what were the panther tank flaw?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#196

Post by Cult Icon » 22 May 2021, 04:44

In the Unit history Monty's Marauders, it states this:

8th Armoured Brigade in the first 25 days in Normandy claimed: 86 tanks and SP kills. Own losses 124.

Of these 86 kills, they claim 34 Panthers knocked out on July 1, 1944 ( The ill fated II SS Pz Corps counterattack). The actions of this Brigade are significant as they had a lot of contact with Pz Lehr Regiment 130, with its Panther battalion.

The further comment, which is vague/strange claims that when 8th Armoured Brigade attacked, their losses were 3 times that of their opponent (I believe this was principally Pz Lehr with some contact with SS-PR 12) but when they "defended" at the Raurey , their kills were 3 to 1. The first bit doesn't make much sense as a lot of the fighting in the region was back and forth, with the same places eg. Point 103, St. Pierre, Cristot, Tilly-sur-selles etc. taken and lost over and over again. up to 18, 24 times, etc. The Pz Lehr division was ordered to retake Bayeux.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#197

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 May 2021, 07:48

Cult Icon wrote:
22 May 2021, 04:44
In the Unit history Monty's Marauders, it states this:

8th Armoured Brigade in the first 25 days in Normandy claimed: 86 tanks and SP kills. Own losses 124.

The actual quote in Delaforce page 159:

The Brigade had lost 124 tanks but claimed in turn a toll of 86 enemy tanks and SPs destroyed, knocked out or captured in that period. ....

This is in turn a rewording of the original entry in 'A Short History Of The 8th Armoured Brigade' published in 1945 where it says:

Casualties were heavy and 124 tanks were put out of action in 25 days. The Brigade claimed 86 enemy tanks and SPs destroyed, knocked out or captured during the same period.


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

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#198

Post by Peasant » 17 Nov 2021, 13:32

Interesting fact: the 100mm thick mantlet on Panther was the minimum thickness of cast armour required to offer full protection from soviet 76mm tank/AT guns at 100m (US Protection Criteria). Really shows how much weaker cast armour can be under certain conditions/penetration criteria.

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

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#199

Post by Peasant » 30 Dec 2021, 12:06

Interesting info:
The filling and muzzle velocity of the Sprgr. on the KwK 40 was about 550 m/s, as on the KwK 42 it was 700 m/s (compared to the 935 m/s for the Pz.Gr. 39/42), and while the filling (and indeed most of the shell besides the casing and the driving bands) was the same, the higher velocity and flatter angles meant the shell would burry itself deeper into the ground, or possibly ricochet off the ground like with the Flak 18/37/38.

The Panther isn't necessarily bad in anti-infantry duties, its gun wasn't specifically designed to do such actions, being primarily made to deliver greater kinetic energy (muzzle velocity) to the shell

The first time I read about it, it was in the context of German artillery manuals detailing how to use different fuse-types.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VY10gfnrTQ

The Sprgr. 34 and 42 both used a "graze" type fuse, meaning that under certain angles the fuse didn't arm and the shell instead could ricochet off the ground or off armour. Otherwise, it would bury itself into the ground, limiting the shrapnel.
http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/UK/Hand ... 12_001.htm
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroe ... &context=3

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#200

Post by Yoozername » 01 Jan 2022, 08:34

Peasant wrote:
30 Dec 2021, 12:06
Interesting info:
The filling and muzzle velocity of the Sprgr. on the KwK 40 was about 550 m/s, as on the KwK 42 it was 700 m/s (compared to the 935 m/s for the Pz.Gr. 39/42), and while the filling (and indeed most of the shell besides the casing and the driving bands) was the same, the higher velocity and flatter angles meant the shell would burry itself deeper into the ground, or possibly ricochet off the ground like with the Flak 18/37/38.

The Panther isn't necessarily bad in anti-infantry duties, its gun wasn't specifically designed to do such actions, being primarily made to deliver greater kinetic energy (muzzle velocity) to the shell

The first time I read about it, it was in the context of German artillery manuals detailing how to use different fuse-types.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VY10gfnrTQ

The Sprgr. 34 and 42 both used a "graze" type fuse, meaning that under certain angles the fuse didn't arm and the shell instead could ricochet off the ground or off armour. Otherwise, it would bury itself into the ground, limiting the shrapnel.
http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/UK/Hand ... 12_001.htm
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroe ... &context=3
Opinions? Sources? What next Quora?

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#201

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 01 Jan 2022, 08:58

Yoozername wrote:
01 Jan 2022, 08:34
Opinions? Sources? What next Quora?
http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/TMa ... ig_388.htm

FUZE:
Nomenclature: kl.A.Z. 23 (0.15).

Type: P.D.


http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/TMa ... ig_580.htm
http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/UK/Hand ... 12_001.htm
This combined graze and direct action fuze witj an optional delay of 0.15 or 0.2 second is a smaller size of the the normal A.Z. 23 and is used in H.E. shell for the following equip-ments:–

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#202

Post by Yoozername » 02 Jan 2022, 22:00

I am not sure what the post info even means? It is implying higher velocity projectiles, with flatter trajectory, could not use ricochet tactics??? In any case The Panther is certainly capable of SQ (superquick) and Delay. Ricochet tactics were known to most nations using this combination.

From the PantherFiebel...

Image

PANZERTRUPPEN 2....
All of the enemy tank attacks were beaten back. Altogether 28 enemy tanks were destroyed. Nine were claimed
by Panther 433, six by Panther 422, five each by Panthers
415 and 414, and three by Panther 401. All 28 of these enemy tanks burned immediately. Three additional enemy tanks
were knocked out but didn't burn and were not claimed as
kills.
By firing Sprenggranaten (high explosive shells) with and
without fuzes set on delay into the woods opposite, as later
related by a prisoner, three enemy infantry companies preparing to counterattack were completely decimated so that
they couldn't initiate their attack.

At 2040, out of fuel, Panther 411 was damaged by artillery fire. One crew member was wounded. At 2300 on 23
May, Panther 415 arrived at the repair group.
At 0430 on 24 May 1944, an order was received to return
to the old assembly area immediately. There, after refueling,
all Panthers were to defend against enemy tanks attacking
from the east and southeast.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#203

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Jan 2022, 22:32

Yoozername wrote:
02 Jan 2022, 22:00

All of the enemy tank attacks were beaten back. Altogether 28 enemy tanks were destroyed. Nine were claimed...................
Some very specific information that should be easy to check by those who have access to Allied references.


Panzertruppen 2 page 146-147.

Having failed in several attempts to retake the bridgehead,
the specialized Panzer units were pulled back to the
area of Rome to recuperate. The Allies, after finally managing
to capture Monte Cassino, started a major offensive on
22 May 1944. How the 4.Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment 4 with
their Panthers fared when sent in to stop the Allied drive is
related by the following excerpts from their war diary

At 0355 hours on 23 May 1944, the combat elements
were alerted by the commander of the 4.Kompanie. At 0445,
three Panthers (401, 414 and 431) left the assembly area.
The other four Panthers (421, 422, 423, and 433) were to
follow as soon as they finished refueling. This hadn't been
completed because the gasoline had been delivered in 200 liter
drums with only one pump. At 0515, due to heavy artillery
fire, the three advance Panthers were forced to immediately
change position.
Enemy tanks and infantry started to attack at 1030. A
decision was made to attack the enemy in the flank. The route
was subjected to heavy artillery barrages. Finding the way
was almost impossible because of the powder fumes and
artificial smoke. By passing the various barrage zones, five
Panthers managed to attack the enemy in the flank without
loss due to enemy fire. Panthers 423 and 431 had remained
behind due to mechanical problems. The opponent fled the
battlefield, pulling back to the east, leaving all his weapons
and equipment behind. An immediate enemy tank counterattack
was repulsed. Panther 433 was knocked out in this last
action. The commander was killed and the gunner and loader
wounded. A short time later the gunner in Panther 423 was
wounded.
All of the enemy tank attacks were beaten back. Altogether
28 enemy tanks were destroyed. Nine were claimed
by Panther 433, six by Panther 422, five each by Panthers
415 and 414, and three by Panther 401. All 28 of these enemy
tanks burned immediately. Three additional enemy tanks
were knocked out but didn't burn and were not claimed as
kills.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#204

Post by Yoozername » 02 Jan 2022, 22:53

Some very specific information that should be easy to check by those who have access to Allied references.
In the hope that the thread will stay on topic, I just posted the specific information from Panzertruppen 2, that is related to the topic of HE shells brought up by Zeno. Do you have a Allied Reference regarding the German Fuse in question?

Most people know Panzertruppen 2 is online. I also own a copy.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#205

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Jan 2022, 02:46

Yoozername wrote:
02 Jan 2022, 22:53
Do you have a Allied Reference regarding the German Fuse in question?

It appears to be the advance of The North Irish Horse and 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade at Pontecorvo on May 23rd. This was the assault on The Hitler Line and it was a heavily fortified position with emplaced panther turrets. Given the number and variety of German guns 5 Panthers and their 75mm would hardly be noticed and would add very little to the mix, certainly nothing decisive. The claim 'The opponent fled the battlefield, pulling back to the east, leaving all his weapons and equipment behind' is not correct.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#206

Post by Yoozername » 03 Jan 2022, 03:42

Michael Kenny wrote:
03 Jan 2022, 02:46

It appears to be the advance of The North Irish Horse and 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade at Pontecorvo on May 23rd. This was the assault on The Hitler Line and it was a heavily fortified position with emplaced panther turrets. Given the number and variety of German guns 5 Panthers and their 75mm would hardly be noticed and would add very little to the mix, certainly nothing decisive. The claim 'The opponent fled the battlefield, pulling back to the east, leaving all his weapons and equipment behind' is not correct.


I don't follow how that relates to the topic of Panther tank flaws? And, certainly not the issue of the HE fuses.

So the Panther tank flaw in this case is the crews practised liar-liar-pants-on-fire tactics?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#207

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Jan 2022, 04:03

Yoozername wrote:
03 Jan 2022, 03:42


I don't follow how that relates to the topic of Panther tank flaws? And, certainly not the issue of the HE fuses.
I would have thought a link to the Units on the receiving end of this super-effective weapon would allow the claim:

By firing Sprenggranaten (high explosive shells) with and without fuzes set on delay into the woods opposite, as later related by a prisoner, three enemy infantry companies preparing to counterattack were completely decimated so that they couldn't initiate their attack.

to be validated. All the curious have to do is consult the relevant Allied documentation and the facts will be revealed.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#208

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 03 Jan 2022, 11:48

I wonder how a 105mm 'support Panther' would have gone. With HEAT rounds it should've been capable of taking on any Russian tank as well.

Penchanski
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 03 Dec 2021, 18:15
Location: Germany

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#209

Post by Penchanski » 04 Jan 2022, 11:11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqVNoiB ... Visualized

"How to kill a Panther" discussing German, Soviet and British observations and recommendations.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

#210

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 04 Jan 2022, 12:31

Penchanski wrote:
04 Jan 2022, 11:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqVNoiB ... Visualized

"How to kill a Panther" discussing German, Soviet and British observations and recommendations.
A lot of the recommendations seem pretty commonplace.

"Shoot it in the sides"

"Hatches are weakspots"

"Molotov the engine intakes"

A lot of these would work on practically every tank in WW2.

Post Reply

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