Nope. My original statement was that the Panther G was immune to 37mm fire from the flanks, and after looking at the numbers, it most certainly is.Originally Posted by dalem
NO DALEM, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PANTHER G ALL ALONG. Go back to my first post(post #15).........what SPECIFIC TANK do i ID as the best of the war?
Panther, or PANTHER G?
Do those turret sides look 'almost vertical' to you?
Nitwit...
And gee Dalem, there is NO PART of the Panther G's flanks that is only 40mm thick. NONE. Nowhere.
No, the RHAe has NOT been taken into account for the 37mm AP round in those charts or it WOULD NOT still have a 30 degree impact qualifier.
It would merely have a penetration number against a flat plate, and then from there you can simply reduce the penetration by 50% for each 30 degrees of sloping. Just like they rate modern munitions.
The Panther A was vulnerable dalem, and i've conceded that fact in at least THREE DIFFERENT POSTS NOW.
But again, i SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THE PANTHER G IN MY VERY FIRST POST ON THIS THREAD, AND IN EVERY POST SINCE UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY MENTION A MODEL(and many times i did), IT IS THE G MODEL TANK I AM REFERRING TO.
When you talk of what an Abrams is capable of, and dont add the A1 or A2, do you assume i mean the first obsolete model, or the latest greatest model?
Oh, right........we mean the latest, greatest model when we just say "abrams".
Why do i get the feeling you've been purposely poking me with a stick in this whole thread?
Last edited by Bill; 22 Feb 06, at 22:20.
Panther G dalem.............Panther G
It is YOUR lack of attention to detail that got his here dude. I specified G from the very start.
But hey.......whatever. I still like you even if you have a problem identifying the 7th letter of the alphabet at times.
Last edited by Bill; 22 Feb 06, at 22:20.
Judging by the "vertical turret side armor" comment from dalem, sir, you may have confused the Panther with Tiger I.
Panther and King Tiger both have slanted turret sides, with Panther being more so, I believe. Tiger I has vertical turret sides.
Panther
Damn, this thing just looks mean.
Last edited by gunnut; 22 Feb 06, at 22:45.
Tiger I
King Tiger
No, he was not confused. He knows the difference, so do I, and the comment was about the HULL, not the turret.
The turret, by the way, need not have ANY slope to it, depending on aspect, but of course, it may have even MORE, too, for the same reason.
Panther: great tank, maybe the best one to be in when the steel is on it's way to your particular vehicle. But it's weak spot is the side armor.
37mm AT gun: An under-powered but still useful weapon, that achieves it's relatively high performance (for it's caliber) by substituting mass with velocity of the shot.
Under unhoped-for conditions, the 37mm COULD penetrate a Panther's turret side, or it's hull side.
I'm no nitwit. Neither is dalem.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
...
LMAO
For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death
A 37mm round could proably penetrate the Panther's side armor in almost flukish circumstances but if I was in a Panther I'd feel pretty safe up against a gaggle of Stuarts.
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley
Apparently you should read the comment again Top. Cause he said Hull AND turret.
And regardless, BOTH are sloped(see the pix gunnut just posted above, they clearly show the slope on both the turret AND hull of the Panther, and the Panther G had even more pronounced sloping, that model looks like an A to me)
An early Panther D yes, a Panther G, no. It would come up about 14mm short of an even partial breeching penetration even under ideal conditions.
No, but he sure was being very anal when he knew damned right well i was referring to the Panther G all along. I only mentioned that model BY NAME about 20 friggin' times in this thread...
Yes, they do.
What is the thickness of the chassis/lower hull of the G?And gee Dalem, there is NO PART of the Panther G's flanks that is only 40mm thick. NONE. Nowhere.
So what does the following mean to YOU?No, the RHAe has NOT been taken into account for the 37mm AP round in those charts or it WOULD NOT still have a 30 degree impact qualifier.
U.S. ARMY WEAPONS CAPABILITY AGAINST ROLLED HOMOGENEOUS STEEL ARMOR AT 30 DEGREES OBLIQUITY, Penetration in mm in direction of travel, range in meters WEAPON TYPE MUNITION TYPE Range 100m Range 500m Range 1000m Range 1500m Range 2000m Reference
20mm GUN AN-M2 AP-M95 22mm 18mm 13mm 8mm 7mm 4
37MM M6 GUN M51AP 63mm 54mm 45mm 37mm - 2
37mm GUN M6 Squeeze Bore Tungsten Carbide 118mm 85mm 59mm 46mm - 3
75MM GUN AP-T 87mm 73mm 65mm 54mm 45mm 1
75MM GUN APCR-T 135mm 115mm 95mm 76mm 60mm 1
References
1. "Stuart, A History of the American Light Tank", Hunnicutt, Presidio, 1992.
2. "Stuart, U.S. Light Tanks in Action", Squadron/Signal Publications, Number 18, 1979.
3. "Fire and Movement", The Tank Museum at Bovington, Dorset, England 1975.
4. "Ballistic Data Performance of Ammunition", TM9-1907, Department of the Army, July 1948.That's not the way writing in English really works, you know.But again, i SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THE PANTHER G IN MY VERY FIRST POST ON THIS THREAD, AND IN EVERY POST SINCE UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY MENTION A MODEL(and many times i did), IT IS THE G MODEL TANK I AM REFERRING TO.
Because you don't want to admit that you're spending all this effort arguing a point that you've never owned, against a guy who's already voted the Panther (ausf unspecified) as the best overall tank in WWII?Why do i get the feeling you've been purposely poking me with a stick in this whole thread?
-dale
Yep, i see you've been being cute and playing semantics.
You knew full well i meant the G Mr 'the english language dont work that way'.
You'll be wasting no more of my time on this thread.
PS, if those turret sides look almost vertical to you you're smoking the good stuff.
PSS:I WAS wrong here, but it is quite irrelevant:
" And gee Dalem, there is NO PART of the Panther G's flanks that is only 40mm thick. NONE. Nowhere."
The reason it is irrelevant is because the part that is listed as 40mm thick for the G model is also listed as being sloped at 90 degrees.
Which of course means that it would be impossible to hit with direct fire from the same elevation.
Oh, and i have no idea what your chart says because you were too lazy to line it up right, and well............that's not how charts work.
Last edited by Bill; 23 Feb 06, at 18:27.
Nope.
The important part is the part I highlighted - the text about the RHA.You'll be wasting no more of my time on this thread.
PS, if those turret sides look almost vertical to you you're smoking the good stuff.
PSS:I WAS wrong here, but it is quite irrelevant:
" And gee Dalem, there is NO PART of the Panther G's flanks that is only 40mm thick. NONE. Nowhere."
The reason it is irrelevant is because the part that is listed as 40mm thick for the G model is also listed as being sloped at 90 degrees.
Which of course means that it would be impossible to hit with direct fire from the same elevation.
Oh, and i have no idea what your chart says because you were too lazy to line it up right, and well............that's not how charts work.
Anyway, what's the thickness of the straight side hull chassis armor on your G model?
-dale
"Nope."
So then you're a moron.
I'm done here. I've posted my stats, you've posted yours, people are free to draw their own conclusions.
You have been purposely being cutsie and poking me with a stick in this whole thread(or you are an innatentive moron, which i know to be false), and i do not appreciate it.
PS: You don't understand your own chart.
Maybe you really are a Moron...
Last edited by Bill; 23 Feb 06, at 22:03.
Dale..... :tryinng to take oxygen:....... if this is the case..........stop....
For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: