Should Panthers be cheaper?

A new story begins...
The sequel to a real classic: Panzer Corps is back!

Moderator: Panzer Corps 2 Moderators

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:10 pm

Plaid wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:48 pm
Horseman wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:46 am

I guess the only real way to stop getting only the best all the time Would be to have strength point limits for practically everything, so treat all units like prototypes where you only have limited availability but more generous in SP allocation. This could go someway to say there's only so many Tiger 2s produced. But then you have to work out how many sp of each unit do you get, too many and it's a pointless system too few and it would become very frustrating. Interesting concept though IMO.
In PC 1 West GC was made very good prestige-wise, I played on Rommel and never had more than 2000-3000 free prestige until last missions of winning path, where you receive massive ammounts. That prestige shortage was enough to prohibit all Tiger II kind of core force.
East branch felt worse from this perspective, with all that prestige stacked from early years, it was possible to upgrade and overstrength everything and still have 50000 in the bank.
In standard PC1 campaing and in Africa Korps prestige is somewhat scarce too (again on Rommel).

In PC 2 on generalissimus I have 40000 prestige after Kursk without super-actively saving it. I even give elite reinforcements to auxilary units, because why not.
Flexible command + deadly grasp seems to be infinite prestige mode, adding trophies of war on top is even more prestige.
Its somewhat wierd, how commander traits affect difficulty more, than actual difficulty setting.
I remember AK being ridiculously tight on prestige in Rommel mode, not so much GC west though I didn't play that route all that often so its probable I'm misremembering! Going east even with the cap never presented me any trouble in hoarding prestige.

I've never accumulated that much prestige in PC2 - although I'm also only on my second actual playthrough! In fairness when I went all in on captures through Africa in my current campaign I did make a fair amount (wanted the 10k for winning path) and that is without Flexible command or trophies (though I am using deadly grasp, taken more as a way to preserve my core than help with captures but its decidedly helpful in the latter)

It is so hard to balance, playing on Generalissimus its tight. If I was on Colonel I'd be swimming in prestige (especially as it would have only cost me 2k to go east!)

What I would have liked to have seen is the prestige modifier effecting all sources of income. So captures/flags earn the same percentage. But if this is implemented then I'd also like to see the cost of taking the winning path normalised to 2k across all difficulties. (or a suitable amount if 2k is too low).

As it stands captures trivialise the prestige issue to a certain extent but I wouldn't want that play style over nerferd as so many enjoy it. But I'm not a fan that I'm forced to use it if I want to follow the winning path, just passive and flags would never earn enough to head for America.

More on topic - Part of me feels like Panthers should be cheaper than Tigers, they were cheaper and more plentiful in real life after all. However as is always the case with games, you need to balance realism with game balance. Earlier Panthers are a real alternative choice to Tigers and later Panthers are really just straight up better. If they were cheaper (in slots and/or prestige) there really would be no reason to ever use the Tiger. In this instance I believe game balance needs to trump realism though there is certainly a case for a wholesale reworking of costs to include the various traits that don't seem to be factored in.

sakura006
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:48 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by sakura006 » Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:55 pm

I do agree with your point that the game failed to reflect that panthers were more massively manufactured than tiger and tiger 2. However, I don't really think changing the price will make a big difference. In terms of the game play, the stats of tiger and panther does not really have a very big difference. They have very similar SA and HA, similar GD, panther has a slightly better movement to reflect its better mobility. Well, that is mostly historically true in terms of the stats, and in fact, Panthers were slightly stat-wise better than tiger 1 in the history. Well, if panther was better and even cheaper, why did German still produce tiger 1, and later tiger 2? Why not just completely gave up the tiger and gave the full production to the Panther? Well it's about German tank doctrine.

Tiger was served as a heavy tank that mainly used as a spear to tear a hole of enemy defense, and then panthers were served as "medium" tank to advance, flank and engage enemy. The role of two tanks were completely different, even though Panther was probably much heavier than any tanks of other nations and would be better be called a heavy tank. Therefore, tiger and tiger 2 were mainly hidden in the woods, and destroy enemy tanks from afar. Actually, tiger can destroy T34 2 km away, while T34, as a medium tank only had a chance to destroy tiger within 800 m. The same thing was for Panther. Although Panther itself was capable of destroying enemy tank from afar, but it was used as medium tank and thus it engaged with enemy in a much closer range compared with tiger 1 and tiger 2.

Since the game did not have a trait of heavy tank or medium tank, it did not really reflect the different roles of Tiger and Panther. Therefore, stat wise, there is not much difference between Tiger and Panther, they are interchangeable in most of scenarios. Then of course there is no need to reduce the price of Panthers, because that will only force players to buy Panthers rather than Tigers. Were I the developer, I would create a trait called heavy tank. It increases attack range by 1, but gets an accuracy penalty after movement. And if that is the case, you will surely need both Tigers and Panthers for different roles, but more panthers for obvious reasons. And then we can talk about reducing the price of Panthers,

econ21
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:50 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by econ21 » Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:17 pm

Horseman wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:46 am
I guess the only real way to stop getting only the best all the time Would be to have strength point limits for practically everything, so treat all units like prototypes where you only have limited availability but more generous in SP allocation. This could go someway to say there's only so many Tiger 2s produced. But then you have to work out how many sp of each unit do you get, too many and it's a pointless system too few and it would become very frustrating. Interesting concept though IMO.
That's an interesting proposal and not a massive leap now that we have the Protoype system already. I think availability limits for "premium" equipment is a good idea,with the availability of some units becoming more over time (e.g. heavies panzers like Tigers (and perhaps heavy artillery, jets and especially engineers (!)) might always be limited but for ""regular" tanks, stronger ones like T-34 variants and Panthers etc. might progressively replace earlier models as the war goes on). To be honest, I don't think the issue matters much for Tigers vs Panthers, as they are so functionally equivalent in the game, but in the PC1 GC, reading the beta forums, it seemed that post 1942 the game balance problem for the designers was trying to cater to big cat cores vs more historical ones (although the later prestige cap might have largely solved that).

I don't think it need be that frustrating - focus on the number of quasi "prototype units" available, with only the top models being of much concern. So say, you get first get offered one Tiger 1 in 1942 like a prototype, maybe one or two more later. Allow a stream of available strength points to top up loss, perhaps allowing extra ones to be purchased as premium. But if the heavies were hard to keep topped up, that might be a cool feature - rather like the Karl Gerat not being able to be replaced. It could simulate some of the scarcity and mechanical issues with some kinds of advanced kit.

An alternative, somewhat related idea is of imposing some kind of historical ratios. Perhaps restrict players to buy "packages" (regiments?) of units - say 1 Panther and 1 PzIV in 1944-5, rather than buying the two separately. Steel Panthers in the past and Steel Division today did this kind of thing, albeit using a more defined and smaller scale. There might be some all Panther packages for Hitler's favorite divisions, but they could come at a price. An all Pz38t package in 1940 might come at a discount. It would be similar to what a lot of players liked to use as their house rules for creating historical cores (it could even be a game setting - historical composition vs free composition):
viewtopic.php?f=121&t=46302

With Tiger I, it comes earlier than the Panther, perhaps implying prestige has become too refundable in PzC2. Perhaps you should not be able to get (so much) prestige back from disbanding a unit? In PG type games, I'm always desperate for Tigers (or even long barreled PzIV) to make an appearance in my campaigns and so would snap them up even if I know the Panther comes later. Afterall, once they were built, you may as well keep fielding Tiger Is so long as you have the parts. It's not like scraping them would give you the cost of production back. I'd be interested to know how many Tiger I's were built after the Panther came out - the cost gap does seem rather large, given the functional similarities. It seems like the Tiger I is to the Panzer IV rather like the Tiger II is to the Panther. The Panther seems to have taken some of the essentials of the Tiger (big gun and heavy armour) and attempted to perfect them (adding speed and modest construction cost). Perhaps you should only be able to refund prestige once the unit is obsolete? A cool feature might be converting obsolete PzIIIs etc. to tank destroyers! (I'm having trouble accepting the PzC2 idea of converting recons into tanks or tanks into ATs for overruns, and again think the system might have become a little too flexible. It feels a little "gamey" in the upgrade paths it encourages but the player is free not to use it).

IceSerpent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:03 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by IceSerpent » Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:13 am

econ21 wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:17 pm
That's an interesting proposal and not a massive leap now that we have the Protoype system already. I think availability limits for "premium" equipment is a good idea,with the availability of some units becoming more over time (e.g. heavies panzers like Tigers (and perhaps heavy artillery, jets and especially engineers (!)) might always be limited but for ""regular" tanks, stronger ones like T-34 variants and Panthers etc. might progressively replace earlier models as the war goes on).
It is indeed an interesting idea, but there's a caveat: if further parts of GC are built like SCW, with game play revolving around "raiding" the enemy for their equipment, balancing those prototypes would be a royal pain. Why bother with a limited prototype, if you already have an easily replaceable stash of stolen T-34/85, JS1, etc.
I'd be interested to know how many Tiger I's were built after the Panther came out - the cost gap does seem rather large, given the functional similarities.
Quite a few actually. I don't have a link handy, but IIRC, production started at 25 / month in August 1942 and increased over time to 104 / month in April or May 1944. Production stopped in August 1944. Panther went into production in the beginning of 1943.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:45 pm

1. Panther tank was medium only on a paper, it was heavy tank actually, its weight 45t, Tiger I 56t but true medium opponent tanks: T-34/85 had 32t and Sherman 30-31,5t
2. Tiger and Tiger II production was necessary and unchallenged by Panther, changing production for another tank would be too long and economically nonsensical in the reality of 1943-44

IceSerpent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:03 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by IceSerpent » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:51 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:45 pm
1. Panther tank was medium only on a paper, it was heavy tank actually, its weight 45t, Tiger I 56t but true medium opponent tanks: T-34/85 had 32t and Sherman 30-31,5t
The distinction between light / medium / heavy has always been inexact. For example, Sherman M4A3E2 ("Jumbo") weighed 38t.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:32 pm

IceSerpent wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:51 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:45 pm
1. Panther tank was medium only on a paper, it was heavy tank actually, its weight 45t, Tiger I 56t but true medium opponent tanks: T-34/85 had 32t and Sherman 30-31,5t
The distinction between light / medium / heavy has always been inexact. For example, Sherman M4A3E2 ("Jumbo") weighed 38t.
Ok, but it was still 7 tons less :) and besides I treat it as a specialized tank, prepared to break the Siegfried Line (West Wall), it can be compared to the British modification of tanks from the 79th Armoured Division (Hobart Funnies), also heavier than standard armored vehicles

IceSerpent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:03 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by IceSerpent » Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:47 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:32 pm
Ok, but it was still 7 tons less :) and besides I treat it as a specialized tank, prepared to break the Siegfried Line (West Wall), it can be compared to the British modification of tanks from the 79th Armoured Division (Hobart Funnies), also heavier than standard armored vehicles
My point is that it's not clear where "medium" ends and "heavy" begins. I.e. while Jumbo was technically still a medium at 38t, Churchill was already a heavy at 39t. Besides, I am not sure if Germany even had that kind of classification - I think their way of sorting tanks was more along the lines of their roles on the battlefield.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:57 pm

Ok, I understand your point
Like I mentioned earlier Panther could not fulfill the role of a medium tank (or the role which OKW wants for this tank to be precise :wink: ), also because of its weight and thus too much pressure on the ground, which resulted in continuous failure of the drive system and suspension
I'm talking about the realities of the battlefield but not actually artificial divisions of tanks' types

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:01 am

I think when talking about light/medium/heavy in regards to tank classifications it was used mainly as a definition of role rather than just weight.

With regards to the Panther - it was intended to replace the PzIII & IV as Germany's front line tank (obviously production never got close to being able to actually achieve this) and was thus a "medium" tank. The Tiger whilst only marginally heavier was designed as a breakthrough tank and was thus a "heavy" tank.

Its similar to the way naval classification works, its not technically the weight that defines whether a ship is a Battleship or a Destroyer but the designed mission profile. It just so happens that generally when designing a ship who's mission profile is "Carry the biggest guns and mount the thickest armour and go out and hulk smash all the other ships" you do tend to end up with the heaviest. :lol:

IceSerpent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:03 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by IceSerpent » Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:05 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:57 pm
Ok, I understand your point
Like I mentioned earlier Panther could not fulfill the role of a medium tank (or the role which OKW wants for this tank to be precise :wink: ), also because of its weight and thus too much pressure on the ground, which resulted in continuous failure of the drive system and suspension
I'm talking about the realities of the battlefield but not actually artificial divisions of tanks' types
Why do you think that Panther couldn't act as a medium tank? It had virtually the same top speed as T-34, despite the weight. Ground pressure seems to be all over the place too, at least according to the table here https://www.mathscinotes.com/2016/06/ta ... -examples/:

T-34/85: 0.74
Panther: 0.88
Sherman: 0.96

Drive train failures are somewhat tangential to the weight of the vehicle - it's not impossible to make a reliable heavy tank (at least as reliable as contemporary medium), and it's very easy to make an unreliable...well, anything really. :D

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:12 pm

This table is misleading because eg. M4 had a much stronger engine in relation to the weight than the Panther, here is "static" ground pressure in this table, so narrow Sherman tracks affect the relatively high coefficient of static GP
Next thing, 0,74 T-34/85 vs 0,88 Panther it's a colossal difference

Yes, Panther was able to act as a medium tank, but only HYPOTHETICALLY, because in reality the Germans designed a great tank but didn't have the technology and materials to produce it.
Perhaps only the Americans were able to produce such a tank in 1943-44 which would actually be operational on the battlefield. However, they were not interested in a quick introduction of the heavy tank, because they had a whole bunch of decent M4s which did surprisingly well and a completely different doctrine to use armored forces from the German one.

Panther and Konigstiger project (not implementation :!: ) were groundbreaking for the development of tanks, because they were used to develop and create the so-called main battle tank (MBT), which replaced the old tank division into light, medium and heavy tanks.
Can you imagine a Panther or Konigstiger with composite armor? :wink:

IceSerpent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:03 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by IceSerpent » Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:05 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:12 pm
This table is misleading because eg. M4 had a much stronger engine in relation to the weight than the Panther, here is "static" ground pressure in this table, so narrow Sherman tracks affect the relatively high coefficient of static GP
Next thing, 0,74 T-34/85 vs 0,88 Panther it's a colossal difference
Sorry, you've lost me here. First of all, what does power to weight ratio have to do with ground pressure and what made you think that M4 had a better ratio than Panther? The best possible combination for M4 (don't know if it actually existed) would be 450hp / 30t = 15 hp per ton, for Panther it's 690hp / 45t = 15.3 hp per ton. Second, contact area of the tracks always affects ground pressure of the tank. Third, what does this colossal difference between 0.74 and 0.88 translate into in terms of tank getting stuck or not? Most MBTs seem to do just fine with values higher than 0.9, M4 wasn't exactly known for getting stuck all the time with 0.96 either.
Yes, Panther was able to act as a medium tank, but only HYPOTHETICALLY, because in reality the Germans designed a great tank but didn't have the technology and materials to produce it.
Perhaps only the Americans were able to produce such a tank in 1943-44 which would actually be operational on the battlefield. However, they were not interested in a quick introduction of the heavy tank, because they had a whole bunch of decent M4s which did surprisingly well and a completely different doctrine to use armored forces from the German one.
That's an interesting reality you got there, with Germany somehow managing to acquire about 6000 Panthers while having neither the technology nor materials to produce it.

dalfrede
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by dalfrede » Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:30 pm

The problem with the Panther was that the engine was too powerful for the transmission.
Inexperienced drivers would break the drive train. Later variants put a governor on the engine to protect it.
The Panther was shipped by rail to the front and driven into battle.

More T34s were destroyed than the total of German Tanks produced in the war.
Half the tanks built were T34s.
Half of the rest of the tanks were M4 Shermans.
The Sherman drove from the ship to the front line.

If any tank should be cheaper it would be the M4 Sherman. It was cheap to produce, and more reliable.

I don't know where they got their numbers but FYI:
http://knowledgeglue.com/cost-ww2-vehicles/
There comes a time on every project when it is time to shoot the engineer and ship the damn thing.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:39 am

IceSerpent wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:05 pm

Sorry, you've lost me here. First of all, what does power to weight ratio have to do with ground pressure and what made you think that M4 had a better ratio than Panther? The best possible combination for M4 (don't know if it actually existed) would be 450hp / 30t = 15 hp per ton, for Panther it's 690hp / 45t = 15.3 hp per ton. Second, contact area of the tracks always affects ground pressure of the tank. Third, what does this colossal difference between 0.74 and 0.88 translate into in terms of tank getting stuck or not? Most MBTs seem to do just fine with values higher than 0.9, M4 wasn't exactly known for getting stuck all the time with 0.96 either.
I never said that engine power had anything to do with nominal (static) ground pressure - because this table describes NGP.
I mentioned several times in our discussion that I still refer to the practice of using tanks on the battlefield - I don't refer to this half-true table, I wrote at the beginning it's misleading. Let me describe exactly what's wrong with this table on another occasion but I have to explain another thing now.
I used one wrong phrase "stronger engine" but I meant "better engine" of Sherman, because when I write about greater pressure on the ground of Panther, the point was that it was too big to withstand by badly designed and poorly made chassis components
You analyze different types of tanks in isolation from operational realities. Well, the Panther engine had 650 or even 700 horsepower but driving at full power almost always ended with a failure. The real speed of this tank was 17-19 kmph (on the road or paved surface :!: ), which was recommended by Panzerwaffe specialists for the tank crews, in order to limit the failure of the drive system and suspension to some extent. It was similar with the Tigers I and II.
All the information you provide looks good only on paper, because Panther didn't behave like a medium tank in practice, but like a barely moving static defense point.
IceSerpent wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:05 pm
Yes, Panther was able to act as a medium tank, but only HYPOTHETICALLY, because in reality the Germans designed a great tank but didn't have the technology and materials to produce it.
Perhaps only the Americans were able to produce such a tank in 1943-44 which would actually be operational on the battlefield. However, they were not interested in a quick introduction of the heavy tank, because they had a whole bunch of decent M4s which did surprisingly well and a completely different doctrine to use armored forces from the German one.
That's an interesting reality you got there, with Germany somehow managing to acquire about 6000 Panthers while having neither the technology nor materials to produce it.
So what if the Germans produced 6,000 Panthers, if at least half of them were under permanent repair - short and long term?
So what if they produced 6,000 Panthers if the Americans made 50,000 Shermans and the Russians made 84,000 T-34s?
War is won not with the best equipment, but with mass production.
Of course the Germans did not have the technology and materials to make this tank at least decent.
The Germans also lost the war because of the gigantomania of Hitler and the Nazis. Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, Maus, and a whole bunch of idiotic super-heavy tank prototypes are a dead end and a lot of money thrown down the drain.

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:57 am

kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:39 am
IceSerpent wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:05 pm

Sorry, you've lost me here. First of all, what does power to weight ratio have to do with ground pressure and what made you think that M4 had a better ratio than Panther? The best possible combination for M4 (don't know if it actually existed) would be 450hp / 30t = 15 hp per ton, for Panther it's 690hp / 45t = 15.3 hp per ton. Second, contact area of the tracks always affects ground pressure of the tank. Third, what does this colossal difference between 0.74 and 0.88 translate into in terms of tank getting stuck or not? Most MBTs seem to do just fine with values higher than 0.9, M4 wasn't exactly known for getting stuck all the time with 0.96 either.
I never said that engine power had anything to do with nominal (static) ground pressure - because this table describes NGP.
I mentioned several times in our discussion that I still refer to the practice of using tanks on the battlefield - I don't refer to this half-true table, I wrote at the beginning it's misleading. Let me describe exactly what's wrong with this table on another occasion but I have to explain another thing now.
I used one wrong phrase "stronger engine" but I meant "better engine" of Sherman, because when I write about greater pressure on the ground of Panther, the point was that it was too big to withstand by badly designed and poorly made chassis components
You analyze different types of tanks in isolation from operational realities. Well, the Panther engine had 650 or even 700 horsepower but driving at full power almost always ended with a failure. The real speed of this tank was 17-19 kmph (on the road or paved surface :!: ), which was recommended by Panzerwaffe specialists for the tank crews, in order to limit the failure of the drive system and suspension to some extent. It was similar with the Tigers I and II.
All the information you provide looks good only on paper, because Panther didn't behave like a medium tank in practice, but like a barely moving static defense point.
IceSerpent wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:05 pm
Yes, Panther was able to act as a medium tank, but only HYPOTHETICALLY, because in reality the Germans designed a great tank but didn't have the technology and materials to produce it.
Perhaps only the Americans were able to produce such a tank in 1943-44 which would actually be operational on the battlefield. However, they were not interested in a quick introduction of the heavy tank, because they had a whole bunch of decent M4s which did surprisingly well and a completely different doctrine to use armored forces from the German one.
That's an interesting reality you got there, with Germany somehow managing to acquire about 6000 Panthers while having neither the technology nor materials to produce it.
So what if the Germans produced 6,000 Panthers, if at least half of them were under permanent repair - short and long term?
So what if they produced 6,000 Panthers if the Americans made 50,000 Shermans and the Russians made 84,000 T-34s?
War is won not with the best equipment, but with mass production.
Of course the Germans did not have the technology and materials to make this tank at least decent.
The Germans also lost the war because of the gigantomania of Hitler and the Nazis. Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, Maus, and a whole bunch of idiotic super-heavy tank prototypes are a dead end and a lot of money thrown down the drain.
Years a go I read a book that discussed some of the German mistakes. One of them was the obsession with the next big tank. The authors hypothesis was that the Germans would have actually done better if they'd just stuck to the PzIV. He backed it up with a lot of numbers and its not just the cost. It was the sheer number they could have produced compared to the Panthers and Tigers. It was obscene. They may not have been the "best" tank in the world, but nor were the Shermans (or even the T34s) Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own!

Of course if Hitler had listened to his Generals who did know what they were talking about then they would have produced way more StuGs and other tank destroyers. Even Guideran was suggesting they need to forget mobile warfare and adapt to the new reality!

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:56 am

Horseman wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:57 am

Years a go I read a book that discussed some of the German mistakes. One of them was the obsession with the next big tank. The authors hypothesis was that the Germans would have actually done better if they'd just stuck to the PzIV. He backed it up with a lot of numbers and its not just the cost. It was the sheer number they could have produced compared to the Panthers and Tigers. It was obscene. They may not have been the "best" tank in the world, but nor were the Shermans (or even the T34s) Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own!

Of course if Hitler had listened to his Generals who did know what they were talking about then they would have produced way more StuGs and other tank destroyers. Even Guideran was suggesting they need to forget mobile warfare and adapt to the new reality!

I also think so, but most importantly, the many experts in the field of 20th century armored forces share this view.
On the other hand, thanks to the Nazis, many enthusiasts of history and historical games would probably not reach for them, because Tigers, Panthers and other heavy vehicles built on their chassis appeal to the imagination of especially young people. I think that the adventure with the history of many of us began with the Tiger. :wink:
Nevertheless, it is a beautiful myth, popularized by the memoirs of the Panzerwaffe and Waffen SS soldiers, cinema, comics, games and pop culture in general, but not having much to do with the reality of the battlefield. All these heavy vehicles couldn't win the war.

BTW, one more thing reminded me, and I think it explains a lot too.
Regarding German technology, German science and industry were unable to produce a decent medium tank until 1942, when the Pz IVF2 appeared with decent armor and a solid long-barreled gun. Why did the Germans so eagerly include Czech tanks in the Panzerwaffe, because they didn't have better ones. They have been learning the production of decent armor plates for a long time. In Poland 39 the vast majority of the tanks used were Pz I, in France 40 there were Pz II and Czech tanks.
During the Barbarossa, the armored corps were saved by the 88mm Flak and Ju 87 very often and, above all, a great tactic, because the Pz IVF1 model with good armor but a average, short-barreled cannon just appeared. Most were the Pz IIIG i H and Pz IVE, all with quite weak armor and guns not meeting the requirements of the battlefield in 1941.
When they finally learned to produce decent medium tanks, Hitler pounced on a whole new field of heavy tanks. It was necessary to stick to the very good Pz IVG i H and StuG IIIG / IV and develop them IMHO.

IceSerpent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:03 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by IceSerpent » Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:17 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:39 am
I used one wrong phrase "stronger engine" but I meant "better engine" of Sherman, because when I write about greater pressure on the ground of Panther, the point was that it was too big to withstand by badly designed and poorly made chassis components
That wasn't the problem. Transmission issues of a Panther stemmed from a simplified design due to the desire to mass produce the tank. Specifically, from the choice to use spur gears instead of planetary ones in the transmission, which couldn't handle the torque well. The issue was compounded by the location of transmission, which made it difficult to access for repairs. That design flaw was just that - a bad design.
You analyze different types of tanks in isolation from operational realities. Well, the Panther engine had 650 or even 700 horsepower but driving at full power almost always ended with a failure. The real speed of this tank was 17-19 kmph (on the road or paved surface :!: ), which was recommended by Panzerwaffe specialists for the tank crews, in order to limit the failure of the drive system and suspension to some extent. It was similar with the Tigers I and II.
Do you have a citation for that, especially for the "in order to limit the failure..." part? Maintaining high speed generally doesn't put a lot of stress on the transmission, high acceleration and (in case of a tracked vehicle) pivot turns do.
So what if the Germans produced 6,000 Panthers, if at least half of them were under permanent repair - short and long term?
So what if they produced 6,000 Panthers if the Americans made 50,000 Shermans and the Russians made 84,000 T-34s?
So, there's a big difference between "didn't have the technology and materials to produce it" and "didn't make enough of them". :D
When they finally learned to produce decent medium tanks, Hitler pounced on a whole new field of heavy tanks. It was necessary to stick to the very good Pz IVG i H and StuG IIIG / IV and develop them IMHO.
Pz IV was obsolete by 1943, despite the efforts to upgrade it. It wasn't very fast and didn't have enough armor (not to mention lack of sloped armor) to have an effective defense. Pretty much any anti-tank weapon fielded by Allies at that time would easily destroy a Pz IV. It also couldn't be modified to mount 75mm L/70 gun, the best they could manage to fit into it was 75mm L/48.

Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by Horseman » Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:55 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:56 am
Horseman wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:57 am

Years a go I read a book that discussed some of the German mistakes. One of them was the obsession with the next big tank. The authors hypothesis was that the Germans would have actually done better if they'd just stuck to the PzIV. He backed it up with a lot of numbers and its not just the cost. It was the sheer number they could have produced compared to the Panthers and Tigers. It was obscene. They may not have been the "best" tank in the world, but nor were the Shermans (or even the T34s) Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own!

Of course if Hitler had listened to his Generals who did know what they were talking about then they would have produced way more StuGs and other tank destroyers. Even Guideran was suggesting they need to forget mobile warfare and adapt to the new reality!

I also think so, but most importantly, the many experts in the field of 20th century armored forces share this view.
On the other hand, thanks to the Nazis, many enthusiasts of history and historical games would probably not reach for them, because Tigers, Panthers and other heavy vehicles built on their chassis appeal to the imagination of especially young people. I think that the adventure with the history of many of us began with the Tiger. :wink:
Nevertheless, it is a beautiful myth, popularized by the memoirs of the Panzerwaffe and Waffen SS soldiers, cinema, comics, games and pop culture in general, but not having much to do with the reality of the battlefield. All these heavy vehicles couldn't win the war.

BTW, one more thing reminded me, and I think it explains a lot too.
Regarding German technology, German science and industry were unable to produce a decent medium tank until 1942, when the Pz IVF2 appeared with decent armor and a solid long-barreled gun. Why did the Germans so eagerly include Czech tanks in the Panzerwaffe, because they didn't have better ones. They have been learning the production of decent armor plates for a long time. In Poland 39 the vast majority of the tanks used were Pz I, in France 40 there were Pz II and Czech tanks.
During the Barbarossa, the armored corps were saved by the 88mm Flak and Ju 87 very often and, above all, a great tactic, because the Pz IVF1 model with good armor but a average, short-barreled cannon just appeared. Most were the Pz IIIG i H and Pz IVE, all with quite weak armor and guns not meeting the requirements of the battlefield in 1941.
When they finally learned to produce decent medium tanks, Hitler pounced on a whole new field of heavy tanks. It was necessary to stick to the very good Pz IVG i H and StuG IIIG / IV and develop them IMHO.
One point of contention- the Panzer IV was not obsolete. It was produced and used until the end of the war. And in fact I believe a few were even used beyond then too!

Was it up to taking on some of the better allied types? Nope. Was it therefore obsolete? Not really.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Should Panthers be cheaper?

Post by kondi754 » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:26 pm

No, I agree with Horseman - Pz IV after 1942 was a solid, decent tank, which could fight very effectively with Sherman and T-34/85
American tank crews mistook him for the Tiger very often, and battalion commanders reported that their troops had suffered heavy losses in the fight against the Tigers but there were the Pz IV in fact.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps 2”