panther turret hits to often ?

[siffo998]

during my playtime i encounterd a lot of panther hits and after a while i was thinking that hits to the frontal turret area are happen to often. so i set up a test:

setup:

10 lanes each lane with one panther A mid and one sherman 75mm m4a3. the lanes are separated by linked houses so that no tank could shoot in another lane. the panthers got a short cover arcs so that they wont fire back. all tanks are placed on the same elevation level. no obstacles just grass.

each test consisted of 1:00 minute shooting against the panther tanks. i counted how often and where they were hit. i ran the test 4 times so in total thats a amount of 40 tests.

results:

total hits against the panther A`s: 120 hits = 100%

total hits against the lower hull front:

9 hits = 7,5%

total hits against the upper hull front:

91 hits = 75,83%

total turret hits:

8 hits = 6,67%

total gun mount hits:

6 hits = 5%

total weapon hits:

5 hits = 4,17%

total wheel hits:

1 hit = 0,83%

---------------

my opinion:

i find it reasonable that most of the hits occour in the upper hull or turret area due to the fact that both tanks are on the same level and the tanks aim for the center mass. no problem with that but what stands to discussion in my opinion is why 8 hits go to the turret area but only 6 hits to the gun mount area. as far as i can see the gun mount area is much bigger when you look at a frontal pic of the panther.

if you look frontally at the panther there is only a very limited turret area under the mount and small triangles left and right of the mount ? am i wrong ? in my opinion only a very limited amount of hits should occour in the vulnerable turret area, at least in comparison to the mount area.

here is a link to a frontal pic of the panther:

http://www.rctank.jp/machine/panther/panther_ausf_g.jpg

please keep in mind that the outer right and left area of the turret in the frontal pic is the heavily sloped (at least from the front) side turret area (only the inner triangle on the left and the right is actually the turret front area). if you look at the panther ingame from direct frontal view this side area isnt even visible (dont know why ? in all scetches i have found the side area is visible from the front but ingame you can only see the small turret front area).

btw sorry for not including any screenshots from a ingame panther frontally but you could simply open a game and look at it yourself...

[Thomm]

Very interesting!

Did you take a look at where the shell actually struck (as far as this is possible)? Did the hit text match the hit location?

Best regards,

Thomm

[siffo998]

sorry but i tried it once but wasnt able to correctly tell where it hit... so i just counted the hit texts.

[siffo998]

this picture of a panther out of the tankmuseum münster, germany makes it clearer how small those front turret triangle left and right of the mount must have been:

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-1305.jpg

(look at the left triangle beside that huge gun mount)

you can also see the sloped turret side armor from the left side (ok the picture isnt taken perfectly from the front but i think you wil get the idea ! )

by the way here is the link to the rest of the pictures:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-1305.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/&usg=__WMRBOS8YuXP0P8CKqhdnt9_5v2Y=&h=750&w=1000&sz=113&hl=de&start=47&zoom=1&tbnid=g0Rkmzw8GybBxM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=186&ei=b58yTv31Dseo8AO6o_2hDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpanther%2Btank%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D613%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=184&vpy=92&dur=134&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=147&ty=102&page=4&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:47

and here is another one that shows the small turret area beneath the mount:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-1305.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/&usg=__WMRBOS8YuXP0P8CKqhdnt9_5v2Y=&h=750&w=1000&sz=113&hl=de&start=47&zoom=1&tbnid=g0Rkmzw8GybBxM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=186&ei=b58yTv31Dseo8AO6o_2hDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpanther%2Btank%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D613%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=184&vpy=92&dur=134&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=147&ty=102&page=4&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:47

[siffo998]

sorry the last link was wrong, now that should be the right picture:

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-5773.jpg

(look at the small turret front area between the chassis and the mount.

[Thomm]

I wonder if "gun mount" includes the gun mantlet, or if the gun mantlet is counted as "turret" regarding the hit texts.

Best regards,

Thomm

[siffo998]

the question is what is the gun mount if not the mantlet ? because theirs a difference between gun mount and weapon (hits directly to the gun) hits ?

also frontal turret hits to a panther from a sherman 76mm are almost allways penetrations (which is reasonable, 100-110mm completely vertical) but hits to the gun mount were allways deflected as far as i can remember (which is also reasonable when the gun mount is reffering to the gun mantlet in this case, 120mm rounded). so from my experiences, also with other tanks, i would say, that gun mount is reffering to the mantlet of the tanks...!?

[Magpie_Oz]

the question is what is the gun mount if not the mantlet ?

Just a thought but perhaps the gun mount is what gets damaged sometimes if the mantlet is hit? So you'd then have the gun barrel, the mantlet (called the turret front along with the triangle bits) and the gun mount, directly behind the mantlet but much more delicate and subject to independent damage??????

[siffo998]

here is some data to underline my last statement:

according to jentz, germanys panther tank, the quest for supremacy, page 127:

the sherman a4 76mm m1a1 penetrates a panther up to

700m the turret front

100m the mantlet

(penetration values are reffering to 30% angle to the target)

so the sherman 76mm must come at least 100m close to penetrate the mantlet but can penetrate the turret front from 700m and closer.

this seems absolutely reproduceable ingame and is supported by my experiences that i`ve never seen a panther with a penetrated gun mount (=mantlet !?) ingame.

[siffo998]

Just a thought but perhaps the gun mount is what gets damaged sometimes if the mantlet is hit? So you'd then have the gun barrel, the mantlet (called the turret front along with the triangle bits) and the gun mount, directly behind the mantlet but much more delicate and subject to independent damage??????

the problem is: when a sherman 76mm fires at the panther: nearly all the frontal turret hits (panther) i have experienced ingame are penetrations... which would support the theory that the turret area is only reffering to the vulnerable front turret part. also if frontal turret hits are reffering to mantlet and turret together than much more hits should be done in this area than just those 8 %. and it isnt very possible that nearly 6 % hits to the gun mount are reffering to a place behind ? the mantlet (where the gun is mounted)

[siffo998]

just to prevent confusion:

the area i am reffering to ingame isnt named gun mount but weapon mount.

[Magpie_Oz]

I guess that is what makes it a bit confusing because as you say the weapon is mounted behind the mantlet.

[siffo998]

hm... thats true magpie its really confusing but actually its the only thing i could think of that is actually reffering to the mantlet because i`ve never experienced any more serious damage when the weapon mount area was hit. Instead most if not all of these hits were deflected...so it cannot refer to a very vulnerable area i think.

[dieseltaylor]

And what range was this at?

[siffo998]

ah sorry range was 500m

[siffo998]

ah seems that i have to put ash on my head because i`ve released the first test including my opinion to fast:

i`ve ran another test now 70 times but with sherman m4a3 76mm to prove that the weapon mount is the stronger part (the 76mm should now be able to penetrate those turret area if my theory about the weapon mount (= mantlet) is right).

so after 70 tests (7 X 1 minute, with 10 tanks on each side, each in their lane, range 500m) i got these results:

panther turret hits:

8 times

penetrations or partial penetrations:

4 times

armor spalling:

2 times

panther weapon mount hits: (i`ve looked to the area where the hits were taken and it was allways in the mantlet/turret area, at least when i could clearly tell where they actually hit)

16 times

penetrations or partial penetrations:

2 times

armor spalling:

0 times

my opinion:

this second test clearly shows that the weapon mount is the stronger part and also that my theory that the weapon mount is reffering to the mantlet might be true (at least this test supports it ).

but its also very different to the first test because this time the mantlet (weapon mount) part was hit double the times than the turret area. which seems now very correct (realistic) to me...

still strange why the first test shows a so much different picture !? might come from the lower number of tests. but in the second test the tendency towards the weapon mount area was there from the beginning while in the first test allways more turret hits were achieved (maybe just bad luck).

ok at least my tests have showed that those weapon mount part might really reffer to the mantlet.

[Narses]

this picture of a panther out of the tankmuseum münster, germany makes it clearer how small those front turret triangle left and right of the mount must have been:

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-1305.jpg

(look at the left triangle beside that huge gun mount)

you can also see the sloped turret side armor from the left side (ok the picture isnt taken perfectly from the front but i think you wil get the idea ! )

by the way here is the link to the rest of the pictures:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-1305.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/&usg=__WMRBOS8YuXP0P8CKqhdnt9_5v2Y=&h=750&w=1000&sz=113&hl=de&start=47&zoom=1&tbnid=g0Rkmzw8GybBxM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=186&ei=b58yTv31Dseo8AO6o_2hDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpanther%2Btank%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D613%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=184&vpy=92&dur=134&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=147&ty=102&page=4&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:47

and here is another one that shows the small turret area beneath the mount:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/panther-tank-1305.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzer-tank/panther-tank/&usg=__WMRBOS8YuXP0P8CKqhdnt9_5v2Y=&h=750&w=1000&sz=113&hl=de&start=47&zoom=1&tbnid=g0Rkmzw8GybBxM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=186&ei=b58yTv31Dseo8AO6o_2hDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpanther%2Btank%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D613%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=184&vpy=92&dur=134&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=147&ty=102&page=4&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:47

Nice pics. I made a video several years ago there while visiting family in Austria. I rented an Audia A4 and drove from Linz. Great and fun drive btw. Spectacular museum and it had just received all the East German Soviet stuff.

Btw, when I was there I don't think that Panther had the Pz Lehr marking. Have to dig out my video and look.

[Erwin.Rommel]

ah seems that i have to put ash on my head because i`ve released the first test including my opinion to fast:

i`ve ran another test now 70 times but with sherman m4a3 76mm to prove that the weapon mount is the stronger part (the 76mm should now be able to penetrate those turret area if my theory about the weapon mount (= mantlet) is right).

so after 70 tests (7 X 1 minute, with 10 tanks on each side, each in their lane, range 500m) i got these results:

panther turret hits:

8 times

penetrations or partial penetrations:

4 times

armor spalling:

2 times

panther weapon mount hits: (i`ve looked to the area where the hits were taken and it was allways in the mantlet/turret area, at least when i could clearly tell where they actually hit)

16 times

penetrations or partial penetrations:

2 times

armor spalling:

0 times

my opinion:

this second test clearly shows that the weapon mount is the stronger part and also that my theory that the weapon mount is reffering to the mantlet might be true (at least this test supports it ).

but its also very different to the first test because this time the mantlet (weapon mount) part was hit double the times than the turret area. which seems now very correct (realistic) to me...

still strange why the first test shows a so much different picture !? might come from the lower number of tests. but in the second test the tendency towards the weapon mount area was there from the beginning while in the first test allways more turret hits were achieved (maybe just bad luck).

ok at least my tests have showed that those weapon mount part might really reffer to the mantlet.

I suppose your theory is absolutlely right.In fact the solid provement is in 1.01 patch fix list:

"Armor penetrations through a vehicle's main gun mantlet are not reported as hits on other locations"

in 1.00,all penetration in the front of tank's turret shows the"turret front penetration",never show the "weapon mount penetration" the 1.01 patch fix this

[Amizaur]

Maybe make a test where the Panther is effectively hull-down, with only turret visible (there is no such wall, a wall plus terrain depression is needed) - and then check what would be the percentage of mount/turret hits when shots are aimed on the center of the _turret_ mass ?

One more thing - I believe the smarter and more exeprienced gunners, on shorter ranges, would tend to aim for turret, knowing they can't hurt the front hull plate, on the other hand the turret is less protected and always has a chance of causing gun/optics damage. Would be nice if crack and elite crews at close range aimed "inteligently" - at parts which they have most chances to penetrate or cause damage to. That would mean aiming for turret, gun, front lower plate, tracks. If they hit or not, is another question, but at least aiming for it. Shooting the front plate of a Panther is pointless most of the time, using most of the weapons... Some of the people had to know this.

In 1.00 I have seen a Stug hit from the front, that was reported as "lower rear" penetration. Maybe the Stug was penetrated trough the mantlet and the shell went trough vehicle hitting the rear (which was reported) ?

[siffo998]

Maybe make a test where the Panther is effectively hull-down, with only turret visible (there is no such wall, a wall plus terrain depression is needed) - and then check what would be the percentage of mount/turret hits when shots are aimed on the center of the _turret_ mass ?

One more thing - I believe the smarter and more exeprienced gunners, on shorter ranges, would tend to aim for turret, knowing they can't hurt the front hull plate, on the other hand the turret is less protected and always has a chance of causing gun/optics damage. Would be nice if crack and elite crews at close range aimed "inteligently" - at parts which they have most chances to penetrate or cause damage to. That would mean aiming for turret, gun, front lower plate, tracks. If they hit or not, is another question, but at least aiming for it. Shooting the front plate of a Panther is pointless most of the time, using most of the weapons... Some of the people had to know this.

In 1.00 I have seen a Stug hit from the front, that was reported as "lower rear" penetration. Maybe the Stug was penetrated trough the mantlet and the shell went trough vehicle hitting the rear (which was reported) ?

nice idea with the aiming for more vulnerable parts if the crew is more experienced. (at least at closer ranges) i would totally support that. but i dont know if it is not (at least to some degree) allready modelled in the game ?

what found my attraction in your post is your statement that the crews should aim for the turret because its the more vulnerable part and at least a gun or sight (optic) damage could be achieved.

the fact is that right now tanks will allways get optic and radio damage when hit by a high caliber shell (ap). i allready wrote a thread in the demo phase were i doubted that a tank that receives a non-penetrating (deflecting) shot to the upper or lower glacis plate would receive sight (optic) damage because a lot of energy is transferred away from the tank due to the deflection. and also the sight is rubber mounted in the turret so i could not believe that a hit at the chassis would do harm to it. but back than a lot of people said that the shock of the impact, which is transferred into the tank is enough to harm the sights. i settled with it because i havent found any proof (only found a panther training video that showed a russian heavy mg shooting and breaking the commanders turret optics).

but actually this optic damage addup modelling (damage of the optics incresed with each hit even if not penetrating) is still bugging me.

the problem is i allways have a statement of the tank commander richard van rosen in mind who reported that back in 1943? he was in his tiger tank and the tiger took about 30 hits, according to his statement, and was still in working order. ingame a reproduction of this scenario would be impossible because in a test series i ran (some weeks ago):

i placed a tiger mid tank against a sherman 75mm around !1000m! away.and wanted to count how many hits it would take until the optics of the tiger are gone. the thing was after 20 tests it showed that after around 10-16 hits (non penetrating) the tiger was blind (optics: red X).

here is the exact data after how many hits the tiger tank was blind in the 20 rounds:

16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 14, 12, 15, 10, 11, 10, 13, 11, 12, 11, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13.

according to this data van rosen was lying.

to conclude i still have no problem with it that optics can be damaged if the actual location is hit (where the optics are located) or a HE shrapnell flies into the slit or against one of the vision block but a AP shell (75mm,76mm) against the glacis plate (deflected, non-penetrating) should not cause any damage in my opinion. i would be glad if somebody proofs me different and finally shows me some proof (sources !) about this situation. because i havent found any sources even in books from jentz. even the tank simulation steel fury kharkow1942 modells aiming sight damage (broken) but only when the turret area around the optics slit is hit or a big HE shell hits your tank frontally.

here is the video with the statement from richard van rosen at 2:48 onwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FpEXKJRRwQ&feature=related