German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Seems somewhat relevant. Related to the 503rd Heavy tank battalion.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Thee Panther-Fibel gives a German 'opinion ' as of mid-1944. The diagrams clearly show the Germans are aware of the vulnerability of the side armor.
http://bilder.zib-militaria.de/buttons/Pantherfibel.pdf
@Ulater, I would expect the Panther transmission repair to be somewhat quicker and to be able to be performed at a less than 'Vienna' level. The Tiger I turret had to be removed to perform that job (along with much of the interior). The Panther could go through the removable plate above the driver/radio operator. Not exactly easy, but it was done.
See pics in this thread...
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=234696&start=120
http://bilder.zib-militaria.de/buttons/Pantherfibel.pdf
@Ulater, I would expect the Panther transmission repair to be somewhat quicker and to be able to be performed at a less than 'Vienna' level. The Tiger I turret had to be removed to perform that job (along with much of the interior). The Panther could go through the removable plate above the driver/radio operator. Not exactly easy, but it was done.
See pics in this thread...
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=234696&start=120
Last edited by Yoozername on 01 Oct 2018, 19:21, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Do you want the original German document? I can probably find it.Alejandro_ wrote: ↑01 Oct 2018, 14:41Interesting. Do you have a source (book) for it?Anyway, hope is that the thread does not get off topic and speculative...in that regards, another GERMAN report that stays on topic...
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Yoozername wrote: ↑01 Oct 2018, 19:10Thee Panther-Fibel gives a German 'opinion ' as of mid-1944. The diagrams clearly show the Germans are aware of the vulnerability of the side armor.
http://bilder.zib-militaria.de/buttons/Pantherfibel.pdf
@Ulater, I would expect the Panther transmission repair to be somewhat quicker and to be able to be performed at a less than 'Vienna' level. The Tiger I turret had to be removed to perform that job (along with much of the interior). The Panther could go through the removable plate above the driver/radio operator. Not exactly easy, but it was done.
See pics in this thread...
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=234696&start=120
More relevant. Part of that french report on Panthers used in Spielberger's book.
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Out of curiosity, what was the average life of an AFV in WW2. Did an an AFV see 2000, 3000 or 5000 km? I'm asking this in earnest as I do not know. 5000 km is ~ 3000 miles? From New York to San Fran? No? Was that a reasonable expectation for an AFV then?
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
According to Coombs, British tank production and the War Economy 1934-1945 (London/New York 2013), p.90:
average mls before major drive train breakdown / replacement of engine under british environmental conditions:
CRUSADER 1942: 400mls
VALENTINE 1942: 950mls
CHURCHILL 1942: 500mls
MATHILDA II 1942: 800mls
COVENANTER 1942: 600mls
average mls before major drive train breakdown / replacement of engine under british environmental conditions:
CRUSADER 1942: 400mls
VALENTINE 1942: 950mls
CHURCHILL 1942: 500mls
MATHILDA II 1942: 800mls
COVENANTER 1942: 600mls
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Report on a Panther recovery in Normandy by No. 1 Canadian Section AFV (T):
Map overview: Panther location:
Map overview: Panther location:
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
This is the Panther referred to in the post above
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Appendix in The War Diary of 1 Canadian Section AFV(T) for August 1944 relating to the shipping of a recently captured Bergpanther to the UK
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
Shot groupings invalidate results but do confirm multiple impacts should increase penetration success.Yoozername wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 17:11A Soviet perspective....
https://warspot.ru/11907-strashnee-koshki-zverya-net
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
It is interesting that the 85mm had little chance of penetrating the hull. Albeit with weld cracks.Paul Lakowski wrote: ↑30 May 2019, 00:19Shot groupings invalidate results but do confirm multiple impacts should increase penetration success.Yoozername wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 17:11A Soviet perspective....
https://warspot.ru/11907-strashnee-koshki-zverya-net
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
So if I summarise some of the reports stated here. Side vs. front vs. all hits:
[Vehicle type | no. of veh. | front hits | side hits | rear | side vs front hit share | side hit share]
1. The ORO-T-117 (Appendix E) states (supposedly, taken from here http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic ... s-in-wwii/):
Pz5/6 | 30 | 30 | 67 | 1 | 0.69 | 0.68
Pz3/4 | 59 | 56 | 64 | 8 | 0.53 | 0.5
Hits include hand held rockets
2. The ORG report from critical mass (NW Europe, June 1944-July 1945, chapter 10):
Pz5 | 22 | 17 | 33 | 5 | 0.66 | 0.6 (! turret hits split evenly !)
M4 | 40 | 21 | 40 | 6 | 0.66 | 0.6
3. Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties. Report No. 12 (Canadian Military History)
M4 | 45 | 19 | 36 | 10 | 0.66 | 0.55
Average for side hits is 0.59, median 0.6 (0.58 and 0.58 respectively, if the unclear case under (2.) is removed). Ratio between front and side hits was 1 : 1.13-2.23. Hence for every front hit come 1.5 side hits if median is used.
To note is that this data does not include the context of tactics used, battle ratios, information asymmetry, equipment availability during combat etc.
Another interesting information is the confirmation of the disparaging number of hits found on the vehicles of the respectable sides.
3.27 for Pz5/6 mix
2.17 for Pz3/4 mix
2.05 for Pz5 (hence, tigers probably pushed the first stat up)
1.68 and 1.44 for M4
Fazit, I draw the following conclusions:
1. Is 22,5% chance to pen panther's front realistic? If it is, then the 75% is valid under equal all other conditions and as the worst case. It does however not include the surviving tanks. Together it constitutes most likely a false claim.
2. Decision to focus the armour on the front side in absolute terms does not provide good protection for all the most exposed surfaces, i.e. front and sides. Share of side hits is considerably high 30% per side. This reaffirms the idea that panther's could not fight with exposed flanks without adequate support. It is a subject for another discussion, if such a trait was possible in ww2.
3. In relative terms is the use of well armoured front plate by far the most cost efficient solution. The 40% share of frontal hits, comparably high costs in covering the sides of a vehicle and the comparison with amoured protection of WAllied vehicles, show that panther's armour was good and by far the best in war for a medium tank. This is consideration given with assumption of equality of all other factors. Inclusion of additional disadvantages with which Germans had to fight would imo only improve the results of the vehicle's armour.
4. When evaluating survivability of ww2 tanks, besides including the factor of recoverability of vehicles and availability of spare part, the inclusion of the hits required/noted on vehicles should be considered. More hits mean more chances for a damage of an essential component, damage of armour or "lucky hits".
[Vehicle type | no. of veh. | front hits | side hits | rear | side vs front hit share | side hit share]
1. The ORO-T-117 (Appendix E) states (supposedly, taken from here http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic ... s-in-wwii/):
Pz5/6 | 30 | 30 | 67 | 1 | 0.69 | 0.68
Pz3/4 | 59 | 56 | 64 | 8 | 0.53 | 0.5
Hits include hand held rockets
2. The ORG report from critical mass (NW Europe, June 1944-July 1945, chapter 10):
Pz5 | 22 | 17 | 33 | 5 | 0.66 | 0.6 (! turret hits split evenly !)
M4 | 40 | 21 | 40 | 6 | 0.66 | 0.6
3. Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties. Report No. 12 (Canadian Military History)
M4 | 45 | 19 | 36 | 10 | 0.66 | 0.55
Average for side hits is 0.59, median 0.6 (0.58 and 0.58 respectively, if the unclear case under (2.) is removed). Ratio between front and side hits was 1 : 1.13-2.23. Hence for every front hit come 1.5 side hits if median is used.
Supposedly one assumes that all side and rear hits on a panther are a kill. Assuming a rear hit share is 6% (highest estimate for given German stats) then 0.6 + 0.06 = 66%. To satisfy the 75% penetration share then at least 22,5% of frontal hits had to succeed. This means about 1 out of 4 projectiles go through panther's front.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑18 Sep 2018, 21:37The revelation that 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated was a surprise to many.
To note is that this data does not include the context of tactics used, battle ratios, information asymmetry, equipment availability during combat etc.
Another interesting information is the confirmation of the disparaging number of hits found on the vehicles of the respectable sides.
3.27 for Pz5/6 mix
2.17 for Pz3/4 mix
2.05 for Pz5 (hence, tigers probably pushed the first stat up)
1.68 and 1.44 for M4
Fazit, I draw the following conclusions:
1. Is 22,5% chance to pen panther's front realistic? If it is, then the 75% is valid under equal all other conditions and as the worst case. It does however not include the surviving tanks. Together it constitutes most likely a false claim.
2. Decision to focus the armour on the front side in absolute terms does not provide good protection for all the most exposed surfaces, i.e. front and sides. Share of side hits is considerably high 30% per side. This reaffirms the idea that panther's could not fight with exposed flanks without adequate support. It is a subject for another discussion, if such a trait was possible in ww2.
3. In relative terms is the use of well armoured front plate by far the most cost efficient solution. The 40% share of frontal hits, comparably high costs in covering the sides of a vehicle and the comparison with amoured protection of WAllied vehicles, show that panther's armour was good and by far the best in war for a medium tank. This is consideration given with assumption of equality of all other factors. Inclusion of additional disadvantages with which Germans had to fight would imo only improve the results of the vehicle's armour.
4. When evaluating survivability of ww2 tanks, besides including the factor of recoverability of vehicles and availability of spare part, the inclusion of the hits required/noted on vehicles should be considered. More hits mean more chances for a damage of an essential component, damage of armour or "lucky hits".
Last edited by delete013 on 18 Dec 2019, 10:15, edited 4 times in total.
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
What I would wonder about this statistic is what exactly was counted under scoops. Stuart tanks have namely a remarkably high statistic for hull, 6 pens and 6 scoops. I kind of doubt that their armour could stop any usual AT-weapon that Germans used.
Re: German opinions on Panther tank or crew experience.
I believe those could be from the german 2cm flak/kwk guns, their frontal armor was quite safe from them and the side armour from beyond 500m, without use of APCR rounds.