"Please don’t use the “5 M4s = 1 Panther” myth." Topic
59 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleCan you buy a 15mm pre-painted Sherman for $3 USD at your local store?
Featured Movie Review
|
Pages: 1 2
Thresher01 | 05 Feb 2023 12:57 p.m. PST |
I can see where this would be valid in a number of circumstances, especially against the early, short-barreled Shermans which would have extreme difficulty in penetrating a Panther from head-on: - German tanks well camo'd and hidden get off first shots (2X – 3X) with no response from Allied tanks; - German tanks reposition, rinse, repeat above; - Shermans halt, withdraw, and/or attempt envelopment; - German forces fight/deploy in at least platoon to company strength, making encirclement difficult; - German tanks may be dug-in, and/or behind other hard cover (bocage, stone buildings, etc.); - Shermans attempt to fire on German vehicles, but most shots bounce, or fail to penetrate, etc., etc. Given the above, and assuming the 2X – 3X rounds being fired before the American tanks can respond, and assuming the following: - at least a 50% To-Hit rate (effective range definition), and given the more likely desire to make first shots really count when well positioned, perhaps a 67% or better To-Hit rate from close range (Americans used this strategy in the Battle of the Bulge and elsewhere to make their first shots count, with devastating effect); - let's assume most if not all shots vs. the Shermans penetrated due to their poor armor; - further, let's assume 4 x German Panthers in a platoon, for simplicity; - and 2X – 3X rounds of fire unopposed vs. a company of Shermans advancing. With the 2X numbers for rounds fired by the Panthers, and the lower 50% hit rate, 4 Shermans are destroyed or knocked out with every two-round volley they get off. With the 3X number and the 67% hit rate, the 4 tank Panther platoon will know out 8 Shermans in short order – double their number of vehicles firing. Do that a couple of times after pulling back, and/or repositioning, and then firing again, and you can see things quickly look very bad for the allies. 2X losses for each Panther firing – repeat 2 – 3 times, and you quickly get the 4X – 5X kills per German tank quoted. Of course, the same applies for American tanks and A/T guns doing the same to German tanks which blunder into an ambush too, especially if the 76.2mm guns are in play. Even the lowly 57mm guns did quite well against the advancing German panzers during the Battle of the Bulge – Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzers – mainly from flank attacks from reports I've read, since attacking from the front was frequently ineffective, and unwise. |
Thresher01 | 05 Feb 2023 1:11 p.m. PST |
Against the British, in an ambush and then attack on a Churchill squadron, 11 Churchills were destroyed by just 3 Jagdpanthers in short order. Two of the latter were damaged by return fire, but the third one got away. link |
4th Cuirassier | 06 Feb 2023 5:26 a.m. PST |
@ ushcha If you were a Brit the Firefly would take out a Panther or Tiger no problem whatever aspect. Which interestingly is pretty much what's recommended in the report. If your tank can carry more weight and it's armour's too thin, don't use that weight to add armour. It may still be too thin. Instead use it to give the tank a better gun. This can defeat the enemy tanks at longer range, which stands the enemy tanks off further, which functionally is the same as having more armour, plus you now have a better gun. It's maybe a bit Pollyanna, and I don't know if you'd actually design a tank that way ab initio. If you can afford 240mm of armour, you could put 80mm on front, sides and rear, but you've got a problem if your enemy's commonest AT guns can shoot through 100mm of armour. So you maybe put 40 on the rear, 40 on the sides and 160 on the front. You're now safe from the enemy's fire from the front, but toast from any other angle. The Germans seem to have designed the Tiger the first way and everything else the second. |
Wolfhag | 07 Feb 2023 5:57 a.m. PST |
Thresher01, In an ambush situation, the defender is pretty much screwed and it does not matter what type of vehicle they are in. Getting ambushed is not the fault of the vehicle or its design. There are many examples of Villers Bocage and Arracourt. IIRC the first two Tiger IIs sent to the East Front were going down a road by themselves and a waiting Russian T-34/85 in ambush got a flank shot on their turrets that cooked off the ammo. I read an account of a US tank unit that was ordered to swiftly move down a forest road and not stop. The Germans had set up anti-tank guns along the way that were under 100m. As the unit moved down the road the anti-tank gun would take out the lead tank and the ones behind it immediately knocked it out before they could shoot again. They pushed the destroyed tank off the road and continued on and accomplished their mission. In a prepared ambush the defenders have probably set up a kill zone and have already measured the range to it and may also have an artillery TRP on it too. This means that the first round should have close to a 90% chance of hitting. Most ambushes would be set up in a tree line giving the best cover. The German's use of smokeless and flashless powder will make it especially difficult to spot the shooter. They will definitely get off the first shot when the enemy is most vulnerable. How the enemy reacts is based on many variables and pre-battle reaction drills. The ambushed unit may be under orders to pull back if they encounter the enemy because they are on a recon mission. This means they may have mortars in an armored car following, an artillery FO or air support waiting for them. Since they know in advance the route they are taking they should have artillery in direct support with expected points of resistance plotted on the artillery unit map for quick reaction fire. They may have their flanks protected by a smoke screen which may defeat units waiting in ambush. The advancing unit may be in a road column or deployed tactically. American units used liberal Recon by Fire and may detect the ambushers before they fire. Machine gun tracer rounds bounce off concealed armored vehicles and WP will force exposed gun crews to abandon their position and HE rounds into a tree line causing air bursts. Anti-tank gun crews did not like being fired on by .50cal machine guns. The ambushed unit may be ordered to advance at top speed and fire on the move. While the accuracy may be degraded firing HE into a tree line means an air burst if the shot goes high and a ricochet air burst if it goes low. This will affect gun crews and unbuttoned/open-top vehicles. Sherman tanks as part of a combined arms unit were very effective but not so effective without support. German Panthers and Tiger tanks were especially vulnerable to air bursts because the engine deck was very open and fragments could get into the engine compartment and start a fire. No tank likes getting hit by anything, even HE rounds as they will eventually cause some damage and force the TC to button up or wound him or cause internal spalling damage. They most likely would not stick around very long. Being buttoned up increases their target engagement time and decreases their rate of fire too. In NWE the US faced German tanks only about 10% of the time which is why many Sherman tank units wanted to keep the short-barrel gun against infantry and anti-tank guns. So your above example is valid but probably against unprepared units (or war gamers) which was, unfortunately, the case many times throughout WWII. Wolfhag |
Blutarski | 08 Feb 2023 6:41 p.m. PST |
,q>If you were a Brit the Firefly would take out a Panther or Tiger no problem whatever aspect. Certainly far, far better than the M3 75mm, but you might want to scrutinize the Isigny (Aug 44) test reports.
B |
mkenny | 08 Feb 2023 6:48 p.m. PST |
Certainly far, far better than the M3 75mm, but you might want to scrutinize the Isigny (Aug 44) test reports. The Balleroy test is far more revealing
Note that the numbers chalked on the hits are different from the numbers used in the text |
Wolfhag | 09 Feb 2023 6:45 a.m. PST |
Regarding the above picture: From: link The small holes appear to be from 17pdr APDS rounds. It does not say whether the armor was face hardened or not. The Panther seems to be a Late D or early A model? The experiences of the British, however, seemed to justify their confidence in the 17pdr. Their up-gunned Sherman "Firefly" tanks were indeed apparently capable of handling Tigers and Panthers. To demonstrate this, an impromptu test firing was conducted at Balleroy, in Normandy, against a captured Panther tank. US First Army was provided with a British 17pdr, with new APDS (discarding sabot) ammunition. There was no formal report or minutes written from this test firing. However photos of the results were routed through US field commanders in Normandy. The results were summarized in a subsequent report: … in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. Personally, I don't see us coming to an agreement on tests because there are so many variables in the testing of the rounds, armor, and definition of penetration between the different countries, etc. They are all using different criteria. Testing under extreme cold or heat conditions will also give different results. " The above test is described as "impromptu" as opposed to "scientific" Wolfhag |
gazzavc | 20 Feb 2023 11:55 p.m. PST |
Just having the 17pdr Firefly gave British tankers the confidence that they could (and did) take out German armor at battle ranges that the 75mm wouldn't penetrate. Conversely the loss of a Firefly tank tended to have an adverse affect on troop morale, with some written stories saying troops tended to become "sticky" without the protective overwatch of the troop Firefly. Don't know how true this nessesarily may have been, but it is a good indication of the confidence having a powerful gun had on British tankers. |
Tango01 | 21 Feb 2023 3:13 p.m. PST |
|
Pages: 1 2
|