what were the panther tank flaw?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
bam
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 09 Aug 2019 10:59

Thanks for the shot accuracy comparison chart, I was looking for something like that. It shows quite an advantage for the kwk42 upto 1250m. Over 2000m, the results merge.
So the kwk42 had about 10% more penetration and about 10% more accuracy.

And FYI, the term "Paper Panzer" was taken from the Title of 2 Panzertracts editions devoted to German panzer projects.

bam
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 09 Aug 2019 11:09

Yoozername wrote:
08 Aug 2019 18:56
bam wrote:
08 Aug 2019 18:04

The 88s recoil is something I hadn't considered, and that would be problematic in the panther. Agreed. Unless the recoil cylinder is enlarged? And a muzzle brake? The Germans had paper-panzer aspirations to fit an 88 into the panther after 1945, so it might have been possible.
The 88 mm KWK 36 already had a muzzle brake. In fact, it was actually needed in the Tiger I to fire, and was somewhat of a secret development at the time. So, explain what you mean by that?
Explanation : It is possible to increase the amount of recoil braking with different designs of muzzle. So I meant they could experiment with enlarged recoil cylinders and different muzzle brakes.
Last edited by bam on 09 Aug 2019 11:16, edited 1 time in total.

bam
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 09 Aug 2019 11:12

Yoozername wrote:
08 Aug 2019 21:48
TaDahhhh! I knew I could get him to post a blurry Tiger picture. he can't help himself. OCD, y'know....
This sort of personal, trash talk is totally unnecessary.
And it is boring for everyone else.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23220
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by David Thompson » 09 Aug 2019 20:31

Six uninformative and insulting opinion posts from Yoozername was removed pursuant to forum rules.

bam
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 11 Aug 2019 12:37

Here's a quote from Steve Zaloga, the prolific armor & Warfare author:

"Although tank enthusiasts are obsessed with the anti armor performance of tank guns, based on historical record, far more rounds of HE are used in combat."
- - from: 'IS2 Heavy Tank' p.12

Zaloga also has this insight on the IS2/Panther debate:

"The IS2 had significant advantage over the Panther in terms of armor, both on the turret front (160mm vs 100mm) and the hull front (120 vs 80). The Soviet advantage came at the expense of internal volume, another reason why the IS2 carried so few rounds"

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 11 Aug 2019 20:08

bam wrote:
11 Aug 2019 12:37
Here's a quote from Steve Zaloga, the prolific armor & Warfare author:

"Although tank enthusiasts are obsessed with the anti armor performance of tank guns, based on historical record, far more rounds of HE are used in combat."
- - from: 'IS2 Heavy Tank' p.12

Zaloga also has this insight on the IS2/Panther debate:

"The IS2 had significant advantage over the Panther in terms of armor, both on the turret front (160mm vs 100mm) and the hull front (120 vs 80). The Soviet advantage came at the expense of internal volume, another reason why the IS2 carried so few rounds"

Correlation does not imply causation.

No, it isnt 160 mm vs 100 mm, and neither it is 120 mm vs 80 mm.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 962
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Stiltzkin » 12 Aug 2019 06:05

That it was issued in 1943 and not in 1940. :)

AKahl
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 01 Jul 2012 00:50
Location: California

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by AKahl » 12 Aug 2019 06:40

I would interject that until the later "chinned" version of the Model G Panther turret, the Panther mantlet had a shot trap which tended to deflect hits to the lower half of the mantlet into and often through the thin roof armor, potentially striking the driver and/or radio operator. The final versions of the Panther ("narrow mantlet" model F) were intended to have a narrower turret with increased armor thickness, but reduced surface area, and utilizing a "saukopf" style mantlet, to address this.

As described quite well above, the automotive fragility of even the late model Panthers meant that generally only roughly about half of those available, in most instances, were "runners" and actually in service.

According to Osprey's King Tiger Heavy Tank 1942-1945 by Tom Jentz, Hillary Doyle, and Peter Sarson, the March 15, 1945 Status Reports showed that 59 percent of Tigers (I & II I would assume) in the field were operational, alongside 62 percent of Panzer IV's, but only 48 percent of Panthers. That's just a snapshot, but I think it fairly accurately represented where even a mix of mostly later model Panthers stood amongst their brethren in maintainability.

Even with these issues, though, the Panther was an excellent gunnery platform and could generally frontally penetrate opposing tanks at distances where it was itself very resistant to damage through it's own frontal arc. Even a small number of operational Panthers, artfully deployed in the defense, could present real problems for Allied armor.
Remain yourself, in spite of all the mighty do.

Goethe

critical mass
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by critical mass » 12 Aug 2019 16:40

Alejandro_ wrote:
07 Aug 2019 11:01
So, if it wasn't for its weight, due to the additional frontal armor, which wreaked havoc upon its suspension and transmission, the Panther was basically a medium tank, yes?
Panther's transmission was designed for a 35ton vehicle. Yes, frontal armour was increased from 60 to 80mm but this does not explain the increase in weight.

A while ago I drew this front armour plate in Solidworks and added a 20mm plate. The resultant weight increase was ~364kg for a steel with typical density. It is just an approximation and not extremely detailed due to lack of drawings, but allows to discard a 10 ton increase in weight due to extra armour.

Maybe the 35 ton initial datum was very optimistic. I have discussed this another person with ample access to German documentation and in his opinion, the increase in weight is due to the huge number of changes made to the design before it went into production.
Ca. 370 kg for the glacis sounds about right. However, the concept of the vehicle classification in the VK terminology is related to weight WITHOUT turret. Its just the vehicle hull weight. turrets and hulls were developed independently. The PANTHER turret (incl. turret revolving structure) was approx. 7t).

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 12 Aug 2019 19:57

If Im not mistaken, weight was already around 37 tons before they made the armor thicker.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 962
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Stiltzkin » 12 Aug 2019 23:18

Weight does not always need to be a downside. Heavier vehicles can punch their way through woods and obstructions, lighter vehicles need to take the long route or maneuver their way through. Regarding caliber choices ("Rücklauf und Rückstoß"), it is generally a trade-off ratio between destructive effect/penetration/accuracy to adjusted volume and weight distribution.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by critical mass » 16 Aug 2019 18:49

It cannot be denied that A lower total weight would have helped.single torsion bar would have been good enough for 600-700hp power, and would have reduced complexity of manufacture, hull height and weight without compromising the internal volume.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 962
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Stiltzkin » 16 Aug 2019 21:00

It cannot be denied that A lower total weight would have helped.single torsion bar would have been good enough for 600-700hp power, and would have reduced complexity of manufacture, hull height and weight without compromising the internal volume.
This in turn however could restrict upgradability ("Kampfwertsteigerung"), which can prolong the variants lifetime on the battlefield without further need of investment into a new design (with the volume and weight of postwar concepts in mind).

critical mass
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by critical mass » 17 Aug 2019 00:30

Not sure it would. The only aspect which would be reduced is suspension wheel travel, and that, arguably, could be restored when needed (by say, aviability of 850-1000hp engines), by substituting higher alloy grade, steel torsion bars, instead. This is how it is done postwar.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 962
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Stiltzkin » 17 Aug 2019 01:09

This is how it is done postwar
Shouldn't that have resulted in a more beneficial Power density?

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