what were the panther tank flaw?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5836
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Aug 2019 03:47

Yoozername wrote:
05 Aug 2019 01:21


the Soviets went for a gun they thought could tackle the big German tanks. They took the approach that bigger bores gave better results.
The Soviets did test a smaller calibre gun. The IS-4 (Object 245) & IS-5 (Object 248 June 1944) both fielded a 100 mm gun with the latter now carrying 39 rounds. The English Ian Allan IS Tank book by Mikhail Baryatinskiy has much the same text and photos as his Polish IS book by Wydawnictwo (Tank Power 273 by Michail Bariatynski) and he says the IS-5 was a success on its October 1944 trials but that it was decided not to develop it further and improve the AP rounds for the 122m instead.
IS4 Object 245 .jpg
IS5 Object 248.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 06 Aug 2019 18:43

The soviets first put the 85mm into the JS1, fielded just 6 months after the panther, but decided it needed something bigger. Apparently they wanted the 100mm gun, which would’ve allowed larger ammo storage. But they realised they didn’t have the existing industrial infrastructure to produce enough of the new 100mm class barrels and ammo for the planned number of JS . The 122mm gun and ammo were already in production, so that was chosen. The 100mm gun appeared around Jan45 in the SU 100, a fantastically successful design still in front line use in Yemen up to 2013, (beating the lifespan of the T34/85?).
So the JS2 wasn’t really designed for the 122, that was a compromise. Most post war 40-50 ton tanks went with 90-105 mm guns. That’s the sweet spot. Just 1 month after the panthers debut, the KV was up gunned to 85mm and the T34 soon followed.

There are so many words spoken about comparing the performance of panthers with Sherman’s and T34s, but are panthers contemporaries the T34, Sherman, M10 etc? You’re not comparing like with like. Panthers were much heavier, basically a heavy class tank by every other nations standards. You might as well compare the Sherman and the valentine, or T34 and T50. Germany tried to make a much heavier tank into their MBT, so of course it’s “better”, but at the cost of far less units, more maintenance, more logistics, etc.
Last edited by bam on 06 Aug 2019 20:03, edited 2 times 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 » 06 Aug 2019 18:54

Post number 51 replied to my comment that I’d put the 88 L.56 into the panther with:

KWK 36 in a Panther? LOL! Actually, it was considered to put the KWK 42 in a Tiger! The Germans were not as graced with what the future would hold, and they were very wary of enemy vehicles with increased armor. The Panther gun was the right choice. It far out-ranged the Tiger I gun.

How did the panther gun "far out range" the 88? I’ve got penetration figures from sir Jentz of Panzertracts : kwk 42 75mm = 88mm pen. at 2000m, kwk L.56 88mm = 84mm pen. at 2000. Beyond 2000m there wasn’t much point firing, as chances of a hit were too low, and German tankers were ordered not to waste ammo trying. So I’d say the guns were very similar armour killers; the panther was about 10% better at 500m to 1500m. Have I got this wrong?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1759
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 06 Aug 2019 20:29

The 122mm was already chosen. The 100mm was looked at as an alternative, but not deemed needed as the 122mm was already sufficient for the current German tanks. You might look into some sources.

What happened to your HE theory?

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

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 06 Aug 2019 20:53

What happened to my HE theory? The huge 15kg 100mm HE would've been about 3X the panthers. And Better anti armor. An awesome gun that was used for years. So I don't understand your question.

What did you mean by "LOL...the panther far out ranged the 88"? Don't evade..

Why is the 88mm a 'totally laughable' choice for a gun? Your #51 answer was naturally supercilious, but factually wrong. I ask you to answer it, and you just scuttle off.
Last edited by bam on 07 Aug 2019 06:24, 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 » 06 Aug 2019 21:04

After much searching, I located my Ian Allen Baryatinski JS2 book to chec:
31 Oct 43, state defence Committee tasks plant 9 with making tank version of A19 122mm gun, to be trialed by nov27. At the same time, permission also granted to make 100mm gun prototypes to fit IS1 (=IS-85). (page 14)
First example of tank gun A19 122mm is the made 12 Nov 43. First IS-2 122mm made Dec 43. On Dec 27 the state defence committee issued resolution to fit 100mm gun to IS4 & and IS5. First use of IS-85 was Feb 44, IS-2 was May 44. So the decision to try 100mm predates the IS-2 prototype. As I said, the Soviets wanted the 100mm for it, cos they knew the 122mm 2 piece ammo with its huge size was detrimental, they knew 28 rounds were too few. They were forced to choose 122 for manufacturing reasons. And early tests in dec43 of a 100mm gun in a modified KV85 turret, a test vehicle called IS-100, showed that the brand new 100mm gun had bugs, especially in the breech and extraction, that would need a few months to improve.

Sources checked and verified!

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 910
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Gorque » 06 Aug 2019 23:52

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?

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Alejandro_ » 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.

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

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 07 Aug 2019 12:18

Gorque wrote:
06 Aug 2019 23:52
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?
You'd need to strip most of the armor off the panther to get it down to the 32 ton medium tank category. It could never achieve that.
Some books seem to suggest that just the uparmoring of the glacis from 60 to 80, and the turret front from 80 to 100, resulted in all the panthers problems, and the weight going up from the designed 35 tons to 46 tons. This can't be right. The uparmoring probably only involved about 2 tons.

The SU100 glacis went up from 45mm to 75, that's plus 30mm. And it got a few hundred kg heavier gun plus an extra armored commanders pulpit and full vision cupola. Weight increased 2.4 tons.
The M4A3E2 Sherman jumbo was mega uparmored. It got 40mm more on glacis, nose AND all hull sides. It's turret got a massive extra 100mm front, back and sides. Weight up 6 tons.

So I can't envisage more than 2 tons being involved in the panthers uparmoring.
Would it have been a great tank at 44 tons? No. Of course it would've helped a little, but all the original problems would've remained.
It was basically a too large, long, high, wide afv, that could never have been less than 40 tons without de-armouring it. Look at the huge amount of armor the jumbo would have to shed, to lose 6 tons.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1759
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 14:36

You forgot the HE again.
What did you mean by "LOL...the panther far out ranged the 88"? Don't evade..
You completed ignored my post regarding the HE accuracy of the Panther. So, please don't claim I am evading.

You brought up the 88mm, why don't you research comparisons to the KWK 42? Thanks, but given some of the misinformation you are spreading, I will then check it.
Last edited by Yoozername on 07 Aug 2019 16:29, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1759
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 16:09

bam wrote:
06 Aug 2019 21:04
After much searching, I located my Ian Allen Baryatinski JS2 book to chec:
31 Oct 43, state defence Committee tasks plant 9 with making tank version of A19 122mm gun, to be trialed by nov27. At the same time, permission also granted to make 100mm gun prototypes to fit IS1 (=IS-85). (page 14)
First example of tank gun A19 122mm is the made 12 Nov 43. First IS-2 122mm made Dec 43. On Dec 27 the state defence committee issued resolution to fit 100mm gun to IS4 & and IS5. First use of IS-85 was Feb 44, IS-2 was May 44. So the decision to try 100mm predates the IS-2 prototype. As I said, the Soviets wanted the 100mm for it, cos they knew the 122mm 2 piece ammo with its huge size was detrimental, they knew 28 rounds were too few. They were forced to choose 122 for manufacturing reasons. And early tests in dec43 of a 100mm gun in a modified KV85 turret, a test vehicle called IS-100, showed that the brand new 100mm gun had bugs, especially in the breech and extraction, that would need a few months to improve.

Sources checked and verified!
https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/3190269.html
D-10 vs D-25
{Anyone please check this Russian to English translation, thanks.}

"To comrade L.P. Beria, on the installation of a 100 mm D-10 gun produced by factory #9 into an IS tank instead of a 122 mm D-25 gun of the same factory

In March of this year, I reported to you that factory #100, jointly with factory #9, designed an experimental prototype of a heavy IS tank with a 100 mm D-10 gun designed at factory #9. From March 30th to April 6th, the tank was tested at the GAU proving grounds. Trials of the IS tank armed with a 100 mm gun demonstrated its advantages over the IS tank armed with a 122 mm gun. The advantages are as follows.

Combat rate of fire is up to 8 RPM (on average 6 RPM), 2-3 times higher than the 122 mm D-25. This high rate of fire improves combat performance of the IS tank.
A lack of a muzzle brake on the D-10 improves the conditions of the crew compared to the 122 mm D-25 gun, which does have a muzzle brake.
The D-10 gun weighs 300-400 kg less than the D-25 gun.
The part of the D-10 inside the tank is slightly smaller than the D-25, improving crew conditions.
The one piece round of the D-10 gun is safer in case of fire or explosion than the two piece D-25 round.
The penetration of the D-10 gun is (if insignificantly) higher than that of the D-25 at 1000 meters.
The 100 mm D-10 gun penetrates the armour of any known German tank from 2 kilometers with the exception of the front plate of the Panther and Ferdinand.

Considering that factory #9 managed to create a 100 mm gun based on an existing family of guns (85 mm D-5 and 122 mm D-25), not needing many alterations to the design of the IS tank, I consider that production of a 100 mm gun in place of a 122 mm gun and the installation of these guns into IS tanks at Kirov factory will not be difficult and will not require a lot of time.

Considering the above, it is imperative to begin production of IS tanks with 100 mm guns instead of 122 mm guns within 2-3 months. In case of your agreement, the NKTP and NKV can draft a GOKO decree within five days.

Malyshev, April 25th"

{Response}

"To the commander of the Armoured and Motorized Forces of the Red Army, Marshall of the Armoured Forces, comrade Fedorenko.

Having examined the results of the comparative trials of the 122 mm D-25 and 100 mm D-10 tank guns, I have come to the following conclusions:
The rate of fire of the D-10 gun is thrice that of the D-25, which is a significant advantage of the D-10. The 100 mm D-10 gun currently has an insufficiently robust armour piercing shell, and thus cannot reliably penetrate the front of a Panther tank at over 1200 meters. Before replacing the D-25 with the D-10, an improvements in the AP shell and semi-automatic mechanism must be made. Considering that the D-10 gun and its ammunition, even in its present state, is superior to the D-5 gun, SU-85 SPGs should be re-armed with 100 mm guns. A trial batch of SU-85 SPGs armed with 100 mm guns should be ordered, in order to correct defects of the SPG and gun determined in trials.
The 122 mm D-25 gun reliably penetrates the Panther at a range of more than 2000 meters. The AP shell has sufficient robustness, and the HE grenade has a powerful explosive and fragmentation effect. Until the perfection of D-10 mechanisms and ammunition, it is necessary to retain the D-25 gun as the main armament of the IS tank. Trials to investigate a one piece 122 mm shell are reasonable, but consider that the chamber, shell, and casing will have to be changed. The size and weight of a one-piece shell would complicate the work of the loader, which will not allow increasing the rate of fire of the D-25 to the rate of the D-10.
Regardless of the comparative results of the D-25 and D-10, continue the installation and trials of the S-34 100 mm gun

Chief Marshall of Artillery, Voronov
Marshall of Artillery, Yakovlev"
I think your 2006 book by "Baryatinski" (Sp?) needs updating. The 122mm was given the 'Go', and the 100mm was relegated as just an upgrade for the SU-85.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1759
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 16:25

First combat use of IS-2 with 122mm guns was in February 1944.

https://codenames.info/operation/korsun ... operation/
Now fully aware of the German break-out, Konev resolved to keep his promise to Stalin not to let any Germans escape. Soviet intelligence vastly overestimated the armoured strength of the III Panzerkorps at this time, however, and Konev therefore moved forward in force. At this time the XX Tank Corps brought its brigade of the new IS-2 heavy tank into action on the Korsun battlefield. Konev ordered all available armour and artillery to attack the escaping units, cut them into isolated groups and then destroy them piecemeal. The two blocking Soviet infantry formations, the 5th Guards Airborne Division and 20th Division, had been smashed by the German assault forces, and without infantry support the Soviet tanks then fired into the escaping formations from a distance. Sensing that the Germans now possessed no anti-tank weapons, the T-34 medium tanks began to drive into the effectively unprotected support troops, headquarters units, stragglers and columns of the wounded with their medical teams.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1759
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 16:27

Gorque wrote:
06 Aug 2019 23:52
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?
Yes. But frontal armor is just part of the overall weight issue. People do focus on total weight, but where the weight is factors in also.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5836
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 07 Aug 2019 16:44

Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 16:09

I think your 2006 book by "Baryatinski" (Sp?) needs updating. The 122mm was given the 'Go', and the 100mm was relegated as just an upgrade for the SU-85.
There were 2 100 mm guns trialed. The newly developed gun was S-34 and the trials shown in the link appear to be the results of the IS-4 (object 245) with the older D-10T 100 mm gun fitted because a 'new' gun was not available. The tank with the S-34 100 mm was the IS-5 (object 248) and the date given for the pilot is June 1944 with trials in October 1944.
IS-4 Object 245 ,,bb.jpg
IS-5 Object 248 ,.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5836
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 07 Aug 2019 17:19

Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 16:25
First combat use of IS-2 with 122mm guns was in February 1944.
First use of the IS-85 was in Feb 1944. 100 of these 'early' IS tanks saw combat. It was 21 IS-85 from 13th Guards Rgt on Feb 15th.

mar2018463.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 07 Aug 2019 18:03, edited 2 times in total.

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