What is up with the pzkpfw V Panther ?

Using Panthers with a pair of panzershrecks is beastly. The SU's and everything else initially fire at the Panther first, while the Pzgs sneak in to destroy the SU. The SU's are knocked out by double PzG very quickly in short range.

Even if the Panther gets a damaged engine or gets knocked out and you hit retreat on the Panzershrecks, you've gotten the 1-2 SU-85 and killed a bunch of infantry which isn't a bad trade.

With brummbar, there is even more synergy; the Brummbar knocks out the Zis guns and murders the conscripts.

And one must not forget how vulnerable the Soviet armor support is. It's all infantry and Zis guns bunched together. Frag bombs and light howitzer strikes tend to inflict heavy losses.

For me, the most powerful attack group in the game is German T4 + Pzg+ munitions strikes + Panzerwerfer.

The Is-2 + Zis pair+ conscripts + munitions + rocket truck is not nearly as potent- mostly due to the high cost & coordinating delay of the IS-2 and the Zis pair.

I think you maybe theorycrafting quite a bit here. You have to sneak in PG's, how do you do that with units well spaced and surrounding your AT assets?

If they got close enough to the SU85 for the SU85 not to get away that is again a player not using the SU85 to its full strength.

Brumbar is extremely expensive, slow firing and very, very vulnerable to engine damage. It works ok with Panthers but now your talking about a player having more than 1000 mp advantage. In addition, there should be synergy. A good combined arms approach should win.

Again here you have allowed the Ost player another huge mp advantage. If he has lots of arty, use your own, which outranges it and gets precision strike to take it out. Frag bomb is cool, but expensive. Make him spend munitions elsewhere and he will only be able to use it once or twice. Useful yes, but so is so much off map arty.

In the case you described the Ost player should win. They have a diverse army organized to strike at multiple points simultaneously, while the Soviet has a much less diverse army, no mines, and much fewer units.

I want to be clear, I am not arguing Panthers aren't good, they are great. But they should be.

I use this later game tactic all the time, but I don't usually have the resources to buy rocket trucks. I don't buy pak guns if I'm doing this. I do however, make sure I have enough munis to drop a frag bomb or a light howie strike.

I find that soviet players don't space their infantry/Zis defense particularly well. It's often due to the way the map is set up or laziness.

All I need is One panther, 2 Pzg, and one brummbar. I announce my arrival with panther first, and then drop the munitions strike on their weapon crews. IF I'm using mechanized doctrine or Jaeger(one of my favorites), I have a spotting scope advantage.

The only thing that stops the PzG's full stop is the Maxim. Otherwise, I press forward with them while taking losses. While I'm doing this, I'm getting a view as to what's in front of my armor. Even just 2 volleys of rockets- (8) will drop the SU-85 to half health. Then I retreat the Pzshreck pair after they lose entities. Even if I only manage to fire one volley it's often worth it. There is this shock effect that's going on in the other players' head as he shuts off focus forward and there's a movement delay as he backs off awkwardly with SU-85s. Then the Panther moves in while this is occurring and finishes the job. Once the Panther is on top of them, the SU's advantages are lost.

The Brumbar is binded to #2 and I keep it to the rear of the Panther. I make sure it's spaced away from the conscripts, and in any event, it ruins soviet infantry squads in 2 shots. I always try to kill the conscripts first as I am aware that AT nades will doom the panther.

I use this later game tactic all the time, but I don't usually have the resources to buy rocket trucks. I don't buy pak guns if I'm doing this. I do however, make sure I have enough munis to drop a frag bomb or a light howie strike.

I find that soviet players don't space their infantry/Zis defense particularly well. It's often due to the way the map is set up or laziness.

All I need is One panther, 2 Pzg, and one brummbar. I announce my arrival with panther first, and then drop the munitions strike on their weapon crews. IF I'm using mechanized doctrine or Jaeger(one of my favorites), I have a spotting scope advantage.

The only thing that stops the PzG's full stop is the Maxim. Otherwise, I press forward with them while taking losses. While I'm doing this, I'm getting a view as to what's in front of my armor. Even just 2 volleys of rockets- (8) will drop the SU-85 to half health. Then I retreat the Pzshreck pair after they lose entities. Even if I only manage to fire one volley it's often worth it. There is this shock effect that's going on in the other players' head as he shuts off focus forward and there's a movement delay as he backs off awkwardly with SU-85s. Then the Panther moves in while this is occurring and finishes the job. Once the Panther is on top of them, the SU's advantages are lost.

The Brumbar is binded to #2 and I keep it to the rear of the Panther. I make sure it's spaced away from the conscripts, and in any event, it ruins soviet infantry squads in 2 shots. I always try to kill the conscripts first as I am aware that AT nades will doom the panther.

All this sounds to me like you should be the one winning the battle with the Panther. You sound like you are using your strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of these units. So I don't think this argues for the panther not filling its role well. If anything I think you are arguing that the panther fits well.

Again, blitz can be stopped with engine damage. Afraid of being flanked? Lay mines, place conscripts far out, use guards. Panthers are hard to kill that's the point. They also don't start with blitz (except Elite which is OP), so you always have a warning. Soviet late game requires you to used combined arms. Panther is by design made to go in unsupported and destroy Soviet armor. Even in large team games where players build many Panthers, AS LONG AS THE TEAMS ARE FAIR, I have no problems with Panthers. Good tanks yes, but not insta win button. When teams are unfair then it can feel overwhelming as you struggle to destroy Panthers and they dominate your allies flanks.

Also once you damage a tanks engine, don't forget to use your more common artillery to harass the tank as it retreats. You can continue to damage it and any repairing Pio's that come by. Soviet snipers in the late game cloaked behind the lines make it very hard for ost. Calling in very accurate long range fire.

TLDR: Panthers are fine as is, if you are struggling to defeat them try using strategies that involve damaging engines.

You don't have to teach me how to destroy a Panther or how to use mines to criple it. I destroyed hundreds of them in the times where they were able to blitz the battlefield with destroyed engines. Even if AT nade had 100 chance of success I would still be able to deny you its use in the same way I can deny Ram unless you'll cach me not paying attention for some reason. When I get blitz I will just run over any infantry squad trying to close in for the nade throw.
I won many team games recently I shouldn't have only because I was able to exploit Panthers flanking mechanics to get behind enemy lines while my team partner was simply pushing up front

The Panther is fine where it is, I don't think it should be changed.

The problem is on the Soviet side of things and their lack of handheld AT. It's a voluntary design imbalance that's meant to create more interesting tactical play. Soviets have a sight and linear fire advantage whereas OST get a mobility and resiliency advantage. That's fine on some maps.

Where this balance falls apart though is on maps with lots of shot blockers (buildings, thick hedges): Kholodny, the center of Semoskiy and Kharkov come to mind. SU-85s and Zis are nearly useless when a tank can just hide behind a building anytime it's in danger. The Sov side then need to compensate by picking commanders with heavy call-in tanks. I find this lack of versatility makes for more cookbook strategies where you either pick the right commander or stand a greater chance to lose.

The tactic I describe is my most frequently used 'decisive battle'. I've used this since the game came out. I find the risk/reward to be too good and overall it is too easy to implement. The panther is just too good of a tank with its penetration, high speed, blitz, smoke, or spotting scopes. It's also the best raiding tank in the game. This is why I support the old higher price (700 MP, 135 fuel) for the current iteration of the panther. If the price was kept the same, I would prefer to see the panther nerfed.

With the Soviets, a shock attack like this cannot be done with non doctrinal units vs. T4. With doctrinal units, I try something similar with the IS-2, Zis par, and the KV flame (Or Is-2, Zis pair, infantry blob.) but it's much less effective as I don't have the same speed and flexibility. I've ended up fighting German prepared T4 defense rather than a scattered one.

All this sounds to me like you should be the one winning the battle with the Panther. You sound like you are using your strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of these units. So I don't think this argues for the panther not filling its role well. If anything I think you are arguing that the panther fits well.

The tactic I describe is my most frequently used 'decisive battle'. I've used this since the game came out. I find the risk/reward to be too good and overall it is too easy to implement. The panther is just too good of a tank with its penetration, high speed, blitz, smoke, or spotting scopes. It's also the best raiding tank in the game. This is why I support the old higher price (700 MP, 135 fuel) for the current iteration of the panther. If the price was kept the same, I would prefer to see the panther nerfed.

With the Soviets, a shock attack like this cannot be done with non doctrinal units vs. T4. With doctrinal units, I try something similar with the IS-2, Zis par, and the KV flame (Or Is-2, Zis pair, infantry blob.) but it's much less effective as I don't have the same speed and flexibility. I've ended up fighting German prepared T4 defense rather than a scattered one.

What modes do you play?

Performing a t2 to t4 stall as germans is extremely difficult in 1v1 and sometimes even in 2v2. A good Soviet player will apply enough pressure to force you into building t3.

Seriously, I think people having trouble fighting Panthers in 1v1 and 2v2 are just facing better opponents...

What modes do you play?

Performing a t2 to t4 stall as germans is extremely difficult in 1v1 and sometimes even in 2v2. A good Soviet player will apply enough pressure to force you into building t3.

Seriously, I think people having trouble fighting Panthers in 1v1 and 2v2 are just facing better opponents...

You can't really do well with T2T4 as germans, nor there is a reason why you would want to forgo T1 against equally skilled opponent.

You need to have both T1 and T2 to have enough flexibility to go for T4.
Having a command tank commander is also useful as it makes your infantry and PaKs more durable while you accumulate fuel needed.

To the guys who go for Brummbär, esp. in team games, I want to ask: why?

Because I'm skipping T3 so I can get Panther ASAP.

You can't really do well with T2T4 as germans, nor there is a reason why you would want to forgo T1 against equally skilled opponent.

You need to have both T1 and T2 to have enough flexibility to go for T4.
Having a command tank commander is also useful as it makes your infantry and PaKs more durable while you accumulate fuel needed.

To clarify, I'm talking about t1/t2 into t4. Forgoing t1 might work with osttruppen sometimes...

I play mostly 2 v2 to 4 v 4. I prefer longer, larger games with more units. I still stall in 1 v 1, but less frequently.

I always build both t1 and t2 and fight with usual methods. However, I prefer to be fluid and mobile, and not static. I never build bunkers except the healing bunker in my base. I often don't build mortars, 221, and snipers (too much management and MP involved) unless there is a defensive concentration. But I build everything else, including the reinforcement halftrack.

I want to be able to quickly concentrate forces in places where they are needed. When I am attacked by a blob, I very often pull back and give ground, and then quickly counterattack in a way that favors myself.

The call-in SPW (Grenadier and PzG) is completely favored to my style of play.

To clarify, I'm talking about t1/t2 into t4. Forgoing t1 might work with osttruppen sometimes...

Then as I've said, command tank allows you to skip T3 without problem.
It will handle T70 spam easily, it will put a fight against T34 and easily beat it with AT support and soviet T4 is not an issue really anymore.

Panther needs to be changed, at a lower price it is comparable with the Tiger.
Panthers have enough weak side armor, which can penetrate the T-70, it should be implemented in the game


Padded "Panther" destroyed tank T-70 A. Pegova. March 26, 1944 light tank T-70, noting two approaching German tank PzKpfw V «Panther", disguised in the bush and took them on sight. After the "Panther" close to 150-200 meters and framed in jeopardy board, T-70 suddenly opened fire from an ambush and destroyed "Panther" faster than those able to detect it. Crews "Panthers" could not get out. T-70 commander Lieutenant A.Pegov was promoted to the rank of the Hero of the Soviet Union.

The armor strength of the tiger, elefant and panther bugs me too (but in a WW2 enthusiast sort of way).

Panzer IV was easily penetrated by the T-34/76 from the front.

The Panther's side armor was easily penetrable by all major Soviet AT weapons, even the ubiquitous 45mm gun. The Zis 3 had no problem at all, and neither did the SU-76 and the T-34/76.

The Tiger/Elefant's sides could, on the other hand, deflect Soviet 76mm tank guns but it could not deflect the 85mm shots from the SU-85/T-34/85.

Thing is...we don´t have side armor!!

Panzer IV was easily penetrated by the T-34/76 from the front.

Not on the Ausführung H. that had 80mm hull armor on the front. Only the turret could be penetrated. In other word the T-34/76 had to come close.

The Panther's side armor was easily penetrable by all major Soviet AT weapons, even the ubiquitous 45mm gun. The Zis 3 had no problem at all, and neither did the SU-76 and the T-34/76.

Agreed. I think the side armor of the Panther is too strong. However it´s front armor is too weak atm. So is it´s superb gun that could engage enemy armor at the longest ranges. More range, more frontal armor and less survivability from the side for the Panther is what I´d like to see.

The Tiger/Elefant's sides could, on the other hand, deflect Soviet 76mm tank guns but it could not deflect the 85mm shots from the SU-85/T-34/85.

That depends on the angle. If the Tiger etc. is caught at a 90° angle it will get destroyed. If however angled, the odds are better. Germans called that Mahlzeitstellung. Every Tiger crew was taught that in the "Tigerfibel".

I dunno about that- 80mm of armor, half of it bolted on.. is just cutting it too close as the 76mm gun's penetration is around there. The P4 was nicknamed 'Razor blades' due to its thin armor.- The T-34/76 could penetrate it. Same thing with the tank angling- very situational.

I would prefer a weaker Panther (sides penetrable by 45mm gun and 800 HP) but with 60 Range. Tiger I prefer with 960 HP and 55 Range. Panzer IV with 640 HP and 50 range, penetrable by 76mm from the front, sides penetrable by 45mm.

So:

Stug III: 480 HP, 50 Range
Panzer IV: 640 HP, 50 Range
Panther: 800 HP, 60 Range
Tiger: 960 HP, 55 Range
Elefant: 960 HP, 80 Range (matches ISU)

T-34/76: 640 HP, 40 Range (matches the P4)
T-34/85: 640 HP, 50 range (counters Panther/Tigers from rear)
SU-85: 640 HP, 50 Range (counters Panther/Tigers from rear)
IS-2: 800 HP, 60 Range (counters Tiger and Panther)
ISU-152: 800 HP, 70 Range (matches Elefant)

The idea is that Soviet armor is cheaper, and outnumbers the German 1.5 to 1 (like the infantry). German has no blitz, no 3rd MG, and P4 and Tiger are slower than the 3 Soviet armor.

So a pop cap half filled would see maybe 5 x P4 or 3 x Panther vs. 6 x T-34/76/SU-85 or 5 x T-34/85.

Germans numerical weakness however benefits from range and tactical refinement: -spotting scopes, accuracy, turret rotation, smoke shells, rate of fire.

Stug III: 480 HP, 50 Range
Panzer IV: 640 HP, 50 Range
Panther: 800 HP, 60 Range
Tiger: 960 HP, 55 Range
Elefant: 960 HP, 80 Range (matches ISU)

T-34/76: 640 HP, 40 Range (matches the P4)
T-34/85: 640 HP, 50 range (counters Panther/Tigers from rear)
SU-85: 640 HP, 50 Range (counters Panther/Tigers from rear)
IS-2: 800 HP, 60 Range (counters Tiger and Panther)
ISU-152: 800 HP, 70 Range (matches Elefant)

Tank destroyer with less range then Panther and Tiger?

Tank destroyer with less range then Panther and Tiger?

About to be expected from someone with that kind of avatar