Myths about the Panther, pt. 1

There are many misconceptions about the Panther. Most of these are born of that one post that tended to be commonly linked around the internet from the World of tanks forum, so let us discuss that. 



1. People tend to criticize its "lack" of anti-infantry capability, based on high velocity which doesnt allow for a much of a ballistic curve, and HE shell that needed stronger internal structure to withstand said velocity and thus suffered in lacking filler volume.




All of these assumptions are wrong.



A supposedly "high-velocity" Kwk 42 fires its HE ammunition at 701 m/s. [1][2] ZiS-3 had 680 m/s muzzle velocity with its OF-350. It has the same ballistics as ZiS-5 and F-34.[3] M1902/L30 has 635m/s for the same ammo.[4]



 So if the qualifier for a good infantry suport gun is the ability of a gun to shoot shells at a curve, either none of these guns qualify as "good", or all of them.


 Regarding the "lacking" explosive filler, the HE shell for KwK 42 contains 690 grams of  explosives + 35 grams in detonator.[5][6] Compared to SpGr. 34 for KwK 40, it has 10 grams of filler more while having the same detonator, which means that cavity has to be larger.[7]


 Now that we established that SpGr. 42 is not a bad HE projectile solely by a virtue of being used in KwK 42, you can compare it with other HE projectiles used by 75/76 mm guns of other nations. However, unless there is a significant difference, explosive filler is largely arbitrary. It is the fragmentation that counts for most of the damage done to infantry. And since I lack sufficient information to make a good comparison between russian, german and allied HE projectile fragmentation, I am not going to attempt it.

 That these deficiencies are largely imagined is further comfirmed by historical accounts. During the fighting in Courland pocket, germans used 4 Panthers as an improvised artillery and sceptical artillery observers were astonished by the range and accuracy of the 75 mm gun.[8] Another Panther tank captured by british forces, Cuckoo, was praised for accuracy targetting individual windows and german firing positions during the attack on castle Geijsteren in Holland. [9] There were many complaints and suggestion made about Panther in various reports, and to my knowledge, a deficient high-explosive shell was never one of them. Only remotely negative infromation about Panther's performance against soft targets I have found is a report from Major Streit of Panzerlehrgaenge "Panther" from the Battle of Kursk, who noted that combating anti-tank gun is still difficult because they are hard to spot and in many cases, it is difficult to destroy the entire gun crew[10], which even if we take as a direct criticism of SpGr. 42, which it is not,  means that SpGr. 42 was not much of an upgrade over SpGr. 34, as evidenced by the previous information. 

2. Panther's barrel caused extensive problems while manuevering.

With a barrel that was 5535 mm long[11], being at least one meter longer than it's competitors (except for Firefly), Panther would run into problems when fighting in tight spaces. However, this problem should not be exaggerated.

 Average range at which tank casualties happened in Western Europe (a sample of 800 casualties) was around 800 yards.[12] A different, smaller study analysing the tank warfare from D-day to 12th August 1944   establishes the average ranges for "open country" to be 1200 yards and for "closed country" to be 400 yards.[13] Cases where Panthers were outflanked in close quarters and tight spaces, and could not rotate the turret surely happened, but bringing up such rarities is not sensible when judging the design as a whole.

3. Extremely dangerous muzzle blast.

Bringing up the muzzle blast argument and pretending like it is a huge inconvenience, when infantry in overwhelming majority of cases advances either behind or far ahead of tanks in attack, is like complaining that one can not stand behind somebody firing an RPG-7, or that RPG-7 can not be fired from inside a vehicle.

4. Panther's  gunner taking drastically longer time to acquire his target (30 second longer than Sherman).

This argument is propped up by  the "le Panther" report, where a Panther took 20-30 seconds longer to acquire a target compared to Sherman, and this was caused by a lack of periscope in Panther, and supposed need for a protracted verbal instructions between the commander and gunner and guesswork.

Thats again, is very far from being correct.

Commander in Panther had an open sight for rough indications, and also can relay the position of targets via azimuth indicator in cupola. It worked like this: " The gunner was also equipped with a two-dial turret position indicator, driben by a pinion from the turret rack and located on his left. The left-hand dial was divided into 1-12 divisions with 64 subdivisions each of 100 mils, the right-hand dial being divided into mils with 100 subdivisions. The indicator did have a use during semi-indirect fire shooting, but had originally been intended for use in conjunction with a 1-12 clock scale recorded around the inside of the commander's cupola on a toothed annular ring. This scale worked on the counter-rotation principle. When the turret was traversed, a pinion which also engaged the teeth of the turret rack (ring) drove the scale in the opposite direction but at the same speed, so that the fiure 12 remained in constant aligment with the hull's center line, looking directly forward. This enabled the commander to determine the bearing of his next target and inform the gunner accordingly. The gunner would then traverse onto the bearing ordered, using his turret position indicator, and find the gun approximately "on" the line."[14]

It is not very plausible that this took 20-30 seconds longer than a target acquistion in Sherman tank, just because the gunner did not have a periscope.
  Considering this, and the fact that french panthers were captured vehicles of various models (D, A, G), it is implausible that a crew in Panther would take half a minute longer target acquistion. Most probable explanation is that Panther simply had a slower turret traverse, and this was mixed with the reality that Panther no longer had existing factories to manufacture new vehicles and spare parts. This might have coloured the final report.


Sherman was just a more economical choice.

5. All sorts of assumptions about Panther's turret.

a.) It could not be held stationary at  a slope of more than 20 degrees.

This is easily disproven by a simple search on google, where Panthers with all turret positions on many different slope gradients have both stationary and traversed turrets.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/9d/42/ee/9d42ee49c364bc55bd1c0793d4e7861d.jpg

http://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/germany/tanks/panther-tank/Panthers_tanks_knocked_out_in_Normandy_1944.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/52/4c/10/524c1046aeb7c88b6c145ee9e7a4af17.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7342/9244204404_6bb888048f_b.jpg

Keep in mind that complete assembly of KwK 42 along with the mantlet weights 2650 kg[15], and this attached to a one side of the turret would be sure to follow the gravity if the turret traverse motor was as weak as some would claim.

b.) Driver and gunner would have to cooperate and keep the engine on very high RPM in order to traverse the turret faster in A and G models, otherwise it would be just as slow as D. 


This is not exactly true either.

However: Boehringer-Sturm L4S used to traverse the turret in A and G also had two gears controlled by a lever provided to the gunner, which meant that turret could be traversed faster even on comparatively low RPM, 360 degrees in 46 seconds  at 1000 RPM on high gear and 23 seconds for a full rotation at 2000 RPM on high gear.[16]

c.) Turret was cramped.

Turret ring diameter on Panther is 1650 mm. [17]

Compared to 1750  on Sherman, [18] I dont see the tragic difference that is supposed to make the turret of Panther so cramped.

Yes, loader had little headspace, however, the footspace was reasonable and allowed for wide range of movement when loading, loader's position was considered satisfactory (except for missing seat in G model).[19]

Commander's position was comfortable, but not entirely satisfactory, with reasonable vision devices. [20]

Only apparently unsatisfactory position in the turret was the gunner's seat. Panther that was tested had the gun controls badly positioned relative to gunner's seat. [21] It is hard to say whether this was applicable to all tanks, or just the one tested.




[1] - Panther - Germany's quest for combat dominance, Michael and Gladys Green, pg. 73
[2] - http://www.panther1944.de/index.php/en/sdkfz-171-pzkpfwg-panther/technik/75-cm-kwk-42-munition
[3] - 76-мм пушка обр. 1942 руководство службы(76-mm gun mod. 1942 Service Manual)
[4] - Энциклопедия отечественной артиллерии(Encyclopedia of Russian artillery  from A. Shirokorad (ISBN 985-433-703-0)):
[5] - H.Dv. 481/55
[6] - http://www.panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-42-l-70
[7] - H.Dv. 481/58
[8] - Battleground Prussia: The assault on Germany's eastern front 1944-45, Pritt Buttar, pg.74
[9] - http://overlord-wot.blogspot.sk/2016/04/a-strange-bird.html
[10] - Panzer Truppen - The complete guide to the creation and combat employment of Germany's tank force - 1943/1945, Thomas L. Jentz, pg. 97
[11] - Panther and its variants, Walter J. Spielberger, pg. 233
[12] - ORO-T-117 Survey into Allied tank casualties in WW 2, pg. 14
[13] - Survey of Tank Warfare in Europe from D-day to 12th August 1944, pg. 11
[14] - Panther - Germany's quest for combat dominance, Michael and Gladys Green, pg. 103
[15] - Panther and its variants, Walter J. Spielberger, pg. 233
[16] - Panther - Germany's quest for combat supremacy, Thomas L. Jentz, pg. 59-60
[17] - Panther and its variants, Walter J. Spielberger, pg. 233
[18] - http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html
[19] - Military Operational research report No. 61, study No. 11,  "WO 281/1003 Motion studies of german tanks", pg. 54-55 
[20] - Military Operational research report No. 61, study No. 11,  "WO 281/1003 Motion studies of german tanks", pg. 53
[21] - Military Operational research report No. 61, study No. 11,  "WO 281/1003 Motion studies of german tanks", pg. 54

British review of German SPGs, Pt. 1

"This report describes the studies undertaken on the four principal german SPGs used in service in the late war. They are the PzJag 35(t), PzJag IV, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger. The objects of these studies were firstly, to examine the main armament loading arrangement and assess the loading times, and secondly to examine the crew's controls and accomodation."


Seems simple enough. British researchers made several brief conclusions -  controls were badly positioned and accomidations were generally unsatisfactory, but ammo stowage was well-positioned.



"

(i) When the gun is traversed left or right, it hems in certain members of the crew, to the detriment of the performance of their duties.

(ii) Crew seating is badly designed and positioned.

(iii) Vision devices are badly mounted and positioned, and in many cases inadequate.

(iv) Gun controls are badly positioned.

(v) Driving controls are badly positioned.

(vi) Basically, the ammunition stowage is well-positioned, but bin fittings and the position of rounds in the bin is unsatisfactory in some of these vehicles.

(vii) Loading times, though reasonably fast, could have been reduced if the disadvantages in (vi) had been eliminated. "



However, its not all as bad as it seems, as researchers leading the study admit that "(ii) to (vii) are minor  points of design, since they could easily have been eliminated by more careful attention to the design and positioning of minor items. Item (i) is not as serious as it would seem, since the vehicle could be steered to face the target while keeping the gun on central traverse."


Sounds like slave labor, lacking quality control and/or disconnect between end-users and designers.

Well lets see what the final verdict is:

" Although certain comparatively small disadvantages exist in the S.P.G's studied, these could have been easily overcome. The basic design of all four vehicles is excellent, and the advantages and disadvantages of this type of A.F.V are compared in this report with those of turreted vehicles (tanks. In our opinion, the results show that in many respects, the S.P.G is a better vehicle.")




Information taken from WO 291/1307 - Motion studies of german S.P equipments, pg. 3-4.

The curious case of "ronson", Pt.2

I ended the Pt. 1 of this article with assumption that the prominent sponson racks on early Shermans were an attractive target for enemy gunners. ORO-T-117, Survey into allied tank casualties in WW 2 seems to comfirm this assumption.

Apart from forward side of the turret and driver's position, researchers noted that german gunner also favored the sponson stowage on early M4 Shermans.

And again, this analysis is showing a rather high number of burned-up tanks. However, it is not that simple. as the statistic of "burned because of charge" is ambiguous and does not seem to directly indicate whether it is a hollow charge or demolition charge. Considering that researchers are only counting with the categories of  tanks destroyed by gunfire and tanks burned up because of hits in simillar studies involving german tanks, I will apply the same logic here.

Which means that if 42 tanks out of 72 burned, it is 58%.

Compare this to Pz. III and Pz. IV:

20 out of 59 burned, which is 34%.

And the study about Panthers and Tigers.

12 out of 30 tanks destroyed by gunfire burned, or 40%.

Well, let's not hang on one study. Here is another report  from 1945 that  claims 60% - 90% of 

75 mm Shermans are lost by burning. Armoured bins seem to reduce the risk of fire nearly tenfold.

In cocnlusion, it certainly looks like Shermans that were not modified with protected ammunition storage were in a very high risk of fire from penetrations. 

The curious case of "Ronson", Pt. 1

Everybody interested in history of World War 2 heard  of  the "Ronson myth" about Sherman tank. Ronson was a nickname reportedly give to the Sherman, apparently because it was extremely flamable. It came from the Ronson lighter company advertisement : "Lights first every time".  

Origin of the slogan

Many people dispute the "ronson myth" with a claim that the particular slogan of "lights first every time" came only after war. There are various Ronson adverts post-war and during the war, none of which have slogans  that are worded in a similar way. There is this one exception, which apparently is from 1927.

From my search on the internet, I was unable to comfirm it indeed is from 1927, past few forum and blog entries. If anyone have any information on this, I would appreciate if you comment. 

So was it really that flammable?

First look at Analysis of 75 mm Sherman tank casualties suffered between 6th June and and 10th July 1944 is pretty damning.

More than 80% of given sample  caught on fire, 73% of  Shermans penetrated by AP shots caught on fire. 

However, it is not that simple. It was noted that proportion of brewed-up tanks was not always that high. Reason as to why so many Shermans caught on fire became apparent with further examinations.

" A more recent examination of  later battles, which is not yet complete, has shown that the 1st Bn Coldstream Guards (5th Gds Arm. Div.) have suffered fewer brew-ups than other units, e.g., during operation BLUECOAT only 1 in 20 casualties,"

"The unit concerned attributes this to the fact that they carry no extra ammunition outside the armoured bins."

This points to the fact that most tank fires are caused by ammunition, and that proper, and more importantly armoured stowage helps to greatly reduce the probability of fire upon penetration.

But what about the competition?

Lets compare the relative fire safety of Sherman tank to a sample of german tanks, studied in the Analysis of German tank casualties in France 6th June to 31st August 1944:

Compared to a smaller sample of Pz. IV, Sherman proves to be less fire-prone, but it needs less penetrations to be set on fire than Panther. Tiger tank, with a miniscule advatange of 0.01, is the safest vehicle when it comes to fire safety.

However, there are few things that should be taken into consideration:

- Sherman had a rather sizable ready rack positioned inside the turret. While it allowed the crew to reach an amazing rate of fire (as high as 20 rounds per minute), it also added a big fire hazard if the turret was penetrated, compared to German tanks.

-  Ammo stowage in sponsons could be located from the outside due to "bumps" in the armor like this,

which would draw the eye of any german gunner trying to position the crosshair, and that would result in ammo being ignited.

More in Part 2.

Ironman Panther

"IX Exceptional achievements of tank drivers

1. Achievements of a Panther recovery tank driver

NCO Krause  of Panther maintenance battalion drove  4200 km with his recovery Panther, chassis number 212 132, until the fifth of May 1944, without engine change or damage to the final drive, gearbox or clutch, 1000 kilometers thereof with another Panther tank in tow.

The recovery vehicle, including its engine, is still in top condition and remains in use. The regiment has recommended NCO Krause for high award for his exceptional performance in the handling and care of vehicles. 

Inspector General of tank forces bestowes his special recognition of service on NCO Krause."