Discussion
XJ Flyer said:
Arguably better in the case of it's muzzle velocity and penetration but the Panther didn't have the 'combination' of gun and armour protection of the Tiger.
In addition to which the larger caliber 88mm gun could hit things at longer ranges with the better weight of the larger shell being able to knock out uselessly armoured allied tanks without needing to penetrate their armour but by just knocking off razor sharp hot chunks of it on the inside.IE APCR/APCBC rounds weighing over 7/10 kgs are going to have a bigger punch when they hit something than ones weighing 4.75/7.2 kgs.
The result usually being the that the inside of a Sherman looked like someone had gone berserk with a chain saw assuming that the hot flying metal didn't also set all the ammunition on fire.
In which case assuming anyone was unlucky enough to still be alive but too badly injured to get out that just left the option of taking the easy way out with a pistol which they hopefully had at hand anf if they were lucky to at least have one good arm and hand left to use it with.
The fact is the Tiger ( and the 88 mm anti tank gun ) deserved their fearsome reputation which was earn't by bitter experience of unfortunate allied tank crews,and/or those poor recovery/maintenance crews,who had to deal with the results of putting a cheap tin can,in the form of the Sherman,up against proper machinery built on a money no object basis.Which probably explains why the basis for most modern tank guns since went along the lines of caliber being just as important as velocity.Hence the successive increase in caliber in the development of British tank guns from the 17 pounder in the Firefly and the 20 pounder in the early Centurions then the 105 mm L7 and the 120 mm L11.All following the principles set out by the '88' not the 75mm KwK42.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_20_pounde...
o/t slightlyIn addition to which the larger caliber 88mm gun could hit things at longer ranges with the better weight of the larger shell being able to knock out uselessly armoured allied tanks without needing to penetrate their armour but by just knocking off razor sharp hot chunks of it on the inside.IE APCR/APCBC rounds weighing over 7/10 kgs are going to have a bigger punch when they hit something than ones weighing 4.75/7.2 kgs.
The result usually being the that the inside of a Sherman looked like someone had gone berserk with a chain saw assuming that the hot flying metal didn't also set all the ammunition on fire.
In which case assuming anyone was unlucky enough to still be alive but too badly injured to get out that just left the option of taking the easy way out with a pistol which they hopefully had at hand anf if they were lucky to at least have one good arm and hand left to use it with.
The fact is the Tiger ( and the 88 mm anti tank gun ) deserved their fearsome reputation which was earn't by bitter experience of unfortunate allied tank crews,and/or those poor recovery/maintenance crews,who had to deal with the results of putting a cheap tin can,in the form of the Sherman,up against proper machinery built on a money no object basis.Which probably explains why the basis for most modern tank guns since went along the lines of caliber being just as important as velocity.Hence the successive increase in caliber in the development of British tank guns from the 17 pounder in the Firefly and the 20 pounder in the early Centurions then the 105 mm L7 and the 120 mm L11.All following the principles set out by the '88' not the 75mm KwK42.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_20_pounde...
"The main gun was a 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with semi-automatic shell ejection and a supply of 79 rounds (82 on Ausf. G). The main gun used three different types of ammunition: APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply. While it was of only average caliber for its time, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to range and increased the chance of hitting a moving target, though these same attributes made the gun a poor fire-support weapon using HE ammo. The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56,[63] although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate"
the sad thing for the Panther is it could and should have been the best tank in WWII - but it's many weaknesses (not least it's appalling reliability) scupper that chance.
and just found this interesting site... http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
Edited by irocfan on Tuesday 21st October 14:24
irocfan said:
XJ Flyer said:
Arguably better in the case of it's muzzle velocity and penetration but the Panther didn't have the 'combination' of gun and armour protection of the Tiger.
In addition to which the larger caliber 88mm gun could hit things at longer ranges with the better weight of the larger shell being able to knock out uselessly armoured allied tanks without needing to penetrate their armour but by just knocking off razor sharp hot chunks of it on the inside.IE APCR/APCBC rounds weighing over 7/10 kgs are going to have a bigger punch when they hit something than ones weighing 4.75/7.2 kgs.
The result usually being the that the inside of a Sherman looked like someone had gone berserk with a chain saw assuming that the hot flying metal didn't also set all the ammunition on fire.
In which case assuming anyone was unlucky enough to still be alive but too badly injured to get out that just left the option of taking the easy way out with a pistol which they hopefully had at hand anf if they were lucky to at least have one good arm and hand left to use it with.
The fact is the Tiger ( and the 88 mm anti tank gun ) deserved their fearsome reputation which was earn't by bitter experience of unfortunate allied tank crews,and/or those poor recovery/maintenance crews,who had to deal with the results of putting a cheap tin can,in the form of the Sherman,up against proper machinery built on a money no object basis.Which probably explains why the basis for most modern tank guns since went along the lines of caliber being just as important as velocity.Hence the successive increase in caliber in the development of British tank guns from the 17 pounder in the Firefly and the 20 pounder in the early Centurions then the 105 mm L7 and the 120 mm L11.All following the principles set out by the '88' not the 75mm KwK42.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_20_pounde...
o/t slightlyIn addition to which the larger caliber 88mm gun could hit things at longer ranges with the better weight of the larger shell being able to knock out uselessly armoured allied tanks without needing to penetrate their armour but by just knocking off razor sharp hot chunks of it on the inside.IE APCR/APCBC rounds weighing over 7/10 kgs are going to have a bigger punch when they hit something than ones weighing 4.75/7.2 kgs.
The result usually being the that the inside of a Sherman looked like someone had gone berserk with a chain saw assuming that the hot flying metal didn't also set all the ammunition on fire.
In which case assuming anyone was unlucky enough to still be alive but too badly injured to get out that just left the option of taking the easy way out with a pistol which they hopefully had at hand anf if they were lucky to at least have one good arm and hand left to use it with.
The fact is the Tiger ( and the 88 mm anti tank gun ) deserved their fearsome reputation which was earn't by bitter experience of unfortunate allied tank crews,and/or those poor recovery/maintenance crews,who had to deal with the results of putting a cheap tin can,in the form of the Sherman,up against proper machinery built on a money no object basis.Which probably explains why the basis for most modern tank guns since went along the lines of caliber being just as important as velocity.Hence the successive increase in caliber in the development of British tank guns from the 17 pounder in the Firefly and the 20 pounder in the early Centurions then the 105 mm L7 and the 120 mm L11.All following the principles set out by the '88' not the 75mm KwK42.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_20_pounde...
"The main gun was a 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with semi-automatic shell ejection and a supply of 79 rounds (82 on Ausf. G). The main gun used three different types of ammunition: APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply. While it was of only average caliber for its time, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to range and increased the chance of hitting a moving target, though these same attributes made the gun a poor fire-support weapon using HE ammo. The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56,[63] although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate"
the sad thing for the Panther is it could and should have been the best tank in WWII - but it's many weaknesses (not least it's appalling reliability) scupper that chance.
and just found this interesting site... http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
Edited by irocfan on Tuesday 21st October 14:24
Basically the Panther can be seen as superior version of the Sherman Firefly.As opposed to Super Pershing and Centurion which is where the Tiger had actually moved the game forward to.Luckily for the Israelis they had the Centurion to stop the Syrian invasion in 1967 and not the upgraded Sherman which they'd ironically fitted with the Panther 75 mm based gun.IE the Panther was too lightly armoured and its gun was too small a caliber to be the type of threat that the Tiger was and ironically Israel probably has that formula of gun and armour set out by the Tiger,in the form of the Centurion,to thank for its existence today.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 21st October 15:36
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 21st October 16:13
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 21st October 16:22
wolf1 said:
If you want a modern day(ish) look into life in an armoured regiment have a read of this 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Try-Not-Laugh-Sergeant-Maj...
A lot of the extras and cast on fury are Armoured Corps serving and Ex serving. A lot of my old regiment took part in it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Try-Not-Laugh-Sergeant-Maj...
A lot of the extras and cast on fury are Armoured Corps serving and Ex serving. A lot of my old regiment took part in it.
Joey Ramone said:
Yes I can. Possibly the best such book written is 'By Tank into Normandy' by Stuart Hills, a young Tank commander in the Sherwood Rangers who fought from D-Day to the German surrender. Gives a hugely convincing portrayal of armoured warfare in NW Europe in WW2. Also rather grim descriptions of what happens when it all goes tits-up in a burning Sherman.
RicksAlfas said:
Thanks for that JR. Looks a good book.
I was going to mention this one: "D-Day to Victory: The Diaries of a British Tank Commander" by Sgt Trevor Greenwood. It's very much a personal account, with much concern about food, washing, shaving etc rather than the technicalities of operating a tank which I would prefer, but it's interesting nevertheless.
I was going to mention this one: "D-Day to Victory: The Diaries of a British Tank Commander" by Sgt Trevor Greenwood. It's very much a personal account, with much concern about food, washing, shaving etc rather than the technicalities of operating a tank which I would prefer, but it's interesting nevertheless.
cheers Chaps, much appreciated. Will check them all out.
moment.Squawk1066 said:
Out of interest, how was the original crew member killed?
I wondered that but saw there was a large dent in the turret behind the co-driver seating position.... so assume he had his head poking out when they took that hit.Saw this last night.. really good film though though I thought it did drag a little in a couple of scenes (the non fighting scenes!).
Brilliant blokey entertainment. I don't think its one for the ladies tho.
The visual effects when bullets were flying around was terrific and new to me.
Fetch me a box of .50s and take on the entire German Army - well seems like it.
Loved the aerial view after the battle !
I hate F-ing Nazis..........
The visual effects when bullets were flying around was terrific and new to me.
Fetch me a box of .50s and take on the entire German Army - well seems like it.
Loved the aerial view after the battle !
I hate F-ing Nazis..........
Yep I enjoyed it. Excellent attention to detail (green tracer for their side red for ours). Superb acting from all the main team. Best bit for me was the dual with the Tiger. Epic.
Odd bits were Jason Isaacs' accent (I had to keep reminding myself it wasn't angry Dustin Hoffman in Kramer V Kramer).and the sudden appearance of a black infantryman (this was WWII - the civil rights movement hadn't happened in the US Army)
The Custer's Last Stand battle was a bit Hollywood WWII shot 'em up. Germans forming up in marching order in open spaces oblivious to patrolling planes, machine guns firing non-stop long bursts with endless ammo belts (the barrel would melt) , SS who run around a lot before getting shot and dropping dead without a sound.
But they're just niggles . Go see it.
Odd bits were Jason Isaacs' accent (I had to keep reminding myself it wasn't angry Dustin Hoffman in Kramer V Kramer).and the sudden appearance of a black infantryman (this was WWII - the civil rights movement hadn't happened in the US Army)
The Custer's Last Stand battle was a bit Hollywood WWII shot 'em up. Germans forming up in marching order in open spaces oblivious to patrolling planes, machine guns firing non-stop long bursts with endless ammo belts (the barrel would melt) , SS who run around a lot before getting shot and dropping dead without a sound.
But they're just niggles . Go see it.
rich1231 said:
Hmm I didn't think it was particularly good.
Germans appeared to be one dimensional robots.
You knew exactly who would live and die in the first moments.
No shocks, just predictable formula.
I haven't seen it but defnitely will.If it is as realistic as hoped I'd finally want to see a film which takes the audience through a load of very close shaves in which 'our side' see loads of their comrades being needlessly thrown away through inferior hardware.Germans appeared to be one dimensional robots.
You knew exactly who would live and die in the first moments.
No shocks, just predictable formula.
Then at the end just as it seems they might all make it through the war they are all wiped out on the wrong side of a 4 to 1 kill ratio with one single shot from a range and from a position where they didn't even see what got them.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 25th October 15:07
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff