what were the panther tank flaw?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 17:30


Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 17:34

Michael Kenny wrote:
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.
Fist use of the IS-85 was in Feb 1944. 100 of these 'early' IS tanks saw combat.
Again, what is your point?

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/s ... t_IS-I.php
The IS-85 (Obyekt 235) prototype started its successful but rushed trials in mid-1943. Production was assumed by Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant. The first IS-1 (definitive series vehicles) rolled of the line in October 1943, but it was stopped in January 1944, as the IS-1 was quickly replaced by the all-better IS-2. Because of this, only 200 to 207 were produced. However, it was a considerable improvement over the previous KV-85 and the T-34/76. The appearance of the new T-34/85 medium tank caused the IS series to evolve, and to be logically up-gunned. So, in January 1944, many IS-1s not yet delivered to the front were up-gunned. The IS-1 also tested a new 100 mm (3.94 in) gun and went into comparative trials with the IS-122, favorable to the latter. The new A-19 122 mm (4.80 in) gun had the punch to get through the armor of a Tiger at medium range.

bam
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 07 Aug 2019 17:37

Yoozername wrote:
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.
Thank you for reminding me, I had forgotten your point about the relative HE velocities.
It seems the 88 L.56 fired HE at about 800m/s +, and the kwk 42 fired HE at about 700 m/s. HE lobbing was what ithe 88 was designed for.
So the 88 was at least as accurate as the kwk42, if not more so. And it’s AP penetration and HE velocity would mean the 88 was better at longer, 2000m+ ranges, as the lighter 75 shell lost momentum. The 88 was better at longer ranges, not worse as you argue.
The only advantage I see is the kwk42 had about 10% more AP penetration at 100-1500 m ranges. Every other feature was worse: longer barrel, fatter rounds, half HE power, no compatibility with existing weapons and ammo. So I think the Germans were fixated on squeezing the extra 10mm penetration out of the gun, to the detriment of everything else. A mistake imho
Last edited by bam on 07 Aug 2019 18:27, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6006
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 07 Aug 2019 17:50

Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 17:34


Again, what is your point?
The point is the source you Googled and used as a reference for the first combat use of the IS-2 122mm was factually incorrect.
Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 16:25
First combat use of IS-2 with 122mm guns was in February 1944.
The 122mm IS-2 did not debut in Feb 1944, That was the IS-85 (85 mm gun)

bam
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 07 Aug 2019 18:34

Baryatinskiy implies the same, the IS tanks at korsun we’re 85mm. I read the book about Stalins Favourites the 2nd guards tank army who had 2 regiments of IS at korsun, it said they used IS85 at korsun.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 19:42

bam wrote:
07 Aug 2019 17:37
Yoozername wrote:
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.
Thank you for reminding me, I had forgotten your point about the relative HE velocities.
It seems the 88 L.56 fired HE at about 800m/s +, and the kwk 42 fired HE at about 700 m/s. HE lobbing was what ithe 88 was designed for.
So the 88 was at least as accurate as the kwk42, if not more so. And it’s AP penetration and HE velocity would mean the 88 was better at longer, 2000m+ ranges, as the lighter 75 shell lost momentum. The 88 was better at longer ranges, not worse as you argue.
The only advantage I see is the kwk42 had about 10% more AP penetration at 100-1500 m ranges. Every other feature was worse: longer barrel, fatter rounds, half HE power, no compatibility with existing weapons and ammo. So I think the Germans were fixated on squeezing the extra 10mm penetration out of the gun, to the detriment of everything else. A mistake imho
That was not, either your first argument, nor my point. So, no thanks needed.

You claimed that the Panther had a gun no better than earlier German 75 mm tanks. Now, you are making absurd statements regarding comparing to the KWK 36?

But, thanks for the laugh. You thrash around much like a WOT guy. And, obviously, you don't have the reading and comprehension skills to understand the link I put here to that thread discussing putting 88mmL56 into assault guns or panzerjager?.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 21:05

double
Last edited by Yoozername on 07 Aug 2019 21:06, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 21:06

Considering this is the end of the year 1943, it gives a good idea where the Soviets are headed. The 85mm in the T34 was basically accepted and high velocity versions did not pan out. The 100 mm gun did not pan out for a tank mount, instead being the replacement for SU-85. The 130mm fizzled. And the high velocity 122mm was not accepted either. The IS-2 with the 122mm gun became a production tank in late 1943. 85mm versions were a short run and some sources state that they were retrofitted.
Experimental Guns
"Decree of the State Committee of Defense #4857ss
December 27th, 1943
Moscow, Kremlin

On the design, production, and trials of experimental guns for tanks and SPGs.

The State Committee of Defense decrees that:
On the 85 mm tank gun: GAU chief comrade Yakovlev and Armoured Forces commander comrade Fedorenko must perform trials of the 85 mm S-53 and S-50 guns installed in T-34 tanks (S-53 in a T-34 with a stock 1420 mm turret ring, S-50 in a tank with a widened turret ring) and the 85 mm LB-1 gun designed by factory #92 in a T-34 with a widened turret ring before December 30th, 1943.
Report to GOKO on results by January 2nd, 1944.

On the 100 mm tank gun (comrade Grabin):
NKV (comrade Ustinov) and TsAKB (comrade Grabin) must provide the S-34 100 mm tank gun for trials by January 1st, 1944.
GAU chief (comrade Yakovlev) and Armoured Forces commander (comrade Fedorenko) must perform trials by January 5th, 1944.
Report to GOKO on results by January 7th, 1944.
NKV (comrade Ustinov) and factory #92 director comrade Yelyan must produce two S-34 100 mm guns according to blueprints from TsAKB, one for the IS tank and one for an SPG on the T-34 chassis to factory #100 by January 25th, 1944.
NKTP (comrade Malyshev) and factory directors of Kirov factory (comrade Zaltsmann), factory #100 (comrade Kotin) and Uralmash (comrade Muzrukov) must design and produce an IS tank and an SPG on the T-34 chassis with 100 mm guns.
Perform factory trials of the IS tank and SPG with 100 mm guns by February 20th and provide the tank and SPG for proving grounds trials by February 25th.
GAU (comrade Yakovlev) and the Armoured Forces commander (comrade Fedorenko), in cooperation with NKTP and NKV, must, within five days, perform trials of the IS tank and SPG with 100 mm guns and deliver a conclusion to GOKO by March 5th, 1944.
TsAKB (comrade Grabin) must include the possibility to install an 85 mm barrel into the S-34 mount to achieve a muzzle velocity of 1000-1100 m/s and begin the production of this gun with the aim of producing an experimental prototype for government trials by April 1st, 1944.
People's Commissariat of Ammunition (comrade Vannikov) must produce ammunition (casing, propellant, AP and HE shells) for the 85 mm TsAKB gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000-1100 m/s and provide 1000 proof rounds as well as 250 each HE and AP rounds.

On the 130 mm tank gun (comrade Grabin):
NKV (comrade Ustinov) and TsAKB (comrade Grabin) must design by January 5th 1944 and produce by March 1st 1944 an experimental prototype of a 130 mm gun, with the ballistics of the 130 mm B-13 naval gun, to be used in an SPG on the IS chassis.
Director of factory 232, comrade Zakharyin, must produce a barrel with breech and other components, as well as cast and forged components, and deliver them to TsAKB by the aforementioned date.
NKV (comrade Ustinov) and TsAKB (comrade Grabin) must send one 130 mm SPG gun to factory #100 by March 10th, 1944.
NKTP (comrade Malyshev) and directors of factory #100 and Kirov factory must design an SPG on the IS tank chassis to use a 130 mm gun.
Begin factory trials of the 130 mm SPG by April 1st, 1944, and provide it for proving grounds trials by April 5th, 1944.
GAU (comrade Yakovlev) and the Armoured Forces commander (comrade Fedorenko), in cooperation with the NKTP and NKV, must complete proving grounds trials in five days' time and report to GOKO with their conclusions by April 10th.
People's Commissar of Ammunition (comrade Vannikov) must produce 500 each of HE shells for the 130 mm SPG, AP and HE shells for the 122 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s, and deliver them by March 20th, 1944 for trials.

On the increased muzzle velocity of the 122 mm tank gun:
NKV (comrade Ustinov), TsAKB (comrade Grabin), OKB-172 (comrade Ivanov) and factory #172 director (comrade Bykhosvkiy) must design and produce two prototypes of a 122 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of at least 1000 m/s using a 25 kilogram shell (one designed by TsAKB and one by OKB-172) to be used in an IS SPG.
Submit finished prototypes to factory #100 for installation in vehicles by March 10th, 1944.
NKTP (comrade Malyshev), Kirov factory director (comrade Zaltsmann) and factory #100 director (comrade Kotin), in cooperation with TsAKB and OKB-172, must design IS SPGs with TsAKB and OKB-172 122 mm guns.
Finished SPGs must be submitted for proving grounds trials by April 1st, 1944.
GAU (comrade Yakovlev) and the Armoured Forces commander (comrade Fedorenko), in cooperation with the NKTP and NKV, must complete proving grounds trials of the SPGs within 10 days and submit their conclusions to GOKO by April 15th, 1944.
Chair of the Committee of Defense, I. Stalin."

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6006
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 07 Aug 2019 22:42

Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 21:06
The 100 mm gun did not pan out for a tank mount, instead being the replacement for SU-85.
That is not how I read it. The 100mm S-34 was fitted successfully in the IS-2 turret and was found to be an efficient and deadly weapon. They chose to stay with what they had though (122mm) and it was not the case that ' The 100 mm gun did not pan out for a tank mount'

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 07 Aug 2019 23:59

Michael Kenny wrote:
07 Aug 2019 22:42
Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 21:06
The 100 mm gun did not pan out for a tank mount, instead being the replacement for SU-85.
That is not how I read it. The 100mm S-34 was fitted successfully in the IS-2 turret and was found to be an efficient and deadly weapon. They chose to stay with what they had though (122mm) and it was not the case that ' The 100 mm gun did not pan out for a tank mount'
Maybe you missed reading this????
"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 like looking at neat pictures too, but reading is fundamental. BTW, you guys arguing that the IS-2 122mm being a contemporary of the Panther, while arguing at the same time it came in later, is classic.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 08 Aug 2019 00:04

The Panther is certainly a medium tank, if for no other reason that it was fielded for the most part in Panzer Divisions as such. The IS-2 was considered a heavy tank by the Soviets, and fielded in Heavy Tank Battalions.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 08 Aug 2019 00:54

bam wrote:
16 Jul 2019 01:01
1. HE shells are actually the majority of shells fired by tanks, thus important. Supporting infantry requires big HE capability.
I don't comprehend what u mean by "why is "HE capability" a primary indicator of HE shell performance?" Obviously the size of the HE charge is indicative of the power of the explosion it causes. An 88mm sprenggranate had nearly double the HE of the panther kwk42 round.
Double? WooHoo! Makes a bigger noise too!! BAM!!!!

I was hoping someone would call you on this. I can post pictures if you need.

88mm
HE shell weight
9 Kg.
HE content
0.74-0.785 Kg

You probably confused overall shell weight with the HE Blammo weight? Or just repeating something you thought you read online.

And, no, it isn't just about the amount of explosive. So stop spreading falsehoods at AHF.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6006
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2019 01:30

Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 23:59




I like looking at neat pictures too, but reading is fundamental..................
It is indeed. Perhaps you should practice what you preach?
I know from experience you tend to ignore/refuse to acknowledge all contrary evidence. That is why I applied the KISS principle and used big photos and included big red letters that (I had hoped) would alert you to the fact you are conflating two different prototypes.

Please pause and consult the dates of the 2 tanks and the type of 100 mm gun in each. Note the type of 100 mm gun in the caption under the IS-4 (object 245) and compare it to the description of the 100 mm in the IS-5 (object 248)

This:
KISS .jpg

This is the text in the Ian Allan book and the problems with the IS-4 are clearly mentioned:
IS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA B.jpg
IS BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB CC.jpg
mar2018464ggt-vert CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC B.jpg
Please note that the IS-5 also had to have the commanders cupola moved to the other side of the turret. This is because the 100 mm D10 gun was not the same as the 100 mm S-34 gun and changes had to be made to the mantlet and crew positioning.


IS-5 S-34 -vert NF.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6006
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2019 01:34

Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 23:59
BTW, you guys arguing that the IS-2 122mm being a contemporary of the Panther, while arguing at the same time it came in later, is classic.
I am far too busy correcting your many errors of simple facts to engage on any other matter. I have not mentioned the Panther at all.
Another of your classic 'errors of fact? '

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 08 Aug 2019 01:44

Michael Kenny wrote:
08 Aug 2019 01:34
Yoozername wrote:
07 Aug 2019 23:59
BTW, you guys arguing that the IS-2 122mm being a contemporary of the Panther, while arguing at the same time it came in later, is classic.
I am far too busy correcting your many errors of simple facts to engage on any other matter. I have not mentioned the Panther at all.
Another of your classic 'errors of fact? '
yes, you have a history of derailing threads. And blurry pictures.

I actually have you on ignore, but you seem to quote me often. And, no, I didn't read through all that off-topic stuff you posted.

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