. I was not aware that the report was mentioned a decade ago - I assume BF never obtained a copy/translation of the report as there were other things to sort out.

" The report stated that the target was already identified by the Commander, so the 20-30 seconds stated is simply for the gunner to find the target to engage" I think you should have also mentioned the specific relates to a moving Panther/Sherman so coming to a halt I suspect IS an important part of the timing.

The other aspect is that the Sherman, apart from the wider view and shorter barrel, was also possibly aided to a degree by the gyro-stabilisation. However I don't have a copy of the report either so that is moot.

[winkelried]

However I don't have a copy of the report either so that is moot.

Has anybody on this forum seen the ORIGINAL report?

[LemoN]

Regarding the theoretical turret turn speed of a Panther and how practical it really was...

Think of this, in which situations would you need maximum turn-speed for your turret? Only when your tank is engaged, in which case noise only plays a very minor role.

I have yet to hear a story where any tank had to turn it's turret by 90° as fast as possible while lying in an ambush, unless they got detected and engaged by enemy forces from a location they didn't expect, in which case, again, noise and smoke only play a minor role.

[Bastables]

And there is the sillyness of the germans being concerned or placing a primium with noise discipline when shooting at enemy tanks, which have engines and tracks and large bore guns making their own noise.

[Capt Cliff]

The report stated that the target was already identified by the Commander, so the 20-30 seconds stated is simply for the gunner to find the target to engage. Certainly it is entirely possible for circumstances to cause 20-30 seconds to go by. In fact, in CM:BN we have examples of engagements taking even longer or never happening at all. But what are those circumstances? Certainly not if the target is dead ahead at 500m, I'd say.

It's like so many anecdotes that one reads. Without context and some sense of statistical merit, it's not very useful. It's certainly not useful to us and therefore we aren't going to do anything with this report.

Steve

So true. The only to solve this is to talk to a Panther gunner or commander who actually used this vehicle in combat. I saw a Youtube video of a Panther with a guy who seemed like he used them in combat. Any way of contacting him?

Here's the video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5rzkJAgHH4

[gunnergoz]

FWIW I just ran across a quote from no less an authoritative armor expert than Steve Zaloga who wrote the following in his Osprey book "Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944"

Zaloga cites various references in his book but the French source "Le Panther 1947" is not one of them, so we cannot say for sure where he came up with his own 20 to 30 second target acquisition information. It sounds a bit close to be a coincidence to me, however.

I just thought I'd toss this into the mix since it seems there is more than one source for this information, though we may in fact be dealing with one source quoted multiple times.