M4s & Shermans

[JaM2013]

I have ignored extreme values for turret front because i'm using the minimal values for it and maximal values for side armor with 60 degree shots. And yes, it downplays Panther a bit, but technically, Panther was a lot easier to disable due to its weak side armor. Tank battles are never head on knight duels, fire can come from any direction and Panther was a tank where they made compromises.. yet, its armor is not its main feature, gun is.. GD 15 or 16 is more than fine against 75mm Shermans or 76mm T34, but 76mm Shermans and 85mm T34 are rightly a lot more dangerous to meet in a Panther..

With King Tiger, again,main feature is its gun, with HA 28 in my files, so it can dispatch those IS-2 quite effectively (GD 22 for IS-2M) , while IS-2 with HA 19 will be not as effective vs GD 23.

[JagdpanzerIV]

yes i understand your point perfectly.

you say most destroyed tanks is the result of side shots, of course! because most front shots bounced! (on big cats and is2 and early t-34 kv1)
Overall i would say that flanking is the best tactic -in theory - while in practice the tigers/panthers were shot at just as much on their front armor. We just don't often see them destroyed this way, because their front was incredibly thick.

Tiger crew were told to face the enemy 45d and panthers 30d (which would give even more than 140mm)

[captainjack]

The discussions on how to determine HA and GD are really interesting.

think GD increase should be just marginal for tanks

I think you might be under-rating the value of experience. An experienced crew will know the limitations and strengths of their vehicle and of the crew for the individual tank and across the platoon or company.

It's not just a matter of approaching at the best angle to benefit from your armour, but the appreciation of how to make the best of the terrain, recognising and picking the most dangerous target (so the danger to your tank is reduced), coordinating with the other tanks in your platoon, knowing your enemy so you fight them when they are at the best available disadvantage, timing your attacks so you fire with good effect while ensuring that the driver is fully prepared to move the tank to the next location quickly efficiently and without stalling or getting stuck (as well as presenting the best possible armour to enemy), and the ability to provide effective covering fire and manage targetting (do you all fire at one target or gang up on one at a time?).

[JagdpanzerIV]

We are trying to sort out basic stats, experience really makes a tank alive and deadly.
We are trying to figure out, for example, if a panther (omitting her tendency to breakdown) or a sherman 76 or any tanks really, what kind of basic stats should be given to them without making some useless and others overpowering.

It's very tough to do, because, if i take a tiger 2, a veteran crew with infantry support and air cover would be practically unstoppable. What made them suck during ww2, was poor crew training, lack of fuel, lack of ammo, nonexistent air support, total lack of logistic, bridges that could not support them, and sent where they should never have been sent in the first place.

But if we do the campaign and win every scenario, then the above mentioned problems, should not be problems, and allies should have the nightmare of poor logistic, lack of fuel and so on...

[JaM2013]

For Panther, even 30 degree is dangerous because of weak 45-50mm side armor..considering 76mm M1 and 85 D-5T both can penetrate 100mm at 1000-1500m (76mm M1 has better penetration at range than 85mm)

[JagdpanzerIV]

panthers dont need to angle vs 76m1 or 85 d-5t, it was mainly vs russian tds and JS2, as neither got enough pen to go thru 140mm. 30d is a small angle to shoot at and requires almost a perfect shot.

[JaM2013]

but thats the point - 76mm Sherman could fight Panther effectively because of weak side armor Panther had (yes, Sherman also had just about 40mm thick hull side, but it had a lot thicker turret sides at 76-80mm). American tankers were capable outmanevering German units and causing them high casualties. Personally, i'm very surprised the critics towards US tanks in WW2. They had very low casualty rates, and low number of tank destroyed.. only about 4000 medium tanks were lost in Europe, (2000 light tanks), but together they only had something around 4800 casualties in tank corps, and not all casualties were taken inside tanks. Sherman alone had 0.5 KIA per destroyed tank, where Russian tanks had 1.5-2 KIA per destroyed tank...

[JagdpanzerIV]

i never said the Shermans could not flank the panthers? i said the panther didn't need to angle facing them. whether they are tigers, IS2 or panthers, it doesn't matter, when attackers flank tanks, it's the optimal situation. A side shot in the turret with 120mm pen would have worked against Tigers 2 as well.

I understand you say panthers were easy to destroy when flanked - using the 75mm guns, but so were the pzIVs and most tanks, including american tanks.

Also, losing 4 000 medium tanks during a 6 months time frame is nothing to brag about.

[JaM2013]

"losing 4 000 medium tanks during a 6 months time frame is nothing to brag about." actually, Soviets lost a lot more tanks in same period, and a lot more crew.. but that number is not for 6 months period, but the whole war in the west, Africa campaign included. If I recall correctly, during Overlord and during breakthrough from Normandy, US lost something around 400-500 tanks. And lets not ignore the fact, they had less than 1KIA per destroyed tank, which is statistics even modern tanks sometimes have hard time to achieve.

(Soviets lost something over 99000 tanks during WW2, half were T34. From July 1941 to May 1945 it was about 46 months, which gives us 2152 tanks lost per month, or 12900 lost per 6 months if you will)

[JagdpanzerIV]

from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment ... rld_War_II

USA: ~10,000 tanks/SPGs/tank destroyers lost. From June 6, 1944 through May 15, 1945 for US tank and tank destroyer losses in the European Theater of Operations, United States Army (Western Front): around 7,000 (including 4,295 M4 tanks and 919 tank destroyers). Losses of 5th Army (Sicily, Italy): 1,414 tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled guns, including 1,171 M4s.[6][7] Several hundred tanks lost in the Pacific Theater.

So their loss is around 7 000, 4295 medium tanks from DDay to VDay. (11 months or so)

i am not adding up British tank losses, it doesn't matter, i was not trying to argue, i went to look up numbers and saw this page on wiki...

[JaM2013]

still doesnt change the fact US armored corps was operating quite effectively in Europe, and suffered relatively light losses, when compared to other services. And Sherman, despite being called names today by many people was practically best performing tank of WW2. Some call T34 the best tank of the WW2, but considering it took staggering 80% losses, its far from best. and while Panther was definitely very effective tank, due to its mechanical issues, it just couldn't cope with American Shermans rolling everywhere, without any problems, while Panthers had usually trouble making 50km dash on the road without some kind of a mechanical issue.

This makes me wondering what would happen if Panther design was kept as intended, at 35tons with just 60mm sloped hull armor.. this way transmission and engine would be not so hard pressed, and tank might not suffer that much.. plus, 35ton tank would be much easier to recover by standard recovery vehicles, while 60mm@55 degrees would still provide relatively decent protection. Plus, 60mm plate is much easier to manufacture than 80mm, therefore it would require less manpower to make and would be completed a bit sooner, as redesign also took some time.. etc etc...

[JagdpanzerIV]

what would have happened? nothing special is my guess. 3rd reich would still have been defeated, more or less within the same time frame. One thing people have to consider and read about is, even if Germany could have produced more tanks, they had no trained crew to put in toward the end of the war (43+) So building less but more efficient tanks made sense, Hitler is behind the panther problems that had to be rushed to kursk without proper testing. Not only that, Hitler delayed Kursk to wait for the Elefants/Panthers etc, probably dooming the operation all together, and putting germany on the defensive from this moment on.

Ha! but then, the panthers would not have been built and maybe Kursk would not have been delayed. Interesting.

[JaM2013]

i'm not really interested in what-if Germany questions, just the technical aspects of Panther tank.. Personally, i'm relatively happy how war ended, only problem was my country replaced one overlord (Nazis) for another (Communists) and it took another 40 years to get rid of them.. So only what if that would be interesting to me is the what if Czechoslovakia took the Marshall Plan, and Benes did not allowed Gottwald to seize power and estabilish the communist regime.. but thats too much offtopic

[JaM2013]

btw, im recently playing with the idea giving certain tank units strength 15 instead of 10. For example early war formations were a lot bigger than later formation, effectively,same number of tanks one tank army had in 1943-44 had single division in 1939-1940.. This could make medium and light tanks a bit more interesting, player might even keep those light PzIIC a bit longer just because of their increased numbers alone..

At the other side, some medium tank units could get the same rise, especially Soviet T34 units which were typically used in mass.. At the other side, German tank units after 1941 would be strength 10, same as any heavy tank unit. Of course, this would be counterbalanced by increased costs of such units, but i think it could make the late war even harsher and more brutal, as German player would have to face strength 15 Soviet tank units...

Of course, these changes would have to be implemented properly, so certain units wont be way too powerful. I think these changes could cope the real world tank introduction, where let say initial models would start at STR 10, but later version would get full strength up to 1941. At beginning of 1942, tanks like PzIVH2 or PzIVG would be STR 10, while PzIIIH&J would be last STR 15 tanks, while J1,L,N and M would be STR 10.

This approach could be applied to all countries relatively simply, based on doctrine. For example French heavy tanks would be STR 10, while light cavalry tanks 15. (S35 would be exception at 10 as it was employed in small numbers). Similarly British with Matildas at 10, and Cruisers at 15.

Of course, this could be made less harsh by enabling only STR 10 to deal damage, and remaining force used as reserve.. which would only make certain units a bit more tougher but not deadlier.

[JagdpanzerIV]

i'm not really interested in what-if Germany questions, just the technical aspects of Panther tank.. Personally, i'm relatively happy how war ended, only problem was my country replaced one overlord (Nazis) for another (Communists) and it took another 40 years to get rid of them.. So only what if that would be interesting to me is the what if Czechoslovakia took the Marshall Plan, and Benes did not allowed Gottwald to seize power and estabilish the communist regime.. but thats too much offtopic

VK30.02(DB) stats
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/n ... php#vk3002

I've been thinking on how to implement the panther problems into the game and i think i found an interesting way. when the panther D was released, it was not reliable at all, so to reflect this, we could give it very low fuel, something like 20-25, that would represent the maintenance required to make it operational. Version A & G were more reliable but after 150 km of driving their transmission would still collapse. So their max fuel should be 150 x 2.5 / 10 = 37. Also they limited the speed to 40 something, so the late panther should only move 5 hex instead of 6. All 3 versions initiative should be lowered substantially. around 8 D, 9 A, 10 G.

[JaM2013]

why so low for initiative? Yes, their turret traverse was not that high, but optics wise, they were quite good, had good/decent field of view and they got two modes for long range and short range fire (2.5x and 5x magnification if I recall right) which gave them opportunity to engage enemy tanks at longer ranges. I have Ini 8 for T34/76 M43, which had just 2 man turret.. In my files, Panthers are Ini 10, same as PzIVH/J, Tiger I and II. American M4A3(76)W are Ini11, ordinary M4A3 are Ini 9.

[JagdpanzerIV]

why so low for initiative? Yes, their turret traverse was not that high, but optics wise, they were quite good, had good/decent field of view and they got two modes for long range and short range fire (2.5x and 5x magnification if I recall right) which gave them opportunity to engage enemy tanks at longer ranges. I have Ini 8 for T34/76 M43, which had just 2 man turret.. In my files, Panthers are Ini 10, same as PzIVH/J, Tiger I and II. American M4A3(76)W are Ini11, ordinary M4A3 are Ini 9.

ah right, because i decided to mod initiative this way;

Initiative

all the values for ground units (except infantry) were changed based on this;
pre-39 = 4 or less
1939 = 5
1940 = 6
1941 = 7
1942 = 8
1943 = 9
44-45 = 10

weight modifier
50t+ -1
75t+ -2
100t+ -3

Atguns +2
Scouts +1
Fear factor +1 (tiger tank only)
Tds -2
Tanks w.howitzer -1
SPG (arty) -4
Arty -6
no radio -1 (early t-34s etc.)
Panthers D -1 (broke down often)

[JaM2013]

im rather using effective engagement range and bonuses for optics and turret type (2-man/3-man turrets) for initiative

[JagdpanzerIV]

im rather using effective engagement range and bonuses for optics and turret type (2-man/3-man turrets) for initiative

sure why not.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Captain Jack or/and JaM2013

You guys should start a thread on aircrafts.