Isigny Panther

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8269
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Isigny Panther

#31

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Feb 2021, 05:09

Tank 1
Isigny Tank 1 hit tables A.jpg
Isigny tank 1 (23) Photo 1 .jpg
Isigny tank 1 (25) photo 2 .jpg
Isigny tank 1 (26) photo 3 .jpg
Isigny tank 1 (24) photo 5 .jpg
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 06 Feb 2021, 09:11, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8269
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Isigny Panther

#32

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Feb 2021, 05:13

Tank 1
Isigny Tank 1 hit tables B.jpg
Isigny tank 1 (22) photo 10 .jpg
Isigny tank 1 (21) photo 15 .jpg


Miles Krogfus
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: 08 May 2015, 20:54
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Isigny Panther

#33

Post by Miles Krogfus » 07 Feb 2021, 02:22

In Michael's above post #29 the third photo is report photo #24 with this caption under it:
(1) Penetration of glacis (tank #3 average plate) by 76 mm HVAP at 200 yards. After penetrating partially, round turned and penetrated vertically. (2) Failure to penetrate.
The fourth photo is report photo #25 with failure of 76 mm HVAP to penetrate glacis #3 at 200 yards.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 798
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:21
Location: Ukraine

Re: Isigny Panther

#34

Post by Peasant » 18 May 2021, 17:56

I have found this photo, it seems to be the same vehicle shown in the second one. Might be useful.
The most fascinating part to me is the penetration on the UFP, with a significant side angle involved (at least 30°). The only weapon I can think of that could've done this is 17pdr APDS shell at point blanc.

Image

Image

Peasant
Member
Posts: 798
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:21
Location: Ukraine

Re: Isigny Panther

#35

Post by Peasant » 26 Jul 2021, 13:04

I want to quote my post here as it seems relevant to the discussion:
Greetings tankers.

I often see on online forums dealing with AFV's that people jump from facts that "a gun X can reliably penetrate the frontal armour of the tank Y up to a range of Z" to conclusion "...therefore it's an effective weapon against this vehicles at all ranges below Z".

I will try to explain why this way of thinking is misleading and does nothing but makes one dangerously overconfident in his chances in a face to face exchange of fire against said vehicle.

For example: the idea that APDS ammunition for 17pdr gun was some kind of a silver bullet against previously feared Panther tanks is almost subconsciously implicit in every discussion about the effectiveness of the vehicles armed with this gun. But if we consider that it's very rare to score a perfect 90° hit on the hull in real combat, it is important to examine the effect an additional horizontal angle can have on maximum distance for defeat of a given target.

Here you can see that even with APDS ammo, the crews of vehicles armed with 17pdr gun have to take care in choosing when to shoot in order to disable the target with the very first shot, as even a relatively small side angle could make the round fail:

Image

As we can see from the table, the 17pdr APDS cannot defeat the glacis plate of the Panther tank at side angles above +-25° and can do it only within a relatively narrow sector of +-15° to the side at characteristic combat range of 900yards.
Original post.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”