Jump to content


Tiger 1 homage


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

dmckay #41 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 03:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 12337 battles
  • 5,214
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 22 2016 - 21:31, said:

 

Those right conditions were almost exclusively stationary bunker/sniping from range. If you want that sort of performance, there's a certain vehicle known as the JpzIV, which is 15-25 tons lighter than either of those tanks. The only reason this isn't resolved to anybody's satisfaction is because people dont care for statistics of performance and prefer to compare paper numbers. Also, the Panther was supposed to be the main line med replacement of the PzIV, in that role, it failed miserably. It is(supposed to at any rate) fulfill essentially the same function as the M4, and it fails at that job miserably. Tiger is a breakthrough tank, at least in theory, and it fails at that job as well.

 

We are on the same page.  As a kid I bought into all this German tank superiority kinda crap. Built a Tiger AND a Panther as a kid. O my!  So bad azz and cool looking.  By the time I was 16 or so I was reading well documented stuff from WWII tank experts and they were NOT all Americans or allies.. Kinda was a wake-up call.  There are many German fan boys who are clueless as to what was really the truth under the hood or bonnet of the "Cats".  Average or less than average tanks for a multitude of reasons. Bluntly...dumb designs.  Too high tech and they just did not work very good.  That may not sound overly intellectual but it is the truth. Like I said I agree totally with you.  Hell..the data is out there.  It's not rocket science. 

Edited by dmckay, Jul 23 2016 - 03:58.


Cmdr_Adama_BSG75 #42 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 07:53

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 31158 battles
  • 112
  • [HAL-X] HAL-X
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

Block Quote

 And I had heard something to the tune of Tiger 131 being copyrighted by Bovington, so WG would have to pay a license to use it, as opposed to just picking out any other documented Tiger to implement

 

THIS, is a reasonable answer. BUT, Wargaming being a sponsor or whatever of Bovington, should get some special treatment. A Tiger with the correct 131 camo, dents, dings, and  damage should not be hard to re-create at all. My buddies in the clan agree, and said they would also spend a little coin to have that. Give some to Bovington if it has to be done, thats fine its going to a worthy cause. The tank does not have to be upgraded. Thats a personal wish. But a 131 tribute is in order. So say we all!

 



Omega_Weapon #43 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 09:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 22 2016 - 20:46, said:

 

Except it's true. The Tiger failed at its job as an assault tank. The panther got ground under in most offensive actions it undertook, especially in the west, where incidents like Arracourt were total disasters for the Germans. Second of all, while reliably is debatable in the case of the 75mm/76mm F34, the Tiger could certainly be penetrated by such weapons, in fact, the German Tigerfibel, the instruction booklet for german tiger tankers, states that 600m is enough for an M4/T-34 to be a threat frontally. Furthermore, the first Tigers KOed in the west were taken out by 6pdr armed churchills, the Soviets didn't even realize they were facing a new tank when they first met the Tiger at Leningrad. With a 76mm M1/85mm, the Tigers armor is easily penetrated out to 1k meters or more, especially once HVAP comes into play. The Panther is another story thanks to its sloped armor, but the turret could still be perforated. Legitimate historians all support this version of events, and statistics as well as AAR's all uphold the fact that the Panther/Tiger didn't do their jobs very well.

 

The 75mm could sometimes penetrate the Tiger frontally, but not even the 76mm gun would do it reliably. Reliably implies most hits resulted in pens. We have all seen pictures of German tanks scarred by multiple shell ricochets (don't remember any similar Sherman pictures by the way). Other than the mechanical reliability question, how did the Tiger fail as an assault tank? It has more armour and a more powerful gun than the Sherman or T-34. Obviously not invincible but better than anything being produced by the allies in 1942 when it came out. Panther was even better with similar armour protection, better Anti-tank performance for its gun, and better mobility than the Sherman. How would an equal number of Shermans be a more dangerous assault force than Tigers or Panthers? Admittedly Tigers and Panthers do no have a long record of success on the assault because by the time they were available in meaningful numbers the tide of war had already turned. The German military lacked the logistics, air superiority, and fresh troops to support offensive operations. That was the reality on the ground. Not anything the Tiger or Panther can directly be faulted with. On a one to one basis the Tiger and Panther were powerful opponents. The allied strategy of mass producing of a tidal wave of simple, reliable, adequate tanks like the Sherman and T-34 was a war winner, but we still have to admit the technical quality of the German tanks. The Sherman and T-34 were good tanks. The Tiger and Panther were better though and there is no shame in admitting that.



Legiondude #44 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 10:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,025
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 23 2016 - 02:19, said:

 Not anything the Tiger or Panther can directly be faulted with.

Except you know....efficiency with the materials they require from the logistics train



Wyvern2 #45 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 16:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 23 2016 - 09:19, said:

 

The 75mm could sometimes penetrate the Tiger frontally, but not even the 76mm gun would do it reliably(Yes the 76mm would, the panther not as likely due to the sloped glacis, but thanks to flat armor, the tiger would be screwed). Reliably implies most hits resulted in pens. We have all seen pictures of German tanks scarred by multiple shell ricochets (don't remember any similar Sherman pictures by the way)(If you dig enough you'll find a situation where just about any tank bounced a lot of shots. Hell, stuarts bounced a lot of shots from jap tanks in the Philippines, that doesnt make the stuart some pinnacle of armor layout). Other than the mechanical reliability question, how did the Tiger fail as an assault tank? It has more armour and a more powerful gun than the Sherman or T-34. Obviously not invincible but better than anything being produced by the allies in 1942 when it came out.

(KV-1E says hi. More armor than a Tiger and sooner to boot. Neither the M4 nor the T-34 are really assault/breakthrough tanks, they're mediums. With the exception of specialized variants like the Jumbo, they weren't meant to be line breaking tanks, this is extra true in the T-34's case, since the soviets deployed several heavy tank models throughout the war to fulfill the assault role, and most were better than the Tiger. Also, the Tiger's frontal armour isn't significantly better than an M4's as far as effectiveness goes.)

Panther was even better with similar armour protection, better Anti-tank performance for its gun, and better mobility than the Sherman(Except reliability that almost makes WW1 tanks look good... Also, it's armor protection was garbage for a tank of its size, literally the only strong spot was the glacis, otherwise the turret was meh and the side got penetrated by archaic anti tank rifles. A 45 ton tank, beaten by a 14.5mm ATR. If that isn't bad, I don't know what is. Also, yes, it's AT performance was good, while its HE performance really wasnt, which is important for a tank to root out infantry, finally, its mobility is highly overrated since it assumes perfect conditions and an engine at ungoverned output, in practice the output was something like 560 vs the advertised 700hp, which meant the Panther wasn't as well engined as people seem to think, much less the Tiger/KT)

 How would an equal number of Shermans be a more dangerous assault force than Tigers or Panthers? Admittedly Tigers and Panthers do no have a long record of success on the assault because by the time they were available in meaningful numbers the tide of war had already turned(No, they have a record of failure because they couldn't do their job. The Panther's at Arracourt outnumbered their opposition, much of which was basic M4's, and they still got trashed. Also, infantry/defending tanks doesn't particularly concern itself with your armor, especially when its as bad on the sides like a Panther, thus engagement/response time was far more important. Due to a bad gunner sight system, the Panthers response time was far worse than an M4's. The Tiger might have been better in that respect, though I'm not sure. It's turret traverse is well known to be garbage though.  When I think of Panther/Tiger vs Sherman engagements, I think of  the early DDay counterattacks, Villers Bocage, Wittmans deathride, and Arracourt. Of those, only Villers Bocage was debatably a draw thanks to wittmans solo ambush, even though Wittman lost a large chunk of his command to everything from 6pdrs to Firefly's, as well as losing his own tank).

The German military lacked the logistics, air superiority, and fresh troops to support offensive operations. That was the reality on the ground. Not anything the Tiger or Panther can directly be faulted with(None of which was relevant during Wittmans death ride, Arracourt or Villers Bocage).

On a one to one basis the Tiger and Panther were powerful opponents(War is not one vs one, and if I want a one vs one slugfest tank in their weight category, the IS-2 is superior in almost every way that matters, thanks to the lack of tank reliability and numbers, common German infantrymen were left out to die without armor support, the M4 could be just about everywhere. Also, neither tank had a significant enough advantage anywhere except in a 1k meter bowling lane, which isn't how real war is fought, especially not on the Western Front, shoot first hit first are the most important aspects, and especially in M4 vs Panther, the M4 is far superior).

The allied strategy of mass producing of a tidal wave of simple, reliable, adequate tanks like the Sherman and T-34 was a war winner, but we still have to admit the technical quality of the German tanks(What quality? They introduced nothing novel in their tanks, suffered horrific breakdowns, were terribly armed and armored considering their weight and often had absolutely crippling deficiencies like the Panthers engagement time. There's a reason few if any of the technical innovations introduced on later war german tanks were used post war, and that's simply because they weren't that good. Literally the only major advantage, kinda, I can think of is their suspension, which reportedly gave a very smooth ride/accuracy on the move, although the M4's stabilizer probably compensated somewhat, of course its maintenance issues are well known though).

The Sherman and T-34 were good tanks. The Tiger and Panther were better though and there is no shame in admitting that.

Better in what? Their performance in combat wasn't better, especially not in the West. I simply don't know enough about the general combat in the East(not one off incidents like 1 T-34/85 KOing 3 KT's or whatever) They're only better based on paper stats. Their ergonomics weren't really better, their availability wasn't better, the Tigers armor wasn't really better and post 1943 even their firepower wasn't better, and this is all compared to 30-35 ton tanks. The moment the Panther/Tiger is compared to an IS-2, let alone an IS-2 M1944, it is a total disgrace. They were better than the allied medium tanks in one situation. Frontally engaging tanks of a 10-25 ton lighter weight class at long range. Unfortunately, if you wan't a vehicle to do that job, you have the JpzIV, same gun, far better concealment, similar armor(at least adequate to ward of a standard M4 shot)

 


Edited by Wyvern2, Jul 23 2016 - 17:00.


caramel #46 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 17:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 8008 battles
  • 3,781
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 23 2016 - 00:19, said:

 

The 75mm could sometimes penetrate the Tiger frontally, but not even the 76mm gun would do it reliably. Reliably implies most hits resulted in pens. We have all seen pictures of German tanks scarred by multiple shell ricochets (don't remember any similar Sherman pictures by the way). Other than the mechanical reliability question, how did the Tiger fail as an assault tank? It has more armour and a more powerful gun than the Sherman or T-34. Obviously not invincible but better than anything being produced by the allies in 1942 when it came out. Panther was even better with similar armour protection, better Anti-tank performance for its gun, and better mobility than the Sherman. How would an equal number of Shermans be a more dangerous assault force than Tigers or Panthers? Admittedly Tigers and Panthers do no have a long record of success on the assault because by the time they were available in meaningful numbers the tide of war had already turned. The German military lacked the logistics, air superiority, and fresh troops to support offensive operations. That was the reality on the ground. Not anything the Tiger or Panther can directly be faulted with. On a one to one basis the Tiger and Panther were powerful opponents. The allied strategy of mass producing of a tidal wave of simple, reliable, adequate tanks like the Sherman and T-34 was a war winner, but we still have to admit the technical quality of the German tanks. The Sherman and T-34 were good tanks. The Tiger and Panther were better though and there is no shame in admitting that.

 

Plenty of images are also floating around of Tigers and Panthers killed by the lowley 75 {Panthers mostly from the side} and the humble 76 {Tiger 1 was easy prey to the 76, quit thinking otherwise, the TIGER 2 was an issue for it, but still not as much as people like to say it was.}  A lot of the shells that hit weren't even from American guns, they were usually from british 6 pdrs and Russian 85'. America fought only a VERY small amount of tiger 1's and panthers, and most of the panthers we did fight got mauled at the Battle of the Bulge by hellcats with 76's. The tiger failed as an assault tank, because, again, the only thing it ever broke through was its transmission, while the IS Tank {Russian breakthrough}, and US Sherman Jumbo {Breakthrough variant of the Sherman} both did their jobs as breakthrough tanks quite well, look up the Cobra King if you don't believe how effective the sherman jumbos were.

 

Better armor? Maybe on the panther and tiger 2, the Stock sherman was almost damn spot for spot equal to armor performance as the Tiger 1 thanks to its slopping {56MM became around 70MM effective and 80MM effective for late model shermans, NOT including the sherman jumbo which again, dwarfed all three in terms of frontal armor.} The Tiger 1's "Great" armor was actually abysmal and flat on the tank, making it easy prey for just about anything that actually fought it.  Its gun being more powerful? That I wont deny, the 8.8's were about the ONLY good things about those tanks..

 

The panther being more mobile? Maybe on paper, but in reality the things that "Made it more mobile" burnt up its transmission and screwed it in the end every single time;  it was a design for a 30 ton tank turned into a 45 ton tank without the upgrades to handle that weight. As for the more powerful guns, the US tested 105MM, 90MM, and 120MM anti tank guns, we just found that they were of no use to us as most of the time, the 76MM did what we needed too, and the 76HVAP round was more then enough to kill any german armor we faced; by the point the Pershing came about with its 90MM the tigers and panthers were still a non threat to us, as most of them had been killed by Russians and British troops {IIRC, a lowley Crusader is the one that dealt the fatal blow to the legendary tiger in the Bocage}

 

How would the shermans be a more dangerous force? You lose a panther or a tiger, it takes it forever to get it back up again, they're less mobile, they're much larger and easier to hit targets, AT Guns were more then adequate for dealing with them {And if you had Hellcats or jacksons in the mix your precious cats were [edited], or if sherman jumbos with their 170+MM frontal armor were present, as again, it could defeat the legendary 8.8}, couple that with the fact the Shermans and T-34's aren't likely to break down on an assault run, and can quickly get to different positions of attack, they made far superior assault tanks. The only reason the Panther and Tiger are remembered is because they were basically bunkers, set up in defensive positions and swarmed around by PZ-IV's and Stugs, which did the bulk of the heavy lifting for them, or the aforementioned 8.8 towed AT guns.

 

Better? Hardly. Better gun, I'll give em that, and that's ALL I'll give em. Better armor on paper, but it made little difference, mobility was far worse all the way around then the T-34 or the M4, the only one it really defeated regularly mobility wise was the british, and once their cromwells started rolling out they lost even that.  And if you actually look at numbers produced, America produced far less tanks than you think it did, so did Russia, we merely pulled the ones that were broken in some way, fixed em, and sent em back out, something much harder for Germans to do as tigers were often fully stripped down to the chassi for spare parts, completely cannibalized because they were in dire need.

 

On a one to one basis, the Tiger 2 and Panther were powerful opponents, the Tiger 1 was always a joke; but ANY tank was a powerful opponent one to one, as a penetrating shot was a kill shot irrelevant of who took it. But to call them in any way superior to the Allied counterparts which actually succeded in their jobs is a joke.

 

Maybe the Panther would have succeeded if they'd scrapped the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 and put all their efforts into making the panther actually work properly.

 



WulfeHound #47 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 18:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
70-80mm effective? The weakest armored Shermans were the 1942-43 era M4A1's and their glacis was 103mm effective

Omega_Weapon #48 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 22:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

Here is the summary for the Battle of Arracourt. "The Battle of Arracourt was a major clash between German and American armored forces near the town of Arracourt, Lorraine, France, between 18-29 September 1944, during World War II. As part of a counteroffensive against recent U.S. advances in France, the German 5th Panzer Army had as its objective the recapture of Luneville and the elimination of the U.S. XII Corps. bridgehead over the Moselle River at Dieulouard. The Germans anticipated a quick defeat of the defending Combat Command A (CCA) of the U.S. 4th Armored Division. However due in part to poor German tactics and terrain, the 4th Armored Division's CCA, in concert with U.S. tactical air forces, defeated two Panzer Brigades and elements of two Panzer divisions."

 

I see "poor German tactics" "terrain" and "U.S. tactical airforces" as the 3 contributing factors they choose to highlight from that battle. Yet no mention that the Germans lost because Panthers are inferior to Shermans. In fact the article goes on to state, "In addition to a numerical advantage over the CCA, the 5th Panzer Army's Panther tanks were superior to U.S. M4 Shermans in both armour protection and main gun range. Only in close air support did the U.S. Forces enjoy a significant advantage." That last sentence realy sums up how Shermans usually beat Tigers and Panthers. They usually outnumbered the Germans significantly and almost never engaged German tanks without a huge advantage in air support and tactical artillery.


Edited by Omega_Weapon, Jul 23 2016 - 23:08.


WulfeHound #49 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 22:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
US tactical air played a rather minor part in Arracourt, to the point where during the heaviest of the fighting, the only air support the US tankers got was a single L-3 Cub with half a dozen bazookas strapped to the wing supports. And yes, the Panther was inferior to the Sherman in areas that were heavily critical. Reliability (already mentioned), crew vision (specifically the gunner), and maneuverability (both for tight spaces and the turret rotation) were all either slightly inferior or outright terrible compared to an M4A3 (75).

Omega_Weapon #50 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 23:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jul 23 2016 - 16:49, said:

US tactical air played a rather minor part in Arracourt, to the point where during the heaviest of the fighting, the only air support the US tankers got was a single L-3 Cub with half a dozen bazookas strapped to the wing supports. And yes, the Panther was inferior to the Sherman in areas that were heavily critical. Reliability (already mentioned), crew vision (specifically the gunner), and maneuverability (both for tight spaces and the turret rotation) were all either slightly inferior or outright terrible compared to an M4A3 (75).

 

​"The fog that had allowed German Forces surprise and protection from U.S. air attack also negated the superior range of their tank guns". So the time that they were not under air attack, they were at a disadvantage due to the fog. After that, "On 21st September with skies clearing, P47 Thunderbolts of the 405th Fighter Group, 84th Fighter Wing of the U.S. XIX Tactical Air Command were able to begin a relentless series of attacks on German ground forces. In addition to missions of opportunity flown by XIX TAC fighter-bombers, CCA was able to call in tactical airstrikes against German panzer concentrations. The 4th Armored's close relationship with the USAAF's TAC and mastery of ground-air tactical coordination was a significant factor in destroying the offensive capability of the German armored formations".

WulfeHound #51 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 23:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

Nice wikipedia copy-paste.

 

And it's kind of obvious that you would attack with a numerical superiority if you wanted your forces to win. Note how during Arracourt, the Germans actually had more tanks as CCA, 4th AD. Out of the 200+ vehicles in the German attacks, nearly 90 of them were outright destroyed and the majority of them were Panthers


Edited by WulfeHound, Jul 23 2016 - 23:22.


Omega_Weapon #52 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 23:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jul 23 2016 - 17:11, said:

Nice wikipedia copy-paste.

 

And it's kind of obvious that you would attack with a numerical superiority if you wanted your forces to win. Note how during Arracourt, the Germans actually had more tanks as CCA, 4th AD. Out of the 200+ vehicles in the German attacks, nearly 90 of them were outright destroyed and the majority of them were Panthers

 

​Don't know how to copy-paste into the forums. Re-typed the Wiki quotes manually. Yes the Germans lost at Arracourt. They lost tons of battles. They lost the whole war. None of that makes the Panther a bad tank. If the Germans were driving Shermans, I think they still would have lost the war. They would probably have lost much faster actually. In fact the French army thought well enough of the Panther to keep a large number of Ex-German Panthers in their military after the war ended.

Edited by Omega_Weapon, Jul 23 2016 - 23:46.


WulfeHound #53 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 00:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 23 2016 - 17:43, said:

 

​Don't know how to copy-paste into the forums. Re-typed the Wiki quotes manually. Yes the Germans lost at Arracourt. They lost tons of battles. They lost the whole war. None of that makes the Panther a bad tank. If the Germans were driving Shermans, I think they still would have lost the war. They would probably have lost much faster actually. In fact the French army thought well enough of the Panther to keep a large number of Ex-German Panthers in their military after the war ended.

 

Just because the French kept Panthers after the war doesn't mean they were any good. The last ones were retired in 1949, while half were retired in 1947.

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/?page=1

Those were Ausf. D's and A's. The British tested the D during wartime and a group of Ausf. G's, Bergepanthers, and Jagdpanthers postwar, and reliability was found to be lacking, as well as a large number of mechanical issues being found.

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/13/from-the-vault-post-war-british-report-on-panther-reliability/

(And actually, the Germans could not build M4's as they lacked the foundry capacity and capability to cast all the necessary parts.)



WulfeHound #54 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 00:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
And if you're looking for more info on why the Panther failed as a tank, there's a thread created by rossmum (linked here) regarding its strengths and weaknesses.

caramel #55 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 01:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 8008 battles
  • 3,781
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

As I've pointed out time and time again, the only two advantages the panther had were Armor {And was defeated by US guns} and its gun, the 8.8 is a good gun, theirs no denying that, but there ARE US and USSR tanks with the frontal armor to deal with those guns and make them a well, lesser threat; the simple fact is that the Panther, Tiger, and Tiger 2 aren't nearly as mythical or even good as their legends and propaganda make them out to be, and even the US is guilty of blowing em up out of proportion. Every tank a US tanker faced with any decent gun, or even towed 8'8's often got screams of Tiger or Panther, even if it wasn't one {And 9 times out of 10, it wasn't one.} 

 

Germany lost the war because they tried a war on multiple fronts with multiple opponents who had better logistics than they did; its VERY hard to win a two front war, much less a multi front war like the Germans tried to do.  The french army kept the panthers because there was nothing else for them to use, theirs a reason why the M4 sherman the french got became the M4 revolroise and that then turned into the Super Sherman, while the panthers were thrown out as soon as they could get rid of them. The fact that Sherman tanks were used clean up until the early 90's should be a testament to how useful these tanks really were.

 

The germans DID in a way, use the Sherman tank, the humble PZ-IV, the arguable counterpart to the sherman; agile, mobile, reliable, with fairly easily replaced parts, decent armor, and a decent gun. The problem with germany was they had a hard on for an inefficient way of building tanks; and wasting resources on super weapons and projects that went nowhere. Also tanks like the Tiger 1, tiger 2, and panther were extreme gas-hogs when gas was already a precious resource for them to begin with.

 

Had the Germans used shermans as the US did, and NOT fought several nations all at once, they might have won. They were destined to lose the second multiple nations decided they were sick of Germanys nonsense.



Wyvern2 #56 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 02:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 23 2016 - 23:43, said:

 

​Don't know how to copy-paste into the forums. Re-typed the Wiki quotes manually. Yes the Germans lost at Arracourt. They lost tons of battles. They lost the whole war. None of that makes the Panther a bad tank. If the Germans were driving Shermans, I think they still would have lost the war. They would probably have lost much faster actually. In fact the French army thought well enough of the Panther to keep a large number of Ex-German Panthers in their military after the war ended.

 

And the syrian army thought so well of panzer IV's that they kept them in service into the 60's... Multiple AFV models served into the post war years, And a large chunk of main service tanks outlasted the Panther in other countries arsenals by decades. I'm pretty sure there's still vehicles on the T-34 and possibly Chaffee chassis operating to this day. Literally the only major operator of panthers post war was france, and just about none of germany's tank design philosophies were implemented in western/eastern tank designs, simply because they were that bad.

WulfeHound #57 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 02:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
North Korea is known to still operate T-34-76's

dmckay #58 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 02:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 12337 battles
  • 5,214
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View Postcaramel, on Jul 23 2016 - 19:59, said:

As I've pointed out time and time again, the only two advantages the panther had were Armor {And was defeated by US guns} and its gun, the 8.8 is a good gun, theirs no denying that, but there ARE US and USSR tanks with the frontal armor to deal with those guns and make them a well, lesser threat; the simple fact is that the Panther, Tiger, and Tiger 2 aren't nearly as mythical or even good as their legends and propaganda make them out to be, and even the US is guilty of blowing em up out of proportion. Every tank a US tanker faced with any decent gun, or even towed 8'8's often got screams of Tiger or Panther, even if it wasn't one {And 9 times out of 10, it wasn't one.} 

 

Germany lost the war because they tried a war on multiple fronts with multiple opponents who had better logistics than they did; its VERY hard to win a two front war, much less a multi front war like the Germans tried to do.  The french army kept the panthers because there was nothing else for them to use, theirs a reason why the M4 sherman the french got became the M4 revolroise and that then turned into the Super Sherman, while the panthers were thrown out as soon as they could get rid of them. The fact that Sherman tanks were used clean up until the early 90's should be a testament to how useful these tanks really were.

 

The germans DID in a way, use the Sherman tank, the humble PZ-IV, the arguable counterpart to the sherman; agile, mobile, reliable, with fairly easily replaced parts, decent armor, and a decent gun. The problem with germany was they had a hard on for an inefficient way of building tanks; and wasting resources on super weapons and projects that went nowhere. Also tanks like the Tiger 1, tiger 2, and panther were extreme gas-hogs when gas was already a precious resource for them to begin with.

 

Had the Germans used shermans as the US did, and NOT fought several nations all at once, they might have won. They were destined to lose the second multiple nations decided they were sick of Germanys nonsense.

You are wasting your time. Tiger/Panther types believe what they NEED to believe. They can get loopy. Facts are irrelevant with these types.



caramel #59 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 02:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 8008 battles
  • 3,781
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postdmckay, on Jul 23 2016 - 17:48, said:

You are wasting your time. Tiger/Panther types believe what they NEED to believe. They can get loopy. Facts are irrelevant with these types.

 

I am making a mistake though, the Panther never rocked the 8.8, it used the high velocity KWK L/70, oops.

Edited by caramel, Jul 24 2016 - 02:55.


Wyvern2 #60 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 03:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jul 24 2016 - 02:33, said:

North Korea is known to still operate T-34-76's

 

Are you sure it's T-34/76's? I'd think it would be T-34/85 since that's mostly what the soviets had in stocks post WW2 and that's what the NK used during their invasion of the south. It's possible, just sounds a bit weird. I'm not entirely sure what was delivered to them beyond Ba64's, T-34/85's and Su-76's.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users