Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,086
- Mar 26, 2007
It ok what you want to believe
Like to see that.
No, the panther was more then a decent tank
For how the French thoughta about armour and why the the really did not need a medium tank like Panther:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K95T5d_xrk
have fun watching !
that is why the copied and evolved itIn the "Le Panther 47" report, the French did not criticize the Panther's cannon, but praised its range and sight, which enabled accurate shooting even at long distances. Although, in terms of penetration, it was similar to the 17-pounder, but more accurate at long distances.
US Army's Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) study in 1946,
Like to see that.
Care to mention the odds against German armoured forces? Not only terrain ( yes it works both ways) but also a thing called complete aerial superiority. Remember those funny vids with Germans looking up in stead of in front of them? Or the biggie shells coming of naval guns?The Panthers did not seem to have much more success in their counter-attacks in Normandy than the Allies tanks did in their own attacks
Yet the did put it in offensive operations And what is thin ? compared to what? IS2 or T34/76?Already in 1943, the Russians wondered about the thin side armor of the Panther and stated that it was not really suitable for offensive operations because of that.
No, the panther was more then a decent tank
For how the French thoughta about armour and why the the really did not need a medium tank like Panther:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K95T5d_xrk
have fun watching !