The Theater of History Episode 4: The Panther

2. The OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres) was actually below the OKW in the command chain after the Wehrmacht got defeated in Moscow 1941 because Hitler "joined" the OKW as Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht. So at the time the Panther was developed the supreme command already belonged to Hitler and the OKW

Thanks for the explaination.

No problem mate

"Besides the losses which were horribly high in the battle of Kursk, the Panther showed its great potential as a medium tank. Crews stated that on attacks by numerous tanks, even the new and efficient T34/85 constantly bounced off the Panther’s frontal armor and failed to penetrate."
--------------
Hm, I don't think T-34/85 was ready to be deployed by the time the Battle of Kursk was taking place. They first saw combat in 1944.

Hmmm maybe I formulated that wrong I didn't meant that the T34/85 was actually at Kursk ^^ The sentence including the T34/85 should just show what the crews experienced during the Panther's deployment and when encountering the T34/85 in 1944 I think I will change this a bit

Ah, ok. It just reads as if you meant that it was during the Battle of Kursk.

Otherwise, a very solidly written article.

Great article! All that time and effort has paid off once again!

@vladislav

I changed the text a bit thanks for the feedback

@CH

Thanks

Nice

Well in my opinion the Panther was the best choice because it was cheaper, more mobile and better than a Tiger in matters of reliability on the engine etc.

The Panther, Tiger E and Tiger B all use the same engine. Its only modified to fit the hull.

The reliability problem als didn't really come from the engines. The engines were about as reliable as all tank engines after the teething problems were solved. Only the Russian diesel engines were more rilable but these were special in this regard since they were about the most reliable AFV engine of the era.

The problems are with the gearbox and the end drive (Seitenvorgelege). These were very suceptible to damage and in the case of the Panther bad designed and under sized. The end versions of the Tiger E were more reliable than the Panther since the end drive problems were never solved. The Panther 2 would have gotten a new designed one.

The Tiger E is very mobile for a heavy tank. While the Panther is more mobile the Tiger E outperforms most medium tanks of its time.
A huge advantage of the Tiger E is the better all round armor. Making it more or less immune against all light and hand helt AT weapons it faced. Wich is not true with the Panther. Wich is vulurable to allmost any AT weapon exept of the frontal arc.
The Tiger is more of a brawler and much more effective against soft targets than the Panther. The Panther is more or less an early MBT. It has enourmous frontal armor, firepower optimised for anti tank work and is best used in open terrain over long ranges.

Some things in the article wich is a nice collection of information caught my attention.
The Panther version D, A and G are all different. Not at first glance in the case of D and A but there were constant improvement made to ease manufacture and improve performance as well as reliability.
The version G is not defined by the infrared equipment. Actually all Panther versions could have used it. The Ausf. G is easy recognisable because it doesn't have a step in the side overhang of the track. No driver vision port in the front plate. Later a modified gun shield was added. Ausf. A and D are easiest to tell appart by the different equipment storage and exaust manifold. Allthough this was further changed during the production run of D.

The Panther performed exaptionally well during the Battle of Kursk. Even more so if the teething problems the vehicle suffered from are taken into account. Less than 60 Panther were lost in combat for around 300 enemy tanks knocked out. That is in the 5:1 range. Concidering the high rate of mechanical breakdowns and unrealiable systems its really an astonishing kill rate.

The frontal armor of the Panther can't be reliable penetrated all full caliber AP shots of up to 90 mm. Sub caliber shots more effective though.
The 17 pdr using APDS can penetrate the Panther at all realistic combat distances. But this is a beast of a gun and arguably the best AT gun in the 75-76 mm class of the whole war.
The US 76 mm using APCR (HVAR) also could penetrate at 500 m.
APCR was in low supply. APDS also was rare but less so.
All HEAT shells with enough penetration also would have been effective but the allies didn't really use any that big.

Nice article , but i think the first tank was able to take out a Panther was the SU-152?

The first Tank that was able to take out a Panther when shooting at its frontal armor was the IS-2 heavy tank, which faced the battlefield in 1944

Nice article , but i think the first tank was able to take out a Panther was the SU-152?

That entirely depends on how you define take out.
Allmost any medium tank could take out a Panther when shooting at its front by aiming for the lower part of the gun shield. BY this provoking downward ricochets wich will penetrate the hull roof. It only was a difficult shot and not widely known to allied tank crews.
Neverthe less this was so much of a prople from the German point of view they redesigned the gunshield for Ausf. G.

In the Auf D and A hits to the driver hatch in the glacis plate using 75 mm APCBC shots will likely penetrate.

The lower glacis plate is also thinner and can be penetrated. In most situations its just not visible to another tank.

All medium tanks have a chance of taking a Panther out in a head on engagement. Its not not a big chance though.

The SU-152 is not a tank. Actually its name says what is. Samokhodnaya Ustanovka means self propelled carriage. Its a self propelled artillery piece and not a tank. The SU-152 was issued to artillery units. Its an assault gun.

It the question is wich tank has a good chance to k-kill a Panther with on hit the answer is IS 2.
The IS 2 performs rather poor in tank vs tank duels though. Its a heavy breaktrough tank optimised to fight soft targets (infantry, AT guns), strongpoints and field fortifications. Its ROF is slow, the gun is not very accurate and the firecontroll and C3 is slow. While a IS 2 can kill a Panther with on hit chances are in a meeting engagement the IS 2 would have taken several hits befor scoring one. Concidering the fact that the 7.5 cm L70 can penetrate the frontal armor of the IS 2 at combat distance it is at a disadvantage in a duel.

Thanks for the correction. You're right schnuersi, though i still think the Su-152 was the first armor vehicle (not a real tank, yes) able to reliably take down German heavy tanks like Panther and Tiger etc from the front. It provides the Soviet a reliable counter which available in large number to superior German tanks in the mid-war.

So about the game i would really like the Su-152 or its variants in Soviet T4 instead of Su-85. Unfortunately that's not gonna happen .

It provides the Soviet a reliable counter which available in large number to superior German tanks in the mid-war.

That depends on how you define large numbers.
Less than 800 Su 152 have been build. Less than 2000 ISU 152 were build during the war.

These numbers are comparable to the number of Tiger E and B tanks built. Wich is about 1900 combined. Not counting assault guns and tank destroyers using the same chassis.
More than 6500 Panther tanks have been build.

The SU or ISU 152 was never plentyfull. Certainly not available in large enough numbers to counter the heavy armored German tanks.
The SU or ISU 152 also isn't a tank destroyer. Its an assault gun. Its crewed by artillery men and organised like this. The fact that it is usefull as anti tank vehicle especially against heavy armor is pure chance. This capablity wasn't even an afterthought during its design. It has been designed as a replacement for the KV-2.
Its a "pillbox buster". Its job is to give direct fire support to infantry. Knock out fortified position and stongpoints. With limited ability for indirect fire.
Later when it was found out that the vehicle is usefull against armor as well this was a bit more emphasised but it never became its main purpose.

The ISU 152 is a pretty poor TD. Its big, slow, badly armored, lacks good observation and firecontrol and its ROF is very poor.
From a technical point of view the penetration of the ML-20 isn't really impressive. Especially not compared to the size and weight of the gun and ammo. Its only the best the Red Army had at this time. The 8.8 KwK 43 handily outperforms it in any way. The only exeption would be shell weight and HE payload. As a tank destroyer the Su 100 is far more usefull.

The majority of German tank losses on the eastern front were inflicted by field guns. The AT contribution of the self propelled and assault guns was rather small in the grand scheme of things. They made great propaganda tools though. Nowadays a large tank is so much more sexy than an ordinary and common AT gun.