Always more axis

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[vreid]

The Panther...

Crappy side armour, lots of technical difficulties, material got overused rather fast.

Side armor of the panther G was almost as good as frontal armor of most sherman variants.
The early delivered Panthers had many technical issues but later on it can be considered as the best allround tank of ww2.

The Sherman was a very good tank and extremly versatile but that was also thanks to the huge ammount of people and materials availible to the US the whole war while other countries had far bigger problems.

The sherman was a crap tank, that hit hard because of the high amount that could be produced.
Reasons were it was cheap to produce and when 'US entered WW2 axis ressources and industry was hit hard by years of war.

[CafeMilani]

The Panther...

Crappy side armour, lots of technical difficulties, material got overused rather fast.

Side armor of the panther G was almost as good as frontal armor of most sherman variants. = shit
materials availible to the US the whole war while other countries had far bigger problems.

The sherman was a crap tank, that hit hard because of the high amount that could be produced.
Reasons were it was cheap to produce and when 'US entered WW2 axis ressources and industry was hit hard by years of war.
[/quote]

[Mgallun74]

The Panther...

Crappy side armour, lots of technical difficulties, material got overused rather fast.

Side armor of the panther G was almost as good as frontal armor of most sherman variants.
The early delivered Panthers had many technical issues but later on it can be considered as the best allround tank of ww2.

The Sherman was a very good tank and extremly versatile but that was also thanks to the huge ammount of people and materials availible to the US the whole war while other countries had far bigger problems.

The sherman was a crap tank, that hit hard because of the high amount that could be produced.
Reasons were it was cheap to produce and when 'US entered WW2 axis ressources and industry was hit hard by years of war.

huh, the side armor on a panther was what 50mm at a low angle, making it pretty weak.. the shermans frontal armor, althought at somewhat a low thickness made up in the angle, its effectivness was probably better than a panzer 4s 80mm frontal armor...  

i wouldnt call the sherman a crap tank, it just wants designed to be this head to head tank killer, it was a jack of all trades, it was reliable, it was easy to produce and use..  and in reality, anything not named panther or tiger it did rather well against. Put the us 76mm M1 on it, and it becomes a rather good tank killer, look at what a few m18s did at bastonge with that gun.

as alot whine and complain about heriosm and history telling of the allies victory in ww2, same can be said about the german tank mystique, yes, they were fine AFV's, but not the sliced bread that some history tellers would like to say.

[Sixpack]

The sherman was a crap tank, that hit hard because of the high amount that could be produced.
Reasons were it was cheap to produce and when 'US entered WW2 axis ressources and industry was hit hard by years of war.

Yeah, I can read stats too......
It is a good tank because it was versatile, could fill many roles and was constantly upgraded to be able to compete.
There are only two other tanks like that, the P4 and the T34.

(Though you might add the Churchill and cromwell).

Side armor of the panther G was almost as good as frontal armor of most sherman variants.
The early delivered Panthers had many technical issues but later on it can be considered as the best allround tank of ww2.

Because you couldn´t set the engine aflame with a smoke grenade....
Because some parts didn´t break down fast even AFTER most of the problems got removed.
A lot of Panther/Tiger/Tiger II tanks were captured due to technical difficulties (and some very bad strategic decisions).

[Mgallun74]

The sherman was a crap tank, that hit hard because of the high amount that could be produced.
Reasons were it was cheap to produce and when 'US entered WW2 axis ressources and industry was hit hard by years of war.

Yeah, I can read stats too......
It is a good tank because it was versatile, could fill many roles and was constantly upgraded to be able to compete.
There are only two other tanks like that, the P4 and the T34.

(Though you might add the Churchill and cromwell).

Side armor of the panther G was almost as good as frontal armor of most sherman variants.
The early delivered Panthers had many technical issues but later on it can be considered as the best allround tank of ww2.

Because you couldn´t set the engine aflame with a smoke grenade....
Because some parts didn´t break down fast even AFTER most of the problems got removed.
A lot of Panther/Tiger/Tiger II tanks were captured due to technical difficulties (and some very bad strategic decisions).

thats called over engineering.. lol.

[TheWindCriesMary]

 The Sherman was a fantastic tank for reasons outside of simply armour, and firepower. What instead made it one of the most effective tanks in the war was that was: 1. easy to make, 2. highly customizable (coming upon a sturdy, multi-purpose chassis with great suspension, 3. Relatively cheap (as far as other medium tanks fielded by Germany and Russia went), 4. reliably, and maintainable.

 By no means was this tank "shit". There is a reason over 55 000 of them were built by the allies in the course of the war.


 And in terms of the Panther, every historical source I've confirmed this with has alluded to it being a heavy tank. This makes sense, because when classifying tanks in WW2 (as Acker correctly pointed out), it is always rooted in the context of the nationality and time period the tank was from. This is perfectly logical because:

 The p4 was about 25 tonnes

 The Panther was about 45 tonnes

 The Tiger was 57-64 tonnes

 And that is why the panther, to this day, remains classified as a medium tank by most sources (not just German ones). I have yet to find a post-war source that defines it as heavy, however that does not mean they don't exist. I'll be interested if anyone finds one that does.


 Now, up to this point we've been talking historical but some people have also mentioned an interest in the in-game dynamic of this tank.
 This is important as well, but it is interesting to observe that the very same mechanics which made the Panther a medium tank in the war (historically) also hold true for the Panther in the game. The fundamentals of how tanks are accurately defined remains the same here as there.

 -Wind

 
 

[Malevolence]

History Lesson kids!


The Panther was, by world weight classification, a heavy tank. It was used in axis doctrine and by weight as an upper-end medium tank, not a heavy tank. Therefore, given the axis classify it as a medium tank, use it like a medium tank, and its statistics within the wehrmacht's armored divisions fall to that of the medium tank, I would say it was probably a medium tank. A very, very BIG medium tank by some nations' standards of the time.

Further, the Sherman ranged from great to terrible depending on variant. By the time the 76mm upgun became commonplace the Sherman was one of the best tanks in the field - reliable, fairly safe despite its armor, fairly comfortable compared to some tanks, and could fight and kill other tanks at decent range with some of the best optics and fire control of any tank (which has remained American standard to this day, might I add. Gun and armor decent, fire control excellent).

By 1944, German crew training for the Western front was beginning to hit its apogee, however, and the high standard of equipment, surplus of equipment, and good training put some of the American armored divisions as better than those the Wehrmacht fielded by a good portion as the battles around Arracourt show.

The Soviets, for instance, liked the Sherman better than their own T-34s in a number of ways. One of them is that it wouldn't catch fire quite as easily, and another is that they were about a million times more comfortable. Their profile was a bit higher, but the gun wasn't usually much worse, the optics were better, and the armor wasn't significantly worse, either. On the whole a good tank, comparable to the T-34 in most ways.


As for any assertions about the "tommycooker" nickname, all I have to say is that y'all should take a look at German tanks before they introduced wet ammunition storage. Kaboom doesn't even begin to describe it.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Brilliant post Mal.

 +1

-Wind

[sheffer]

Panther was created as a counter of T34 for eastern front.
Panther has same weapon, same armor level (mm and angle of armor plates), much better optics (german optics was the best in WW2, that allow german tank aces destroy rus and us tanks from up to 2000m). But T34 was equiped with compact powerfull diesel engine, while panther constructors put in their tank gasoline engine Maybach and electric transmission, which make a tank just higher and heavy (diesel engine has much more power-to-weight ratio). So Germans take a concept of T34, but because of fuel deficiency they use gasoline Maybach (they have sintetic gasolin not oil to produce diesel fuel) and get medium tank with heavy weight.

Classification medium\heavy in german was based on WEAPON. In 41 germans had light tanks (PzKpfw I - 2* MG34, PzKpfw II - 20mm KwK30), meduim (PzKpfw III - 50mm KwK38L) and heavy (PzKpfw IV Ausf.D-E - 75 mm shot barreled KwK 37 - this tank is PE Panzer IV). French heavy tank B2 and british "Matilda"  force germans to increase armor of their tanks, and meeting with rus medium (T34) and heavy (KV1 and especially KV2 - 52 tonns and 152mm ML20 gun) shift their standarts to:
75mm  (Pzkpwf V Panther) - medium
88mm (Pzkpwf VI Tiger and King Tiger) - heavy
But for US and USSR Tiger and Panther are heavy because of their weight.

2TheWindCriesMary
M4 Sherman was really not best choise (easy to produce and cheap), but US loose the time and was behind USSR and Germany for 3-5 years of tank industry tecnologies, their only chanse was to produse as much as they can. Fact that US develop tank, which can hold the line with 5-years exspirienced german military and science is a real triumph. In tank battles in 44-45 for 1 destroyed Panther  US pay 5 shermans (statistic). That why all allied soldiers in west front was afraid of wehrmacht panzer and mechanized divisions.
For example Panther go to attack at the average 11 times (USSR 3 times, US - 5 times) thanks to design.

P.S. yes, im a military historian with diploma

[skaffa]

The Soviets, for instance, liked the Sherman better than their own T-34s in a number of ways. One of them is that it wouldn't catch fire quite as easily, and another is that they were about a million times more comfortable. Their profile was a bit higher, but the gun wasn't usually much worse, the optics were better, and the armor wasn't significantly worse, either. On the whole a good tank, comparable to the T-34 in most ways.

Sounds very unlikely, as the Sherman was known to catch fire at the first shot and the T-34 is revolutionary because of its sloping armor (which the Germans copied with the Panther). Got a source ?

[Mgallun74]

Panther was created as a counter of T34 for eastern front.
Panther has same weapon, same armor level (mm and angle of armor plates), much better optics (german optics was the best in WW2, that allow german tank aces destroy rus and us tanks from up to 2000m). But T34 was equiped with compact powerfull diesel engine, while panther constructors put in their tank gasoline engine Maybach and electric transmission, which make a tank just higher and heavy (diesel engine has much more power-to-weight ratio). So Germans take a concept of T34, but because of fuel deficiency they use gasoline Maybach (they have sintetic gasolin not oil to produce diesel fuel) and get medium tank with heavy weight.

Classification medium\heavy in german was based on WEAPON. In 41 germans had light tanks (PzKpfw I - 2* MG34, PzKpfw II - 20mm KwK30), meduim (PzKpfw III - 50mm KwK38L) and heavy (PzKpfw IV Ausf.D-E - 75 mm shot barreled KwK 37 - this tank is PE Panzer IV). French heavy tank B2 and british "Matilda"  force germans to increase armor of their tanks, and meeting with rus medium (T34) and heavy (KV1 and especially KV2 - 52 tonns and 152mm ML20 gun) shifts their standarts to:
75mm  (Pzkpwf V Panther) - medium
88mm (Pzkpwf VI Tiger and King Tiger) - heavy
But for US and USSR Tiger and Panther are heavy because of their weight.

2TheWindCriesMary
M4 Sherman was really not best choise (easy to produce and cheap), but US loose the time and was behind USSR and Germany for 3-5 years of tank industry tecnologies, their only chanse was to produse as much as they can. Fact that US develop tank, which can hold the line with 5-years exspirienced german military and science is a real triumph. In tank battles in 44-45 for 1 destroyed Panther  US pay 5 shermans (statistic). That why all allied soldiers in west front was afraid of wehrmacht panzer and mechanized divisions.
For example Panther go to attack at the average 11 times (USSR 3 times, US - 5 times) thanks to design.

P.S. yes, im a military historian with diploma

uh, ok... here we go with that 5-1 kill ratio against the sherman..  but, the sherman wasnt the main units used to kill tanks.

i would be curious what the KD Ratio of the hellcat was?

[sheffer]

A lot of Panther/Tiger/Tiger II tanks were captured due to technical difficulties

german industry and infrastructure was destroyed by heavy strategic bombing, at the and of 44 most german dividions was out of supplies.

[TheWindCriesMary]

2TheWindCriesMary
M4 Sherman was really not best choise (easy to produce and cheap), but US loose the time and was behind USSR and Germany for 3-5 years of tank industry tecnologies, their only chanse was to produse as much as they can. Fact that US develop tank, which can hold the line with 5-years exspirienced german military and science is a real triumph. In tank battles in 44-45 for 1 destroyed Panther  US pay 5 shermans (statistic). That why all allied soldiers in west front was afraid of wehrmacht panzer and mechanized divisions.
For example Panther go to attack at the average 11 times (USSR 3 times, US - 5 times) thanks to design.

 Yep we are in full agreement here. The Sherman's endearing qualities were its cheap, easy production and versatility as a customizeable chassis. It was also extremely meanueverable and repair suceptibility/replaceable parts made it very much a "workhorse".

 These are the reasons, as we both said, that this tank was succesful (rather than firepower/armor where it was mediocre at best compared to the medium tanks of the Soviets/Germans.


 It is also important to note, however, that Shermans were not intended to counter Panthers. Even once the allies started exclusively using 76mm upgunned shermans (Eisenhower expressly forbid shermans without the upgun from being shipped to europe in 1944), this was simply to give the shermans a chance vs Panthers - not to counter them head to head.

 Aerial bombing (made easier by the now defunct Luftwaffe), superior numbers, highly mobile tank destroyers, and the decreased skill of German tank crews/manufacteuring materials/capabilities at this late stage were instead what balanced out the 5:1 ratio that you mentioned.

 Great post!

 -Wind

[Mysthalin]

Who cares if it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther if the panther costs even 5.(0)1 times more than a sherman? The laws of economics indicate that the shermans would still be used cost efficiently, even when thrown away like that.
And, I believe the panther cost even more than 5.(0)1 times what the Sherman did.

[Mgallun74]

Who cares if it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther if the panther costs even 5.(0)1 times more than a sherman? The laws of economics indicate that the shermans would still be used cost efficiently, even when thrown away like that.
And, I believe the panther cost even more than 5.(0)1 times what the Sherman did.

lol, hell a sherman in this game only costs like 2 times a panther.. hey! thats not fair!

[sheffer]

The Soviets, for instance, liked the Sherman better than their own T-34s in a number of ways. One of them is that it wouldn't catch fire quite as easily, and another is that they were about a million times more comfortable. Their profile was a bit higher, but the gun wasn't usually much worse, the optics were better, and the armor wasn't significantly worse, either. On the whole a good tank, comparable to the T-34 in most ways.

At 44 T34 get 88mm ZiS-C-53 gun, which was comparable with Tiger gun. Shermans chassis and engine did not allow US do same thing, only long barrel 76mm gun (M4A4 or "Firefly").

i would be curious what the KD Ratio of the hellcat was?

Only 2507 M18 was produced, so they was not main line battle tank, and usually only support shermans and inf from behind.

[sheffer]

Who cares if it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther if the panther costs even 5.(0)1 times more than a sherman? The laws of economics indicate that the shermans would still be used cost efficiently, even when thrown away like that.
And, I believe the panther cost even more than 5.(0)1 times what the Sherman did.

U think like an rts player lol. What about supplies for 5 tanks insted 1? What about repearing, infrastructure, division manageability? And at last what about loosing exspirienced tank crews? German tank aces grow from 5 years europe and ussr war, not instantly.

and dont forget, that US army buy shermans from US military companies, but wehrmaht just got because of dictatorship (payfree labour VS free market )

[Groundfire]

US tank crews got experience from Africa and Italy. There were germans there too. Im just sayin.

There was probably an influx of green crews in '44 but this was not where the US armor started to get their experience.

[sheffer]

US tank crews got experience from Africa and Italy. There were germans there too. Im just sayin.

There was probably an influx of green crews in '44 but this was not where the US armor started to get their experience.

Thats why they didnot fail in france - they know what they'll got in europe.

[Mysthalin]

Who cares if it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther if the panther costs even 5.(0)1 times more than a sherman? The laws of economics indicate that the shermans would still be used cost efficiently, even when thrown away like that.
And, I believe the panther cost even more than 5.(0)1 times what the Sherman did.

U think like an rts player lol. What about supplies for 5 tanks insted 1? What about repearing, infrastructure, division manageability? And at last what about loosing exspirienced tank crews? German tank aces grow from 5 years europe and ussr war, not instantly.

I do believe that even with all the supplies, the sherman still cost more than 5 times less than the panther. Don't quote me on that, but I remember the Sherman cost 39 thousand dollars to make, while the panther over 300.000.
Elite Tank Crews? Sure - losing them isn't the best thing to do, but I would guess it's still mostly the rookies getting blown to smithereens.