Jump to content


French Panthers


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

Zinegata #141 Posted Jan 14 2013 - 11:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7218 battles
  • 4,421
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostPzKpfw_1, on Nov 12 2012 - 14:52, said:

The report listed cause of loss by type as deterimined by investigators over a time periods in areas where Germans temorarily controled the field of 8.000+ KO'd Soviet tank/SU.

I'm just chiming in again to point out that this is the exact bias problem I already stated, as opposed to other loss report studies. You're just counting recovered wrecks, not all actual losses.

And note I am not saying it's propaganda. I am saying that the study is fundamentally flawed from a statistical perspective because the study selects only tanks collected by the Germans; hence implying retention of the battlefield.

Pretending this data can be used by historians as unquestionable fact is irresponsible to the extreme. It's the equivalent of saying "This drug is safe for babies" even though your sample size specifically excludes them.

Quote

Of those 20,000 8.8cm flak can you tell me how many were deployed on the Eastren front from late 1943 till the end of the war?.

So should we pretend they didn't exist? Even though we know that at the very end there were still some 300+ batteries dedicated against the Soviet ground forces?

(Moreover, counting only 88mm flak in the TO&E of the infantry units, when the 88mm flaks were usually Corp-level assets, is pretty poor and blatant creative accounting.)

And pretend that it was the mere 2,000 Tigers (of which only a fraction were always in service at any given time) are the causes of the 50% of Soviet losses?

That's a pretty laughable claim especially when you base it on this nonsense:

Quote

The Tiger Abt war diaries are full of entries the Abts

The Tiger War Diaries again. Which is full of kill claims, not actual kills (which is how the Tiger Battalion in Tunisia killed 150+ tanks despite not having fought at Kasserine)? With some outright imaginary engagements thrown in?

This is not credible proof of "tanks being the premiere killer of other tanks". It's a source that has been long in need of fact-checking on the Allied side, because the few studies that go in depth (i.e. Schneider's Tigers in Normandy) show that the claimed figures (i.e. 20+ tanks at Villers Bocage) are often multiplied by a factor of two or even three (the Brits lost only 7 tanks at Villers Bocage in reality, nine if you count two dummy Shermans)

Edited by Zinegata, Jan 14 2013 - 11:20.


India2Romeo06 #142 Posted Feb 01 2013 - 19:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12591 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    10-30-2012
I had the privilege of interviewing Gen. Bruce C. Clark (ret.) in1983 at Ft. Knox when I was a young Armor Captain. He was commander of Combat Command A (CCA) of the 4th Armored Division during WWII and had a young Tank Battalion Commander you might remember, Creighton Abrams. He said something very interesting about tank to tank combat in WWII. He said that U.S. tanks when firing at Panthers and Tigers usually fired smoke at them. He was referring to M4s with 75mm guns, not specially up-gunned vehicles. He explained that U.S. tankers knew their guns could not penetrate the frontal armor of these tanks, smoke really means White Phosphorus which can set concrete on fire (slight exaggeration), and there was usually enough  fuel sloshing around in the bottom of the German tanks that the WP would start an engine fire and disable the tank.

The_Chieftain #143 Posted Feb 01 2013 - 21:16

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 4635 battles
  • 7,007
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Or the WP burning on the skin of the German tank would convince the crew that their tank was on fire, and they'd bail out anyway.

Zinegata #144 Posted Feb 02 2013 - 15:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7218 battles
  • 4,421
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostIndia2Romeo06, on Feb 01 2013 - 19:28, said:

I had the privilege of interviewing Gen. Bruce C. Clark (ret.) in1983 at Ft. Knox when I was a young Armor Captain. He was commander of Combat Command A (CCA) of the 4th Armored Division during WWII and had a young Tank Battalion Commander you might remember, Creighton Abrams. He said something very interesting about tank to tank combat in WWII. He said that U.S. tanks when firing at Panthers and Tigers usually fired smoke at them. He was referring to M4s with 75mm guns, not specially up-gunned vehicles. He explained that U.S. tankers knew their guns could not penetrate the frontal armor of these tanks, smoke really means White Phosphorus which can set concrete on fire (slight exaggeration), and there was usually enough  fuel sloshing around in the bottom of the German tanks that the WP would start an engine fire and disable the tank.

There are similar accounts of this happening at Paderborn with the 3rd Armoured Division. And there are also Canadian Sherman drivers in Italy who knew to aim at the tracks of the Panthers to disable them.

Really, tank vs tank combat is much more than simple armor vs gun penetration comparisons.

lostwingman #145 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20128 battles
  • 19,145
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostIndia2Romeo06, on Feb 01 2013 - 19:28, said:

I had the privilege of interviewing Gen. Bruce C. Clark (ret.) in1983 at Ft. Knox when I was a young Armor Captain. He was commander of Combat Command A (CCA) of the 4th Armored Division during WWII and had a young Tank Battalion Commander you might remember, Creighton Abrams. He said something very interesting about tank to tank combat in WWII. He said that U.S. tanks when firing at Panthers and Tigers usually fired smoke at them. He was referring to M4s with 75mm guns, not specially up-gunned vehicles. He explained that U.S. tankers knew their guns could not penetrate the frontal armor of these tanks, smoke really means White Phosphorus which can set concrete on fire (slight exaggeration), and there was usually enough  fuel sloshing around in the bottom of the German tanks that the WP would start an engine fire and disable the tank.
That's really freaking clever...

BlackSunRising #146 Posted Mar 06 2013 - 01:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4179 battles
  • 1,382
  • Member since:
    07-03-2012
omg someone said german tanks were good,even better than other guys tanks....... better call ensign to come shut this nonsense down

Zinegata #147 Posted Mar 06 2013 - 02:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7218 battles
  • 4,421
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
That's just you failing to read. The article actually lays down the glaring problem of the Panther - a 45 ton tank on a 35 ton transmission, causing it to self-destruct before it uses up its gas tank.

Harbingers_Havoc #148 Posted Mar 08 2013 - 06:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7914 battles
  • 206
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
Post-war capture tanks... well thats new???

Kyphe #149 Posted Mar 08 2013 - 09:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 262 battles
  • 602
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

View PostZinegata, on Jan 14 2013 - 11:13, said:

I'm just chiming in again to point out that this is the exact bias problem I already stated, as opposed to other loss report studies. You're just counting recovered wrecks, not all actual losses.

And note I am not saying it's propaganda. I am saying that the study is fundamentally flawed from a statistical perspective because the study selects only tanks collected by the Germans; hence implying retention of the battlefield.

Pretending this data can be used by historians as unquestionable fact is irresponsible to the extreme. It's the equivalent of saying "This drug is safe for babies" even though your sample size specifically excludes them.



So should we pretend they didn't exist? Even though we know that at the very end there were still some 300+ batteries dedicated against the Soviet ground forces?

(Moreover, counting only 88mm flak in the TO&E of the infantry units, when the 88mm flaks were usually Corp-level assets, is pretty poor and blatant creative accounting.)

And pretend that it was the mere 2,000 Tigers (of which only a fraction were always in service at any given time) are the causes of the 50% of Soviet losses?

That's a pretty laughable claim especially when you base it on this nonsense:



The Tiger War Diaries again. Which is full of kill claims, not actual kills (which is how the Tiger Battalion in Tunisia killed 150+ tanks despite not having fought at Kasserine)? With some outright imaginary engagements thrown in?

This is not credible proof of "tanks being the premiere killer of other tanks". It's a source that has been long in need of fact-checking on the Allied side, because the few studies that go in depth (i.e. Schneider's Tigers in Normandy) show that the claimed figures (i.e. 20+ tanks at Villers Bocage) are often multiplied by a factor of two or even three (the Brits lost only 7 tanks at Villers Bocage in reality, nine if you count two dummy Shermans)

when the hulls of destroyed Russian armor was examined they found most losses by far were caused by 3.7cm pak 36 and 5cm pak 38 anti tank guns.

Contrary to popular belief the 5cm was very effective against T34s and since a large part of Russian armor was light tanks, soft skinned Tds and armored cars the 3.7mm was still found to be useful.

there was a link to the actual figures on the EU forum but Ill have to find it as they have rearranged and merged some of the forums.

Zinegata #150 Posted Mar 08 2013 - 09:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7218 battles
  • 4,421
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKyphe, on Mar 08 2013 - 09:36, said:

when the hulls of destroyed Russian armor was examined they found most losses by far were caused by 3.7cm pak 36 and 5cm pak 38 anti tank guns.

Contrary to popular belief the 5cm was very effective against T34s and since a large part of Russian armor was light tanks, soft skinned Tds and armored cars the 3.7mm was still found to be useful.

there was a link to the actual figures on the EU forum but Ill have to find it as they have rearranged and merged some of the forums.

Yup, the long 50mm was actually quite effective against the T-34 especially with improved ammunition in later years; and this gun saw more service as a towed ATG than as a tank gun. Overall it is probably has the highest kill rate of any gun in the war.

The 50% loss rate due to the 88mm happened later in the war, when the 50mm was mostly retired while the Germans had much more 88s to play with.

I suspect the study you quoted is the same one published in Zaloga's Red Army handbook; which counts all vehicles lost by the Soviets; not merely ones recovered by the Germans.

Edited by Zinegata, Mar 08 2013 - 09:52.


Lunaris #151 Posted Mar 08 2013 - 14:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8216 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostKyphe, on Mar 08 2013 - 09:36, said:

when the hulls of destroyed Russian armor was examined they found most losses by far were caused by 3.7cm pak 36 and 5cm pak 38 anti tank guns.

From that record only 20% of 5cm are penetrating hit, the rest are non penetration hit but cause damage anyway. Non penetrating hit can still disable a tank.

Daigensui #152 Posted Jul 07 2014 - 18:52

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 18302 battles
  • 17,501
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

From some other forum:

 

-as much as I love the chieftain, sadly he is not an expert, only a commentator. The article cited "le panther 1947." I spent a few hours trying to find an original transcript of the document, but could not find it in the French national library or the French military archives, nor could I find a copy in Germany, the UK, Bovington archives, US Library of Congress, or mvtf.org. what I did find was a secondary source that cites the information presented(Spielberger. Panther & Its Variants page 160)



The_Chieftain #153 Posted Jul 07 2014 - 20:12

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 4635 battles
  • 7,007
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
With respect to the Panther, he is pretty much correct. I'm not an expert in that particular vehicle, though I know more than most. (Now, I'll put myself up against anyone on the planet as regards US TDs). Not sure I see the issue, though, unless he's claiming that the "Le Panther" document was a work of fiction.

favrepeoria #154 Posted Jul 07 2014 - 21:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21260 battles
  • 593
  • [-TRN-] -TRN-
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
A few hours of Internet searching isn't going to turn up the document probably...just saying

Daigensui #155 Posted Jul 07 2014 - 23:14

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 18302 battles
  • 17,501
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

{lang:macro__view_post}The_Chieftain, on Jul 07 2014 - 12:12, said:

unless he's claiming that the "Le Panther" document was a work of fiction.

 

More like it doesn't exist according to his (limited) research.



P_M_K #156 Posted Jul 07 2014 - 23:24

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    07-07-2014

{lang:macro__view_post}Daigensui, on Jul 08 2014 - 00:14, said:

 

More like it doesn't exist according to his (limited) research.

 

Like most archived reports it's probably located in a big compendium file along with lots of other related, and maybe not-so-related stuff.  The name of that compendium file may give no accurate clue as to its contents.

 

For 99.999999% of people who visit whatever archive it's in, it is probably of no interest.  The archivists themselves won't care about it beyond any other report.  It's probably less noteworthy to them than thousands of other things in their particular archive.

 

Anybody who seeks out this report will probably be the first person who has set eyes on it in decades.

 

It's probably not something you could find in a few hours on the interweb.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Priory_of_Sion