Panther not rushed into service?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#91

Post by EKB » 13 Oct 2015, 10:49

ChristopherPerrien wrote: The L7 is the best tank gun that has ever been made. A shooting contest L7 vs L11 vs L44 or 55 would be an interesting competition.


The Royal Ordnance L7 was a good gun, but it's old. You can only milk a 1950s design for so long. The hole punching power, even with the depleted uranium projectiles, was no longer sufficient by the 1980s.

Someone at the Tank Net forum said that in 1988, the U.S. Marines did a live fire test against an export model of the Russian T-72 and all 105mm DU rounds failed to penetrate. The folks at Aberdeen PG must have known that the L7 (M68) gun, at least for MBTs, was near the end of its useful life in the 1970s. For that is why the army wanted the 120mm gun for the Abrams tank. They had to wait longer than expected to get it because Rheinmetall was delayed by technical problems.
Last edited by EKB on 13 Oct 2015, 11:47, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#92

Post by EKB » 13 Oct 2015, 11:32

Alejandro_ wrote:
According to R. P. Hunnicutt, the drive train used for the prototype Chrysler XM1 Abrams tank was designed for 58 tons. The last time I checked the numbers, the M1A2SEP with full upgrades weighed at least 69.5 tons. It's probably heavier today.
AFAIK later versions had improvements on the final drive, but I would have to ask.

In any case, Panther original design was supposed to have a planetary gearset for the final drive, but due to cost and tooling it was replaced with a parallel axis gearset. It was much cheaper in terms of design and production, but wore out rapidly. According to postwar French reports they lasted ~200 kms. Later in the war a milder steel was used in the production of the transmission, which made the problem worst.

IMO Panther tank was a very unbalanced vehicle. It had some outstanding features (70L70 gun and front protection) but many issues, including transmission and lateral armour. The latter caused real concern:

During a conference in the Heereswaffenamt on 10 February 1944 the opinion was expressed that the Panther I no longer met the requirements in light of the experience gained on the Eastern Front. The panther should be completely redesigned and, as already mentioned, receive the Tiger steering mechanism and final drive.

'Panther & Its Variants, W.J. Spielberger'

Perhaps a lighter design, with the original 60 mm protection, would have been a better idea.

Again, you exaggerate the significance of adding ten tons of weight. Modern Challenger II tanks carry up to 15 tons of extra weight in modules, which appears to have little effect on maximum road speed. We know how the British Army feels about piling on more pounds to their chariots.

No doubt that the Germans were dissatisfied with the automotive performance of the Panther tank. The point you ignore is that its availability under wartime conditions was better than some of the more modern British tanks in peacetime conditions.

Unless you have precise numbers showing how the operational rate would change if the Panther tank were ten tons lower in weight, your assumptions about the vehicle design are not useful or enlightening.


User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#93

Post by Alejandro_ » 13 Oct 2015, 12:55

Again, you exaggerate the significance of adding ten tons of weight.
I think that you don't have much knowledge on this topic.

- By adding 10 tons to the weight Panther's final weight increases by ~28%, but vehicle uses a pararell gearset instead of the original -and superior- planetary type. Why did it have so many problems if it is not a big deal?
- Challenger-2 has seen a weight increase, but in advanced versions it uses an improved transmission (and more powerful engine). In the German case, it was the opposite due to lower quality materials.
Modern Challenger II tanks carry up to 15 tons of extra weight in modules, which appears to have little effect on maximum road speed. We know how the British Army feels about piling on more pounds to their chariots.
Perhaps you can provide a source which states that the modules are 15 tons in weight. Sure, some weight is added, but there are improvements in engine/transmission.

Finally, a Bergepanther was used in Kümmersdorf during 1944 to test a planetary gear type. After 600 kms there were no signs of damage. Compare with the 200 kms datum provided by the French.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#94

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 13 Oct 2015, 14:05

EKB wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote: The L7 is the best tank gun that has ever been made. A shooting contest L7 vs L11 vs L44 or 55 would be an interesting competition.

Someone at the Tank Net forum said that in 1988, the U.S. Marines did a live fire test against an export model of the Russian T-72 and all 105mm DU rounds failed to penetrate. The folks at Aberdeen PG must have known that the L7 (M68) gun, at least for MBTs, was near the end of its useful life in the 1970s. For that is why the army wanted the 120mm gun for the Abrams tank. They had to wait longer than expected to get it because Rheinmetall was delayed by technical problems.
Interesting but no, The original M1 was not intended to have the Rhienmental 120.(M1's designs actually predates the movement to switch to 120mm). And the 105mm would eat up a T-72(and its mods including the so-called T-80) and did in such instances as the 1990-91 Gulf War. As to 120 technical problems , I wouldn't know where that comes from , the 120mm has been around since 1974, and the Leopard 2 has had them since 1979.

It was the anticipation of later model(next generation) Russian tanks
(T-90's/Chobham Armor) is why the 105 was replaced. As the L7 had a hard time killing similarly armored tanks to the M1. And became impossible against tanks armored like M1A1 and later SEP mod's.

Also there was the addition of Reactive armor to actual Russian tanks, and that seemed to be the "last straw". But in hindsight,Russian propaganda's overatedness was taken too much at face value)) as reactive armor was not as good as advertised, plus it is inherently dangerous, to anyone in the area not in a tank, which precludes close support in front by infantry. And it can cause bystander casualties.

More pressure to switch from the 105 to 120 , was political in nature. The USA adopted the 120 as a means to get Germany to adopt some US weapons. Which is an interesting story
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 13 Oct 2015, 14:42, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#95

Post by Alejandro_ » 13 Oct 2015, 14:27

Interesting but no, the 105mm would eat up a T-72(and its mods including the so-called T-80) and did in such instances as the 1990-91 Gulf War. It was the anticipation of later model(next generation) Russian tanks(T-90's/Chobham Armor) is why the 105 was replaced.


Not really. The 105 mm ammunition usually struggled with T-64/72/80 of corresponding eras. The exception was when Israel deployed M111. When Soviets tested captured ammunition (M111 & M735) it was found that M735 could not penetrate T-72A (front armour). Israeli M111 did manage to penetrate the glacis but failed on the turret.

In 1982 M735 was replaced by M774, but Soviets were deploying vehicles with heavier protection.

After the Cold War ended Austria got a few T-72 and tested them. Their ammunition could not penetrate the front armour -which did not have ERA-.

Anyway, moving to the 120 mm was a good decision.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#96

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 13 Oct 2015, 15:24

Alejandro_ wrote:[
Not really. The 105 mm ammunition usually struggled with T-64/72/80 of corresponding eras. The exception was when Israel deployed M111. When Soviets tested captured ammunition (M111 & M735) it was found that M735 could not penetrate T-72A (front armour). Israeli M111 did manage to penetrate the glacis but failed on the turret.
In 1982 M735 was replaced by M774, but Soviets were deploying vehicles with heavier protection.

I don't know about the "corresponding" era bit. We seemed generally ahead of the curve in 1980's. And then there are the differences between M774 to M833.
And yes by 1990 , 120mm was needed , as the 105mm M900? was not going to cut it.

Anyway , going too far off topic, excuse me.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#97

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 13 Oct 2015, 15:30

Alejandro_ wrote:
Again, you exaggerate the significance of adding ten tons of weight.
I think that you don't have much knowledge on this topic.

- By adding 10 tons to the weight Panther's final weight increases by ~28%, but vehicle uses a pararell gearset instead of the original -and superior- planetary type. Why did it have so many problems if it is not a big deal?
-

Finally, a Bergepanther was used in Kümmersdorf during 1944 to test a planetary gear type. After 600 kms there were no signs of damage. Compare with the 200 kms datum provided by the French.
Yes, the 28% weight increase and the change to cheaper gearing , caused problems.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#98

Post by EKB » 14 Oct 2015, 10:55

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
EKB wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Interesting but no, The original M1 was not intended to have the Rhienmental 120.(M1's designs actually predates the movement to switch to 120mm). And the 105mm would eat up a T-72(and its mods including the so-called T-80) and did in such instances as the 1990-91 Gulf War. As to 120 technical problems , I wouldn't know where that comes from , the 120mm has been around since 1974, and the Leopard 2 has had them since 1979.

The Rheinmetall 120mm gun was not combat ready in 1979. One of the trouble spots was the cellulose combustible cartridge, which did not work as expected and caused production delays until resolved.

Live fire trials by the West German army showed that the L7 105mm was not reliable at punching holes in a T-62, and that was back in the 1960s. Tanks are often misidentified in battle so your comment about the 105mm DU vs. the T-72 might be over optimistic. Did you ever see a T-72 that was destroyed and inspected for 105mm damage?

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#99

Post by EKB » 14 Oct 2015, 11:15

Alejandro_ wrote:
According to R. P. Hunnicutt, the drive train used for the prototype Chrysler XM1 Abrams tank was designed for 58 tons. The last time I checked the numbers, the M1A2SEP with full upgrades weighed at least 69.5 tons. It's probably heavier today.
AFAIK later versions had improvements on the final drive, but I would have to ask.

All they did is change the gear ratio from 4.30:1 to 4.667:1. Not exactly a major engineering refinement.


Alejandro_ wrote: In the German case, it was the opposite due to lower quality materials.


Yes the Germans were often forced to use lower quality materials, but that does not suggest the original design was flawed.

Alejandro_ wrote: By adding 10 tons to the weight Panther's final weight increases by ~28%, but vehicle uses a pararell gearset instead of the original -and superior- planetary type. Why did it have so many problems if it is not a big deal?

If it's such a big deal, then tell us what the difference in availability rate would be if the Panther tank weighed ten tons less.


Alejandro_ wrote:Modern Challenger II tanks carry up to 15 tons of extra weight in modules, which appears to have little effect on maximum road speed. We know how the British Army feels about piling on more pounds to their chariots.
Perhaps you can provide a source which states that the modules are 15 tons in weight. Sure, some weight is added, but there are improvements in engine/transmission.

Which improvements in engine/transmission are you talking about?
Last edited by EKB on 14 Oct 2015, 19:18, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#100

Post by Alejandro_ » 14 Oct 2015, 12:12

If it's such a big deal, then tell us what the difference in availability rate would be if the Panther tank weighed ten tons less.
You keep going in circles asking for data that are simply not available.
Which improvements in engine/transmission are you talking about?
The ones introduced in Challenger 2E.

By the way, I am still waiting for the source stating that kits added to Challenger weight 15 tons. Can you provide the source?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#101

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 14 Oct 2015, 13:19

EKB wrote:[

Live fire trials by the West German army showed that the L7 105mm was not reliable at punching holes in a T-62, and that was back in the 1960s.
I guess the Germans did not tell the Israelis , that the M68 105mm simply would not work reliably against Russian tanks. There were 400 T-62's at the Golan Heights /Valley of Tears battle. The Israelis primarily used L7/M68 equipped tanks at that battle. So :?
Tanks are often misidentified in battle so your comment about the 105mm DU vs. the T-72 might be over optimistic. Did you ever see a T-72 that was destroyed and inspected for 105mm damage?

Yes , no US tanker would know what a T-72 looked like.

USMC M60A1's encountered T-72's outside Kuwait City Airport.USMC lost 1 tank , Iraqi's 100+, How did that happen?

Yes , there were numbers(2 batts at least IIRC ) of 105mm equipped M-1's in the First Gulf War,the Iraqi's had 1600 T-62, 500 T-72, 700 T-54/55. For fear of them encountering those invulnerable T-62's/72's they didn't fire at any tanks and waited for M1A1's to show up. :roll:

To tell the truth, it has been so long I would not know where to start looking , since there have been so many following subchapters of (GWOT)- The Great War for Israel, and so many destroyed T-72's , and which weapon system that caused any particular kill is often not documented by photo, no real way to know what killed what. Assume L7/M68's didn't kill a single T-72 between 1971 and 1991 if that is your POV.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#102

Post by EKB » 14 Oct 2015, 19:31

Alejandro_ wrote:
If it's such a big deal, then tell us what the difference in availability rate would be if the Panther tank weighed ten tons less.
data that are simply not available.




If the data is not available then your argument is about nothing, amounts to it, and is less interesting than.


Alejandro_ wrote:[
Which improvements in engine/transmission are you talking about?
The ones introduced in Challenger 2E.


Do tell us more about these changes and when they took place.


By the way, I am still waiting for the source stating that kits added to Challenger weight 15 tons. Can you provide the source?

I just sent an email to the Ministry of Defence re: the added-on armour kits. :)

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#103

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Oct 2015, 19:45

The whole post war 'bash-the-Brits' diversion is pointless anyway. It was just a way to get at me in the mistaken belief I am English. In fact I am Irish.

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#104

Post by Alejandro_ » 14 Oct 2015, 23:32

I just sent an email to the Ministry of Defence re: the added-on armour kits.


Which is like saying, I did not know the figure. As I said before, you simply don't have much knowledge on the topic. I am not going to waste more time with you.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#105

Post by Takao » 15 Oct 2015, 10:36

Just so you guys can get back on track.
Alejandro_ wrote:The ones introduced in Challenger 2E.

By the way, I am still waiting for the source stating that kits added to Challenger weight 15 tons. Can you provide the source?
See this article by Jane's, on Pg.5.
http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/5 ... d_AFVs.pdf

Various add-on packages to the Challenger 2 have pushed it's weight from just over 60 tonnes to around 75 tonnes.

The Challenger 2E was a failed attempt to market an export version of the Challenger 2.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”