PzKpfw V Panther....the best tank in WW2 ?

World War II German Military
#621

The M1 engine uses Diesel as well (aviation, Petrol, Kerosine, Diesel, I did read the the Australians are using diesel in theirs), you forgot to mention the M1 is dangerous to be behind (not allowed to tow other M1 tanks - one was set alight and destroyed when being towed despite the tow vehicle stopping frequently to allow it to cool down), it has a massive thermal signature and is a real fuel hog when using JP8 the usual US fuel.

The vast majority of MBT’s use conventional diesel engines.

The KV had a larger gun than its contempories (1939) firing AP that could defeat any tank in the world at the time at ranges they could not even scratch its paint.

What do you class as long barrel as well the M1 uses a 120mm L44 most other tanks use 120mm L55, hmm the M1’s gun seems a little short compared to the rest.

Depends on Mk of Centurion, but what was that thrown in for.

The Panzer IV depending on Mk had three 75mm guns - 75mm L24, 75mm L43, 75mm L48 which one you referring to, you just repeated two points I made (although modern MBT have 3 or 4 man crews), seemingly ignoring the rest with are the same claims you made for the tiger but it entered service earlier (the Panzer IVG).

The Crusader no it was designed and entered service two years after the T34.

#622

Abrams has a turbine that can burn Diesel, but that does not make it a ‘Diesel’ mill…

Crusader was designed as a contemporary to T-34, but was a bit later into service…
…due to 1/2 arsed Brit organisation & having to be modified for desert functionality…

As I noted, current MBTs run Diesel mills as a matter of pragmatic economy/logistics…

Let me know when a Diesel recip’ powered aircraft takes out the Gold Final race at Reno, wont you…

Do any current MBTs have a gun which does not over-hang the hull?

It was Hitler who 1st required the use of the long 88mm in the Tiger… against the prevailing wisdom of the experts…

Perhaps a Panzer IV ‘fan-boi’ can pipe up with whether the short 75mm firing HEAT could defeat the KV…

& could the KV’s 76mm defeat the Matilda II at long range?

Hitler knew for sure that the 88mm could…

Is it true that post-war - the U.S. Army didn’t want their M 103 heavies & handed them down to the Marines…
…but later did the ‘Indian Giver’ routine & demanded them back for duties in Germany?

You did read T-G’s 1st hand knowledge of BIG gas power…

& when the Dodge Viper comes with a Diesel, maybe I’ll be more impressed…

#623

http://www.leftlanenews.com/audi-diesel-electric-hybrid-wins-24-hours-of-le-mans.html

#624

Thanks for that Ndf, I am aware of the Le Mans racing regs which favour the oil burners…

You will note however, that the mighty AUDI team was given a good run for the day by a gas powered Toyota.

& the speeds are not much - [if any] - faster than[non-turbo] Porsche 917s were doing 40+ years ago…

Here is a contemporary [ typically sober] British report showing the impact that big-as 88mm packed by the Tiger had in the day…

[From Tiger Tank at War P.19.]

“Designed to carry an 8.8cm gun & constructed of very heavy armour plate, the vehicle is naturally of exceptional size & weight & it is therefore somewhat surprising to note how it is, to a certain degree dwarfed by the main armament.
Viewed from the side with the turret at 12 o’clock, the 8.8cm gun extends beyond the nose by about a 1/4 of its length, & the length from the muzzle brake [another novelty] to the mantlet [gun shield] is rather over 1/2 the total length of the vehicle.”

#625

It’s a J8 mill that the Army WANTED TO ****ING PUT A DIESEL ENGINE IN! FFS…;

…

As I noted, current MBTs run Diesel mills as a matter of pragmatic economy/logistics…

Why don’t they run gas turbines like the M-1?

Let me know when a Diesel recip’ powered aircraft takes out the Gold Final race at Reno, wont you…

Let me know when a gasoline powered one does, first!

Do any current MBTs have a gun which does not over-hang the hull?

It was Hitler who 1st required the use of the long 88mm in the Tiger… against the prevailing wisdom of the experts…

Maybe Hitler was gay and like long things overhanging? Actually, I’m calling bullshit on any of this. You keep reporting this but have no evidence nor source for it. Post where Hitler ordered the 88mm into the Tiger! It was “presented to him on his birthday,” and everything I’ve read stated he had little direct input into the tank. Maybe you’re just reading Neonazi, fanboi shit and reporting completely made up or dubiously sourced “facts?”.

But we know, Hitler was a genius and Churchill was evil and thick…

Perhaps a Panzer IV ‘fan-boi’ can pipe up with whether the short 75mm firing HEAT could defeat the KV…

& could the KV’s 76mm defeat the Matilda II at long range?

Hitler knew for sure that the 88mm could…

Right! Hitler and the Nazis were all knowing, all seeing. That’s why <1400 Tigers won the war for them…

Is it true that post-war - the U.S. Army didn’t want their M 103 heavies & handed them down to the Marines…

Did you finally read that off Wiki?

…but later did the ‘Indian Giver’ routine & demanded them back for duties in Germany?

You did read T-G’s 1st hand knowledge of BIG gas power…

& when the Dodge Viper comes with a Diesel, maybe I’ll be more impressed…

They U.S. Army never demanded anything back as the M-60A1 mounting the 105mm L7 gun could kill just about anything…

What about Audi’s diesel(s)? or are you ignorant of that? Perhaps you can research that on Wiki and tell us all why in your humble, brilliant opinion it is substandard?

#626

BTW, I was speaking of this:

http://www.minnage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:audi-r8-diesel-supercar

They also make a nice turbo diesel SUV my ex-boss had…

#627

J.A.W. wrote: “Did the KV have a large, long barrel, high velocity, long range, accurate, hard-hitting main gun like a MBT?
No…”
Velocity of shot or shell is not dependent upon tube length alone. The first feature of high velocity munitions is the propellant charge used to fire them. Then even a larger charge of powder is not a guarantee of greater performance, it depends more upon the propellant used, and if it is a progressively burning type, or regressive (does the propellant as it burns, expose more surface area, or less.) Next is the burning rate of the propellant, is it a slow type, or faster? A slow rate propellant is good for large, and heavy projectiles, but requires a longer tube in order to burn completely, and provide the highest pressure/velocity to the departing projectile. By this means a faster burning propellant particularly a progressively burning propellant would give the same pressure/velocity from a shorter tube. In truth, comparative tube length between the KV-1, and the Tiger-1 is pretty much a non issue unless one is charging with Black Powder. (either corned, or uncorned).
It is always best to have the projectile reach maximum velocity just as it leaves the Muzzle, if pressure begins to drop before hand, it will cause a significant slowing of the projectile, causing a loss of energy at the target. If it leaves before the max velocity, energy is wasted, and allows the enemy to see one’s position more clearly.
Another criteria for tube length is stabilization of the projectiles selected for use with the particular gun. Depending on the shape, and general design of a projectile, be it shot, or shell, it has to be mated with the twist rate that best stabilizes it once it leaves the Muzzle. This could vary widely with different weights of munitions, so a useful middleground has to be found that will work with everything a tank will have in it’s basic load. Heavier projo’s will need more turns,so a longer tube will actually be of benefit. There is a limit to how tight the twist rate can be, or there is a greater risk of stripping the driving band, and losing an unacceptable amount of velocity, and accuracy. With a projo designed for a tight twist, a shorter tube will do fine. Back in the 60’s-70’s a target rifle might have a heavy barrel of 30 or more inches, and some today still do. But more modern developments in bullets, propellants, and twist rates, have allowed rifles with heavy barrels of only 20 inches (some even shorter) to do as well at 1,000 yds as the older long barrels did back then. In the days of muzzle loading rifles, a twist of 1 turn in 60"to 70" was the usual. These days its more like 1 turn in 7"-10" Vastly different velocities, and bullets, but it presents the idea well enough. This effect of rifling twist is of no value in the smooth bore guns used in tanks, and some artillery, though the propellant burn rates will still have an effect on accuracy, and velocity.

#628

Thanks T-G,

The application of the muzzle brake was also a factor, in a high velocity/flat trajectory application…
…both in mitigating recoil & reducing blast effects [in obscuring the targeting results & revealing the shooter].
From ‘Tiger Tanks at War’ P.13, re: impact of Matilda/88mm combat in France `40…

“Hitler believed the obvious - that a new heavily armed & armoured tank was the solution.”

“The German army Ordnance Department had dismissed the idea of a heavy tank…”

“In a May 1941 meeting, Hitler having lost patience…took personal charge of the project.
He awarded Porsche & the German firm of Henschel & Sohn… contracts for…prototypes…
to be ready for his inspection on April 20 1942.”

& Ndf, if as you reckon, Diesels are so much better than gas turbines, just when will the army be replacing their helicopter
mills?

Diesel mills are popular for cars in Europe where gas is taxed so much, but the top performing cars don’t run them…

There are Diesel aircraft mills, but all the fastest Reno racers are spark ignition, not compression ignition powered…

[& Ndf, losing the plot & getting ‘shitty’ isn’t too ‘moderate’ really, is it?]

#629

The muzzle brake was primarily intended for reducing recoil, true. This was in order to allow the gun to operate without(over time) destroying the recoil system, mount, optics, and turret ring machinery. Keeping the dust down worked only for a part of a moment. Didnt help an awful lot. (which is why no modern MTB has one. )
A small note, sassing a mod is not a good idea at all.

#630

Thanks for the ‘small note’ T-G.
& so, Mods get to have their cake & eat it too then?
If this is so, then it seems [oddly] totalitarian - that the rules do not apply across the board…
Twice Ndf has called me out on his B.S. opinion that I’m making things up… but I have posted clearly referenced quotes,
& not from Wiki, either…

From T.T.@W, P.63 a U.S. report on 90mm T.D. guns.

“The 75 & 88 [ Panther & Tiger]… are superior to the 90… partly because of the higher velocity & flatter trajectory making it more possible to hit what they point at & partly because of the muzzle brake… allowing them to observe their fire better than we… can.”

The 90mm fitted to the Perishing did get a muzzle brake.

I understood that fume extractors, smooth bores & calibre ratio changes had made M.B.s on modern tank guns redundant…

#631

Keep an eye out for a doco titled “The Men & Machines that beat Hitler”

I just watched it on TV, [ does not appear on You Tube… yet] its a personalised story
[Band of brothers-like, but not dramatized]of a British armoured unit the 5th RTR…
& it gives a human side [ at times, chilling] account of what it was like to go to war as expendables in inferior
equipment, often employed in hopeless tactical schemes…

#632

The Mod staff is in charge of operating the site, and keeping the quality of content up to the standards we have set for this site. It is up to us what is or is not in the best interests of the forum, and to act accordingly. We are tolerant of many things, and ideas,but that tolerance has limits, which is why you had a “small note” If you are wondering, I am the more kindly of the staff. If you feel the need to express yourself in a boisterous manner, you are free to utilize the P.M. function, there you may say what you want to whomever you have an issue with. In the forum however, things are different.
The M-46, 47, 48 all had muzzle brakes, as did the M-41, but those are not modern MBT’s. Bore evacuators have no effect on smoke created on firing the gun, or dust kicked up by said firing. Their function is only to keep fumes from backing up into the crew compartment. As to “caliber ratio changes” thats a new one to me. Xin Loi, but you’re edging back into “No Sale” land again. The lack of a brake is more due to better recoil management than anything.

#633

I am appreciative of your temperance & ‘small note’ T-G, thanks…

Calibre ratios expressed as length/bore as in a Panther 75mm being # 71 vs a ‘long’ Panzer IV 75 mm being a # 48…

Abrams being #44, but still longer over-all, due to its 120mm bore.
Perhaps the shorter length ratio reduces the need for the counter-balance function of the muzzle brake too…

A quote from that doco… Tank commander J.Wardrop…writing in `44…

“The big difference between the Cromwell & the Tiger made it possible for the Bosche to stand back at 2,000m
& pick the Cromwells off like a rifle range.
At that distance the 75 on the Cromwell would not look at the 4in armour of the Tiger, while the long barrelled 88
tore though the Cromwell like a knife through butter…”

[That does actually sum up what the MBT is built for now, to get in an effective killing shot while standing a good chance of resisting the same from the enemy]…

One of his surviving crew-mates states that he complained about this & was threatened with court martial if he
wanted to make something of it…

#634

Poor comparison - the Cromwell was a Cruiser tank, deliberately sacrificing armour for speed (British doctrine at the time was that Infantry tanks like the Churchill would support an attack, after a breakthrough had been made the Cruiser tanks would exploit it). The Tiger could do 25 mph, the Cromwell maxed out at 40.
Cromwells were fairly rapidly replaced by the Comet however, which had a 77mm HV gun (slightly lower pressure version of the 17pdr with broadly similar performance). One of the problems is that prior to Normandy the British and Americans didn’t have very much experience of fighting the latest German tank designs. The Cromwell was designed to defeat a Panzer IV, and would have been a fearsome machine in comparison. He was writing in 1944, so was presumably talking about Normandy.

One other thing to note: Bomber Command had siphoned off the very men who in the first war had provided the junior officers of the BEF. It is clear that outside “special” units like the Paras and Guards Armoured. This led to occasions where on occasion troops refused to attack without a lot of air support to destroy the enemy for them. This is the same human material that had attacked on the Somme, Ypres, Gallipoli, etc. - in most cases their fathers had been the ones doing it. Only the leadership was different.

#635

Churchill tanks were ludicrously slow, & still only packed the 75…

Wardrop later got issued a 17pdr armed Sherman, & while still not too pleased with its armour & propensity to burn,
he did comment that it was satisfying to give a Tiger a taste of its own medicine, & make them more wary…

The British really ought to have had the Comet ready for the invasion, as the U.S. should’ve had the M 26,
at least the bloody red army got their big guns going by then, & ironically… when most of the available Tigers were in the West…

#636

Diesel engines give better fuel efficiency than turbine engines, but are significantly heavier. Hence beneficial for tanks (if you’re 60 tonnes already, an extra 100kg isn’t a big deal - particularly when military fuel costs push $100/gallon), not so much for racing cars (depends on the race - Le Mans for instance lower fuel consumption is an advantage due to fewer pit stops/lighter fuel load carried making up for the heavier engine). On aircraft however even a small weight penalty is unacceptable, meaning that only a small number of specialist aero diesel engines have ever been built (Thielert Centurion, Jumo 204/Napier Culverin & Nomad).

Moderators don’t have to be moderate, and indeed are permitted to have opinions - the only requirement is that the opinions don’t affect their job as a moderator. And now for what the police over here would term “words of advice”. Wind your neck in. Polite disagreement is fine, but the way you’re going (notably in the “How Poles Helped Germans” thread) this site is very rapidly going to be added to the list of places you’re banned from. You’ve already got one thread dedicated to you in the War Room - that is NOT something you should consider a good thing.

#637

A lot of that can be blamed on two men - McNair and Nuffield. McNair screwed US army armoured vehicle production up a treat, until the USAAF did everybody a favour in Normandy (although realistically by then it was too late to make the changes needed). Nuffield inflicted the Liberty engine on a generation of British tanks and ensured we didn’t have a large enough engine to do anything else. When we (finally) got the Meteor, things were very different. Within a year (and bearing in mind that we’d ONLY JUST met the Tiger for the first time) the Centurion design was started - a tank so good that it’s still in service.

The other thing to remember is that nobody on the Allied side realised how much of a difference the Comet/Pershing would have made after they’d been in Normandy for a while. The biggest problem was faulty doctrine (the US emphasis on tank destroyers fighting tanks and tanks fighting infantry, the British division between Infantry and Cruiser tanks) - without this being fixed, it’s much harder to see how the equipment they had (which was designed to support their doctrine) could be. To an extent the British got lucky - the Meteor meant they could build an “I” tank capable of cruiser speeds, starting in 1943. The Americans didn’t.

#638

The Cromwell was supposed to have mounted the Vickers 75mm HV gun (which vickers said they could make to fit the Cromwell), until that time it was to be fitted with a mix or 6pdr (good AP but poor HE), 75mm MV (good HE but average AP), 95mm CS (good HE, useful HEAT round but not a good AT gun).

If the vickers 75mm HV gun had been sorted then the Cromwell would have been an outstanding tank of its time (1943).

The effectiveness of the 88mm L56 also varies with the Mk of Cromwell although the Mk VII arrived a bit late in the day.

The Churchill may have been slower than most tanks but due to its gearing it could cross terrain other tanks could not, it could outclimb all tanks, the Mk VII was documented as having survived hits from 75mm L70 and 88mm L56 frontally (one 88mm lodged in the Mantlet of one Mk VII). It was reliable and had the highest crew survivability rate of any tank in WW2.

#639

“Moderators don’t have to be moderate”!
Words a dictator would approve of… what was it Napoleon wrote?
Something along the lines of ‘I wrote the law , so I am above it.’
You’d be better to be taking a lesson from King Canute…
Just why is it that anything related to the ‘Jewish question’ is perceived as a threat, or a trigger for threats?

& in fact, those 5th RTR guys had met the Tiger in Tunisia over a year before D-day,
They were shocked that virtually nothing [ 'cept a limited issue of 17 pdr Fireflies] had been done…

According to ‘Tank Men’ P.299,
a Churchill tank crewman who had the opportunity to check out that Tunisian Tiger was amazed & reckoned…

“…room to move & lie down if needed on a long observation stint… We had these extraordinary Churchill tanks…
very narrow between the tracks, & you couldn’t get a big enough turret to mount a decent gun on it anyway.”

#640

Leccy, check the barrel over-hang Tiger vs Abrams… compare to Tiger vs Matilda II/KV… which 2 Have over-hangs?

Hitler originally wanted the real long 88/43 in the Tiger E, but had to wait another year or so, for the Tiger B…

& the Germans themselves were surprised when in Normandy… that the Western Allies had not brought anything with anywhere near the capability of the Tiger B with them…