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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment