loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
at least 5 shermans/T-34s to a panther.
Army with best weapons
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Germans were the first to experiment with SLR's, wonder why they weren't adopted? - reliability is my guess.[/quote]
Actually it was not reliability. I remember reading somewhere that the reason why the a German SLR was not done is because of lack of resources. The resources that could have been used to make a SLR went to "wonder weapons". I think I read this MHQ a LONG time ago. I daresay that if the Whermacht were to have deployed a SLR I think it would have been as good as the Garand.
:{)
Actually it was not reliability. I remember reading somewhere that the reason why the a German SLR was not done is because of lack of resources. The resources that could have been used to make a SLR went to "wonder weapons". I think I read this MHQ a LONG time ago. I daresay that if the Whermacht were to have deployed a SLR I think it would have been as good as the Garand.
:{)
Another thing about the Sherm is that even damaged, unless ti was blown to picces, it could be retrieved, repaired and put back into action. I still think that the Sherman was the best all around tank, not because of its armour and gun but because of its speed, numbers, and reliability. It could also be modified to serve in a plethora of roles from DD tank to crab, to dozer without too much effect on its performance. It was a good all around tank. But yes it would take 5 to 9 Sherms to kill one Tiger. But does anyone know what the ratio was for a Pershing vs Tiger/Panther?
:{)
:{)
The K98k was the most accurate bolt action rifle of WW2, it was the strongest and most reliable as-well. Only in RoF is the Lee Enfield and Garand superior, nothing else.[/quote]
I will argue that if we are talking bolt action rifles, the 1903 was the best for the same reasons, I feel it was the strongest most reliable BA rifle of WWII. Now before I hear that I skew US, I would not give a plug nickle for a M1 Carbine, Resing SMG and that .30 caliber MG thang with a stock.
:{)
I will argue that if we are talking bolt action rifles, the 1903 was the best for the same reasons, I feel it was the strongest most reliable BA rifle of WWII. Now before I hear that I skew US, I would not give a plug nickle for a M1 Carbine, Resing SMG and that .30 caliber MG thang with a stock.
:{)
CurzonDax said:
With normal issue iron sights, I would agree, with a scope, hell no. With a scope an excellent condition K98k will outshoot an excellent condition M1903 all day long. The combination of the above average quality barrell and superb long range ammunition, helps ensure the K98k is the sure winner in any long range precision shooting between the two. (I'm talking with all original rifle's here, not Bubba-ized ones)
As for the action, besides being very similar(The M1903 nearly a complete copy), the K98k's action is stronger, simpler and more robust. Also there were some quality issues with early number Springfield actions, and these are down right dangerous to shoot.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
PlanD:
Yes, still numbers and reliability were what was needed, the Panther G almost solved these, but could still have been better.
Not as bad as the KonigsTiger's, but nowhere near that of the TigerI's.
The Panther could be defeated by an allied 75mm, and was. The JS2 could not - though an early one definately could, how embarrasing!
The JS2 quality was variable, but then variable is almost as bad as always poor.
loomaluftwaffe:
Depends on usage, crews and terrain. In certain circumtances 10 tanks could fall to a Panther's gun, maybe even more! In others 1 T34/Sherm could kill a Panther.
Soren:
Accuracy, strength and reliability are roughly the same as the Mosin-Nagant, Springfield or SMLE/No.4. It depends on your viewpoint of the weapon, but that is a professional gunsmith's opinion.
To my knowledge all WW2 Sniper rifles had heavy barrels and special ammunition.
For silly ranges, I personally would choose the G98, others may not, but we were talking about standard issue weapons.
Anyway give me the choice of any bolt-action WW2 sniper rifle and I'll plump for the PTRD, thankyou!
That would be the PTRD!
I don't think any pre-'06 Springfield were used in WW2??
CurzonDax:
Are you meaning the 19th Century tests, or were they nearer WW2 time?
What wonder weapons do you mean?
If it was anything like the G41, forget it!!
I think the Sherman was terrible, a hit usually burned one into an unuseable crisp.
The survivability of most tanks was terrible in WW2 though.
I know on the Zebra Missions, a Pershing destroyed a Tiger and a few PzIV's. A Super-Pershing apparently even destroyed a King Tiger!
- They were too rare for effective data, but were formidable vehicles.
BAR? Pederson? I have a feeling you mean the M1919A6?
Yup and the Mosin-Nagant and Kar98k were also used.
Yes, still numbers and reliability were what was needed, the Panther G almost solved these, but could still have been better.
Not as bad as the KonigsTiger's, but nowhere near that of the TigerI's.
The Panther could be defeated by an allied 75mm, and was. The JS2 could not - though an early one definately could, how embarrasing!
The JS2 quality was variable, but then variable is almost as bad as always poor.
loomaluftwaffe:
Depends on usage, crews and terrain. In certain circumtances 10 tanks could fall to a Panther's gun, maybe even more! In others 1 T34/Sherm could kill a Panther.
Soren:
Accuracy, strength and reliability are roughly the same as the Mosin-Nagant, Springfield or SMLE/No.4. It depends on your viewpoint of the weapon, but that is a professional gunsmith's opinion.
To my knowledge all WW2 Sniper rifles had heavy barrels and special ammunition.
For silly ranges, I personally would choose the G98, others may not, but we were talking about standard issue weapons.
Anyway give me the choice of any bolt-action WW2 sniper rifle and I'll plump for the PTRD, thankyou!
That would be the PTRD!
I don't think any pre-'06 Springfield were used in WW2??
CurzonDax:
Are you meaning the 19th Century tests, or were they nearer WW2 time?
What wonder weapons do you mean?
If it was anything like the G41, forget it!!
I think the Sherman was terrible, a hit usually burned one into an unuseable crisp.
The survivability of most tanks was terrible in WW2 though.
I know on the Zebra Missions, a Pershing destroyed a Tiger and a few PzIV's. A Super-Pershing apparently even destroyed a King Tiger!
- They were too rare for effective data, but were formidable vehicles.
BAR? Pederson? I have a feeling you mean the M1919A6?
Yup and the Mosin-Nagant and Kar98k were also used.
The Panther G solved all problems that were encountered in a tank during World War II. Imagine the Panther G as the priority vehicle in the Western Allied forces. There'd be less Panthers than there were Shermans, but they'd be more deadly and they'd be much more built by America than Germany ever hoped to build.
It was extremely rare to defeat a Panther with a 75mm , although I will not deny that it did happen. Because I know of a few incidents, and all were lucky hits or from constant bombardment.
The IS-2 was constantly poor , extremely poor build quality plagued that vehicle. While the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II - even with this amazingly awful build quality you go on about , were still the three most powerful tanks of the war.
On average, it took nine T-34s to bring down a Panther. And it wasn't unusual for the Western Allies to swamp a single Panther with fifteen Shermans.
It was extremely rare to defeat a Panther with a 75mm , although I will not deny that it did happen. Because I know of a few incidents, and all were lucky hits or from constant bombardment.
The IS-2 was constantly poor , extremely poor build quality plagued that vehicle. While the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II - even with this amazingly awful build quality you go on about , were still the three most powerful tanks of the war.
On average, it took nine T-34s to bring down a Panther. And it wasn't unusual for the Western Allies to swamp a single Panther with fifteen Shermans.
Erich
the old Sage
shots to the back of the turret and engine compartment were the key to success against the Panther ausf A and G. confronting the unit from the front was suicidal as the Panther wins hands down
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
confronting it with a really slow plane in front.... hmm can tanks kill planes? (not AA tanks)
I will not argue that if you got hit in a Sherm, in fact most WWII tanks for that matter, you would be a crispy critter. But the thing about the Sherman is that even those that were damaged or even "destroyed" could be repaired and put back into action. There are dozens of sources about this and this ability to not only build a lot more tanks in general plus bringing back those that had been knocked out was something that the Germans could not compete with. Yes it would take an average of 9 Sherms to kill a Tiger/Panther but how many of those Tiger/Panthers were recovered, repaired and put back into service? Even if the Germans could have recovered them how many could have been put back into service?
And yes I was talking about the 1919A6 BTW. Also you are right, the G41 sucked. I withdraw my statement about German SLRs.
:{)
And yes I was talking about the 1919A6 BTW. Also you are right, the G41 sucked. I withdraw my statement about German SLRs.
:{)
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
is the bergepanther a good recovery vehicle?
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
i thought the panther had a bad chasis/ was underpowered?
You thought wrong.
The problem with the Panther centered around it's suspension system and gearbox. The D Model had some problems with setting itself alight after long running times, because the clutch tended to overheat.
In the Ausf A , the running gear was strengthened and the number of wheel-rim bolts was doubled. Amongst this the drive-train was improved to increase reliability. And the engine exhaust cooling was modified. While not completely solving the Panther's problems, these made them much less of a trouble than in the D !
On the G, the reliability issue centered around the drive-train and this was constantly improved. The rearmost damper was also removed, but the suspension remained much the same. A gearbox oil cooler was fitted also, which was extremely important.
No other real problems were present, only improvements based off soldiers experience were made. Such as a new commanders cupola in the Ausf A, armoured ammo bins in the Ausf G - amongst other things. I could list all the changes, but they didn't affect the reliability.
The problem with the Panther centered around it's suspension system and gearbox. The D Model had some problems with setting itself alight after long running times, because the clutch tended to overheat.
In the Ausf A , the running gear was strengthened and the number of wheel-rim bolts was doubled. Amongst this the drive-train was improved to increase reliability. And the engine exhaust cooling was modified. While not completely solving the Panther's problems, these made them much less of a trouble than in the D !
On the G, the reliability issue centered around the drive-train and this was constantly improved. The rearmost damper was also removed, but the suspension remained much the same. A gearbox oil cooler was fitted also, which was extremely important.
No other real problems were present, only improvements based off soldiers experience were made. Such as a new commanders cupola in the Ausf A, armoured ammo bins in the Ausf G - amongst other things. I could list all the changes, but they didn't affect the reliability.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
oh cool tnx man
