How to hunt a panther

[Franconicus]

Look at this: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...id=126&lang=en

[King Kurt]

What a good site - I had a good look round - very interesting stuff there.

Some comments on the Panther statistics:
1) Despite all the comments re mechanical reliability in accounts of Kursk, not many of the breakdowns seemed to have caused the loss of the tank.
2) I didn't notice any tanks knocked out by aircraft - all those Il 2s about you thought they would have knocked out a few.
3) A lot had been knocked out by 85mm rounds, which were an AA gun. This Soviet version of the 88 is not that well known, so it was interesting that they were used in this way. You can see why the Soviets got it into the T34 ASAP.
4) The involvement of mines in a lot of the casulties was interesting - those Soviet defence belts must have been really tough.
5) Finally - you have to say tank 634 obviously must have had a bad day!!

Have a look at the tank articles - really interesting - especially the comparison of the JS 2 vs the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger. There is a great account of an ambush by a JS2 on 7 King Tigers where the Soviet tank knocks out 3 and the other 4 retreat off home.

[Kraxis]

If you click on the red text you get a picture of said tank... Notice how many of them have numerous hits but that actually penetrated the armour.

Check out the picture of tank 441...

535 is also rather nice but more because you can see the result of said tank behind it.

The the third last, what can anybody say but "BAM!!!!"

312 is odd, it is said to have been blown up by the crew due to technical failure, but a visible 76.2mm penetration is on the turret side.

The reason there aren't many technical failures is because they never reached the frontlines but had to be left behind, so not many would have been captured.
There is a single tank knocked out by a plane... guess which, I have already mentioned it.

[Franconicus]

Well one was hit by a 100kg bomb (the one below 824). There is not enough left to identify its number

[Kraxis]

You know I read a similar "First contact with King Tiger" account.

Like this one it was put up as official (with various offiers chiming in at various points) and some official routing 'stamps'.

In that case it was a T34-85 that did the job. It even had a comment from the gunner something like, "enemy tanks advancing... looks like Tigers, but they are different." Commander responded "More killing, less asking for pedigree."

Given that we have two essentially clones of the same engagement with different forces, and both have a very official look about them I suddenly suddenly get a feeling of having been dragged around by the nose.

Given how I discovered that the battle of Prokhorovka was not only inflated hugely and was nowhere near a deathride of the Panzers (http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm), I'm leaning towards a "no way!" stance on this.

[dgfred]

Very nice site! Thanks.

[King Kurt]

Well one was hit by a 100kg bomb (the one below 824). There is not enough left to identify its number

I always thought that the Il 2s did all their damage with cannon and rockets, so I thought we might see a few of those - perhaps there were too many other targets around!!

[Kraxis]

I always thought that the Il 2s did all their damage with cannon and rockets, so I thought we might see a few of those - perhaps there were too many other targets around!!

They also carried bombs, and 100kg sounds about right for them. Of course they didn't always carry bombs, but bombs were not too shabby at blasting tanks apart. The Stuka was a pretty good tankbuster even before it gots its nice guns, but of course the ammo was very limited.

[Watchman]

Speaking of the Ilyushins, didn't they have cannon too ? I just started wondering that a lot (or rather, all) of the holes made by the 45mm guns seem to be on the upper parts of the hulks, in the turret or upper hull section, and often in the rear or sides... Did the IL-2 mount something that big, or was that just light tanks outflanking ?

Edit: Hmm, another part of the site mentions "45mm NS-45 and Sh-45 Aircraft Guns", but the text is only available in Russian...

[Kraxis]

No... The 45mm was never put into planes. The Il-2 carried 20, 23, 30 and 37mm cannons at various times.

The 45mm was the batallion AT gun for most Russian units at the time. It was fairly good if not spectacular.

[Watchman]

Yeah, I went and looked up some info on the IL. Biggest gun mounted was 37mm, apparently effective enough against the thin top armor of most tanks. Well, so much for that.

[Kraxis]

If you found the Panthers to be oddly knocked out look at this.

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...id=117&lang=en

Essentially just mines and damage to the tracks. Tough nuts to crack with guns it seems.

[Watchman]

Well, those heavy tank destroyers were pretty much slabs of armour on tracks, with a gun projecting forwards. Although they're technically speaking assault guns and not tank destroyers, those crazy Sturmtigers are probably pretty much the reductio ad absurdum of the idea. I understand the Ferdinands initially suffered in the hands of Soviet infantry tank-hunters (Molotov coctails are mentioned with regularity in the list), and were soon fitted with MGs for close defense to rectify things (the resulting design apparently being known as Elephant).

Well, that one super-heavy tank the Brits got to a prototype stage - Tortoise or something like that - wasn't half bad in that regard either...

[Franconicus]

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...id=114&lang=en

Just in case you go elephant hunting over the wekend

[Watchman]

"Tank Busting For Dummies" ?

[English assassin]

Well, that one super-heavy tank the Brits got to a prototype stage - Tortoise or something like that - wasn't half bad in that regard either...

The only one made is at bovington and its one big mofo: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a39/index.htm

British AFV designers at the time seem to have been vicitims of something like penis envy when it came to big tanks, since they also came up with the Conqueror as a IS3 killer http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/fv214/index.htm Quite a nice looking vehicle but you have to say the (medium weight) Centurion was a better tank all round.

[Kagemusha]

Well basicly in the end of the war. The Tank hunting came pretty much easier. Becouse of the Panzerfaust,panzershreck and Bazooka. But from the start to end the most reliable infantry weapon against the tanks was satchel charge. Finish infantry destroyed even KV-2 and JS heavy tanks with simple explosives.

[Watchman]

Big enough a blast and any tank becomes so much shredded tin foil. That's one thing the Bigger Hammer principle works well on.

Anyway, the heavy tanks (eg. the IS series and its Western equivalents) got phased out from national arsenals around the Korean War; too cost-inefficient, logistically problematic, slow, and simply not worth the hassle. The superheavies like the legendary Maus never worked right to begin with. Hence the MBT principle; a solid middleweight tank that strikes a good balance between speed, power and resiliency.

'Course, I think modern MBTs weigh in the range of the WW2 heavies, but that's beside the point.

[Kraxis]

The only one made is at bovington and its one big mofo: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a39/index.htm

British AFV designers at the time seem to have been vicitims of something like penis envy when it came to big tanks, since they also came up with the Conqueror as a IS3 killer http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/fv214/index.htm Quite a nice looking vehicle but you have to say the (medium weight) Centurion was a better tank all round.

Very nice... Very nice... That Conqueror has a very moderns look, and a very efficient look as well. The Centurion looks like an upgraded Churchill. I like the Conqueror, but it has what looks like an inherited look from the Pershing. Actually it looks far more like and American tank than a British.

The Tortoise is ugly, it hasn't got the sleek looks of the Jagdpanther, or the menacing appearance of the Jagdtiger or even the brutal efficiency of the SU-152 or 122. No wonder only a single was made.
It is with tanks as it is with planes, well designed tanks just look better (the Churchill does stand out however).

The trouble with the Ferdinand wasn't that it was a bad weapon at all, but how it was used. It was as unknown to the Germans as it was to the Russians (they actually fled at the sight of it first). By cahnce the Russians managed to seperate the Ferdinands from their infantry, and suddenly they were vulnerable to close assaults. The Germans on the other hand failed to grasp that the Ferdinands could never become anything but a support weapon (a superb support weapon perhaps) and thought that its gun would sweep the field before it. The initial encounters confirmed the Germans' idea but later... well, we know the result.

After Kursk the Elephant was used correctly and the remaining few served for a rather long time, giving valuable support against tanks. It found it's niche and performed outstandingly. But other weapons were simply better suited, such weapons as the Nashorn, perfect for the Russian plains.

Btw, the daily little interesting tidbit from WWII:
In Italy the Germans were pulling back, but a rearguard was posted in a small village, it consisted of a single 88 in its AA variant and a handful of close defence infantry. A few platoons of infantry would have cleared the village in half an hour or less. But unfortunately for the Allies the leading tanks had outstripped their infantry and were now alone.
The commander saw the village for what it was, an ambush, but he couldn't go around it, he had to follow the road more or less. So he did what any sensile commander would do, he sent a single tank ahead to scout. Bam and it was knocked out... He sent another tank and the result was the same. This went on for a good while until finally a single tank rolled into the little square where it found the crew of the 88 surrendering.
Understandingly the tankcrew was surprised at this, after all the gun was pointing right at the tank, it could have taken it out easily. So the tankcommander asked the guncommander why he had surrendered and the man gave a very interesting answer:
"I ran out of shells, you didn't run out of tanks."

[Franconicus]

I always thought any allied tank commander would have solved the problem by calling the air force.

So what is the right use for the Ferdinand:

1. Use them in defense only;
2. Use them behind a strong infantry line.
3. Dig them 30 cm so the wheels are protected.
4. Secure the flanks with some tanks.
5. Add some 2cm twin flak - they can keep Il2 away and hold the infantry down.
6. Plave some mechanics right behind.
   Maybe also some Panzergrenadiere as reserve.

Then let the Soviets attack frontal.

Did you know that the Germans modified Panzer III vehicles and used them as ammo carriers for the Ferdinands.

[Watchman]

They made somehting of an art form out of converting captured and/or just plain obsolete vehicles for assorted support roles in general. Stripping old tanks of their turrets and converting them to light assault guns was a pretty popular one.

[Kraxis]

I always thought any allied tank commander would have solved the problem by calling the air force.

So what is the right use for the Ferdinand:

1. Use them in defense only;
2. Use them behind a strong infantry line.
3. Dig them 30 cm so the wheels are protected.
4. Secure the flanks with some tanks.
5. Add some 2cm twin flak - they can keep Il2 away and hold the infantry down.
6. Plave some mechanics right behind.
   Maybe also some Panzergrenadiere as reserve.

Then let the Soviets attack frontal.

Well in Italy they didn't have such an overpowering aircover at first, so the commander possibly didn't have the option. But he was one cynical person.
Whenever I think of that incident I can't help but also think of Starship Troopers where the bugs attack the outpost and use their bodies to create a ramp to the walls. Those cases are quite similar. "Hah! I will let him expend all his ammo on killing my tanks, then it will be easy."

But the Ferdinand/Elephant was useable as a normal, if somewhat heavy TD. It didn't need more support than most other assault guns or TDs in the German army. What could do that the others could not, was take on any Russian tank attack and live through it. So if it was around, then the line was secure

[Franconicus]

Reminds me of how the Russians cleared the minefields

[Kraxis]

Yeah it is similar to the British getting the subs to deplete their torpedoes on battleships, cruisers and other warships to get the merchants to get through.
Silly...

But the Russian minefield clearing was done normally, but once in a while they had a penal battalion nearby, so why not use it.
This could of course not be used on minefields that were covered by machineguns, which most were.

I heard a story from a Pole once, that the Russians kept attackign a village in Poland with penal troops, unarmed of course. The Germans of course killed them, but in the process melted the barrels of their MG42s so they were useless. I have to add that given the rapid exchange of barrels for the MG42 I find it increadible that they could destroy some three barrels or more for each machinegun.
After this the regular attacked and 'easily' took the village.

[Husar]

Go here and have a look at Landkreuzer P 1000 "Ratte".
It´s all german, but if you can´t read it, you may get the idea from the 2D plan.