Jump to content


Panther vs Pershing


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

ChopperGreg VGC #21 Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:50 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4712 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    08-24-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 14 January 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

 


On the one hand, I've heard that when a sub sinks the pressure on the internal air does really bad things. 

 

 

Yea, I have heard that the sudden jump in pressure, when the bulkheads finally give way, causes the temperature to jump a few hundred degrees, causing everything that is flammable to catch fire and flash cooking everything else, before the cold water actually smashes everything.   It's fast - real fast, most people probably would never know when the final moment hit.

 

Thinking of the USS Thresher here.



CapnLeftHook #22 Posted 15 January 2015 - 04:07 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15752 battles
  • 876
  • [ZF]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostChopperGreg VGC, on 15 January 2015 - 02:50 AM, said:

 

Yea, I have heard that the sudden jump in pressure, when the bulkheads finally give way, causes the temperature to jump a few hundred degrees, causing everything that is flammable to catch fire and flash cooking everything else, before the cold water actually smashes everything.   It's fast - real fast, most people probably would never know when the final moment hit.

 

Thinking of the USS Thresher here.

 

The quickness is somewhat comforting, but what I'm thinking of is that sequence in Das Boot, where they're stuck on the bottom for sixteen hours. That terrifies me.

 

Back OT real quick, Panthers are just the bee's knees


[ZF] 


Matthew J35U5 #23 Posted 15 January 2015 - 07:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostCapnLeftHook, on 15 January 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

Back OT real quick, Panthers are just the bee's knees

If you're fighting a 1v1 on a flat featureless plane, sure. Consider though, that 1v1 is not really that relevant, and that even XvY isn't all that relevant. It is more relevant to ask how successful American army-sized units will be when each of their infantry divisions has as much organic armour support as each German Panzer division does. (Each consists of 2 regiments of mechanized/motorized infantry, one regiment of tanks.) When the logistical shortcomings of Panthers causes each German Panzer division to have closer to one battalion of operational tanks (rather than two), you can see how limiting the vehicle is.  


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


CapnLeftHook #24 Posted 15 January 2015 - 07:39 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15752 battles
  • 876
  • [ZF]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 15 January 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

If you're fighting a 1v1 on a flat featureless plane, sure. Consider though, that 1v1 is not really that relevant, and that even XvY isn't all that relevant. It is more relevant to ask how successful American army-sized units will be when each of their infantry divisions has as much organic armour support as each German Panzer division does. (Each consists of 2 regiments of mechanized/motorized infantry, one regiment of tanks.) When the logistical shortcomings of Panthers causes each German Panzer division to have closer to one battalion of operational tanks (rather than two), you can see how limiting the vehicle is.  

 

My mind exploded. In all honesty I just love the Panther more than the Pershing, that's all I influence my decision on... my heart. Panther, why can't I quit you


[ZF] 


Matthew J35U5 #25 Posted 15 January 2015 - 08:11 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostCapnLeftHook, on 15 January 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

 

My mind exploded. In all honesty I just love the Panther more than the Pershing, that's all I influence my decision on... my heart. Panther, why can't I quit you

 

Well, the Pershing wasn't anything special either. Breakdowns were frequent, even in Korea many years later. Sherman & T-34 4lyfe.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


STLxSTANG #26 Posted 15 January 2015 - 08:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15709 battles
  • 4,305
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostCapnLeftHook, on 15 January 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

My mind exploded. In all honesty I just love the Panther more than the Pershing, that's all I influence my decision on... my heart. Panther, why can't I quit you

 

There is a word that discribes your condition. Wehrabooism :P

 


 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


CapnLeftHook #27 Posted 15 January 2015 - 09:14 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15752 battles
  • 876
  • [ZF]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 15 January 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

 

Well, the Pershing wasn't anything special either. Breakdowns were frequent, even in Korea many years later. Sherman & T-34 4lyfe.

 

True, I guess me liking the Panther (actually mostly German and Soviet tanks) comes from my family being stationed in Germany in the late 80s - early 90s. Only because they were something different, alien, to me as all I'd seen up to that point were US Army tanks my whole life.

 

View PostSTLxSTANG, on 15 January 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

 

There is a word that discribes your condition. Wehrabooism :P

 

 

Nailed it 


[ZF] 


UEG GoldPicard #28 Posted 15 January 2015 - 09:20 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9262 battles
  • 625
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostChopperGreg VGC, on 14 January 2015 - 08:50 PM, said:

 

Yea, I have heard that the sudden jump in pressure, when the bulkheads finally give way, causes the temperature to jump a few hundred degrees, causing everything that is flammable to catch fire and flash cooking everything else, before the cold water actually smashes everything.   It's fast - real fast, most people probably would never know when the final moment hit.

 

Thinking of the USS Thresher here.

Imaging the what is was like for the pioneers of dogfighting in WWI flying constructs of wood&canvas, no parachutes, and their seat was atop the main fuel tank I can't even imagine doing that(tho the compressed spinal injuries we get from ejecting today is still pretty bad).

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 15 January 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

If you're fighting a 1v1 on a flat featureless plane, sure. Consider though, that 1v1 is not really that relevant, and that even XvY isn't all that relevant. It is more relevant to ask how successful American army-sized units will be when each of their infantry divisions has as much organic armour support as each German Panzer division does. (Each consists of 2 regiments of mechanized/motorized infantry, one regiment of tanks.) When the logistical shortcomings of Panthers causes each German Panzer division to have closer to one battalion of operational tanks (rather than two), you can see how limiting the vehicle is.  

You should also take into account that the German infantry's AT weapons were far more effective than what we Americans had to fight with, as well that each US Army battalion had a flight or so of P-47 fighter-bombers integrated with them courtesy of the 9th USAAF.



Matthew J35U5 #29 Posted 15 January 2015 - 09:42 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostPhNx GoldPicard, on 15 January 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

You should also take into account that the German infantry's AT weapons were far more effective than what we Americans had to fight with

What are you referring to in particular?


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


UEG GoldPicard #30 Posted 15 January 2015 - 10:25 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9262 battles
  • 625
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 15 January 2015 - 03:42 PM, said:

What are you referring to in particular?

 

The Panzerschreck vs the M1/M6 Bazooka, and I can't make a comparison to the Panzerfaust as the US Army didn't field anything similar till the Vietnam era M66 LAW.

 

By all accounts the Panzerschreck was far superior to the Bazooka(even with its more advanced warheads), even the people at the APG(Aberdeen Proving Grounds) said "they're better to take to the krauts with their own weapons".



Matthew J35U5 #31 Posted 15 January 2015 - 10:42 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostPhNx GoldPicard, on 15 January 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

 

The Panzerschreck vs the M1/M6 Bazooka, and I can't make a comparison to the Panzerfaust as the US Army didn't field anything similar till the Vietnam era M66 LAW.

 

By all accounts the Panzerschreck was far superior to the Bazooka(even with its more advanced warheads), even the people at the APG(Aberdeen Proving Grounds) said "they're better to take to the krauts with their own weapons".

 

I would think that focusing on the panzerschreck and panzerfaust to be overstating their overall value: 

According to a list of German kill claims on the eastern front for the period of february 1944, 1219 tanks were claimed. Of those, tanks knocked out 397, tank destroyers knocked out 355, and AT guns knocked out 291. Other losses (unspecified) were 114. Losses to hand-held infantry weapons were only 62, of which 54 were caused by the Schreck and faust. So while those two weapons may be quite effective relative to hand-held anti-tank weapons, they are not all that significant disadvantage to be without, or to have a less effective version of, especially if a less effective version is still sufficiently useful against the targets it would be used against. Surely the Bazooka was sufficient for the Pz. IV's 30 mm side armour, and the Panther's 40 mm side armour? 

If this is the only area in which American infantry were disadvantaged compared to their German counterparts, I would not find it particularly reasonable to describe Germany's infantry's AT weapons as being overall more effective than those used by America. Was there any particular deficiency in AT guns for example?

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


UEG GoldPicard #32 Posted 15 January 2015 - 11:06 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9262 battles
  • 625
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 15 January 2015 - 04:42 PM, said:

 Surely the Bazooka was sufficient for the Pz. IV's 30 mm side armour, and the Panther's 40 mm side armour? 


If this is the only area in which American infantry were disadvantaged compared to their German counterparts, I would not find it particularly reasonable to describe Germany's infantry's AT weapons as being overall more effective than those used by America. Was there any particular deficiency in AT guns for example?

Yes the reports say they were against ONLY the side armour of both, but against Tigers(I&II's) and Panther II's the only area to even have a hope of being penned was the top of the turret or the lucky belly(I'm discounting those lucky driver slit kills) with a Bazooka, now I'm going on a limb here but I'd venture that the schreck could probably pen a Panther II's side armour.

 

Except for the early 37mm guns going up against Panthers, the AT guns we had for the war were almost as lethel as the German Pak 39's and Pak 40's but we didn't have anything to match those 88's(talking with towed AT pieces).



CapnLeftHook #33 Posted 15 January 2015 - 11:23 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15752 battles
  • 876
  • [ZF]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

Anything is better than the PIAT imo, everything I've read on it mentions the slow reload time due to it being equipped with a heavy spring mechanism. Granted if it worked right, it could do the job and do it well.


[ZF] 


Uranprojekt #34 Posted 15 January 2015 - 11:52 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostPhNx GoldPicard, on 15 January 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

Yes the reports say they were against ONLY the side armour of both, but against Tigers(I&II's) and Panther II's the only area to even have a hope of being penned was the top of the turret or the lucky belly(I'm discounting those lucky driver slit kills) with a Bazooka, now I'm going on a limb here but I'd venture that the schreck could probably pen a Panther II's side armour.

 

Except for the early 37mm guns going up against Panthers, the AT guns we had for the war were almost as lethel as the German Pak 39's and Pak 40's but we didn't have anything to match those 88's(talking with towed AT pieces).

 

The Panzerschreck at an effective range of 150 m could penetrate 100 mm of armour with early war rockets and up to 160 mm of armour with late war rockets.

 

The Panzerfaust 60 at an effective range of 60 m could penetrate 200 mm of armour. The Panzerfaust 100 could penetrate 200 mm of armour at 100 m. The Panzerfaust 150 could penetrate roughly 300 mm of armour at 150 m.

 

The M1/M1A1 Bazooka at an effective range of 140 m could penetrate 76 mm of armour. The M9 Bazooka could penetrate 102 mm of armour at 110 m. I won't include the "super bazooka" because it didn't see use until the Korean War.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Red Dough Boy #35 Posted 30 January 2015 - 10:01 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 28612 battles
  • 6,310
  • [_POI_]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

War is Hell. As General Lee says "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

Every man in this situation deserves respect for fighting for their nation, it is just terrible they had to die in such ways and in so high of numbers.


If I only had a Baneblade....

 

 

 


UEG GoldPicard #36 Posted 31 January 2015 - 12:11 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9262 battles
  • 625
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostRed Dough Boy, on 30 January 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

War is Hell. As General Lee says "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

Every man in this situation deserves respect for fighting for their nation, it is just terrible they had to die in such ways and in so high of numbers.

 

Very true, but raw unfettered violence has solved more problems than passiveness. And I agree one death is a tragedy, but the world is changed by rivers of blood.

Red Dough Boy #37 Posted 03 February 2015 - 08:55 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 28612 battles
  • 6,310
  • [_POI_]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostPhNx GoldPicard, on 30 January 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

 

Very true, but raw unfettered violence has solved more problems than passiveness. And I agree one death is a tragedy, but the world is changed by rivers of blood.

 

I can agree that certain wars are necessary; however, America has a record of getting involved in long, protracted engagements that ultimately end up accomplishing little, and cost too many lives on both sides. Primarily the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all wars that should not have lasted for as long as they have. I support the troops from any nation 100%, yet I do not support a war that does not have a clear purpose, and kills far too many on both sides. That being said ISIS needs to be fought because they kill anyone that does not share in their extreme beliefs.

If I only had a Baneblade....

 

 

 


Chieftain WGA #38 Posted 04 February 2015 - 08:57 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostCapnLeftHook, on 15 January 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

Anything is better than the PIAT imo, everything I've read on it mentions the slow reload time due to it being equipped with a heavy spring mechanism. Granted if it worked right, it could do the job and do it well.

 

 


 

PIAT had two very nice advantages, though, being a mortar instead of a recoilless rifle or rocket launcher.


 

Firstly, it had no signature of note. No massive plume of smoke or flame to let everyone and their uncle know where you fired from.

Secondly, because it had no backblast, it could be fired from anywhere. Within buildings, bunkers, from inside vehicles, even.



silvapjp #39 Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:37 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18242 battles
  • 123
  • [TUGAS]
  • Member since:
    01-23-2016
One of these Pershing (from the 3rd armored division) was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot by a Nashorn from the 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945.

Edited by silvapjp, 02 August 2016 - 11:46 PM.


silvapjp #40 Posted 03 August 2016 - 04:24 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18242 battles
  • 123
  • [TUGAS]
  • Member since:
    01-23-2016

One of these Pershing (from the 3rd armored division) was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot by a Nashorn from the 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945.

 

The famous combat between the Panther and the Pershing only ended with a victory of the Pershing because the Panther crew hesitated shooting a tank that they never saw before. Otherwise the Pershing would be knocked out like the Sherman before. The Panther was already targeting the Pershing when it reached the intersection. Even the crew of the Pershing was puzzled by the reaction of the Panther.

One of these Pershing (from the 3rd armored division) was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot by a Nashorn from the 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945.

 

The famous combat between the Panther and the Pershing only ended with a victory of the Pershing because the Panther crew hesitated shooting a tank that they never saw before. Otherwise the Pershing would be knocked out like the Sherman before. The Panther was already targeting the Pershing when it reached the intersection. Even the crew of the Pershing was puzzled by the reaction of the Panther.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users