Panther v Pershing in Cologne

[PoorOldSpike]

VIDEO - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...7641857936

Full story - http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html

[Extraordinarius]

Here is a full analysis of what happened, which is hard to tell just watching:

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.....index.htm


and some stills of the Pershing taken at the same time. The picture captions here are by Sgt. Jim Bates, the cameraman who shot the film, and do not agree with the analysis in the link above:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crcorbin/Colo...tures.html

finally, some larger versions of the pictures in your last link.

http://www.1944game.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4285

[Copper]

I'm pleased that at least one Sherman was popped before ye olde panther was peppered in the side with 90mm rounds.

Leads me to mourn the inability for CMAK to represent the M36 Jackson and M26 Pershing 90mm AP capability.

Cheers!

Leto

[Tanker]

Pleased is certainly an awkward word to use in this case:chin:

Of course I assume you mean it in a sort of clinical, CM game, type of way.

[RedDevil]

hopefully he means, sarcastically, that at least the panther managed to score a hit/kill prior to being blown up, as opposed to being a worthless hunk of Steel just waiting to be killed easily as they seem to do in CM.. :)

[Mike Abberton]

Except for CMBO (where I think they are truly undermodeled), I think the Panther gets a bad rep, because most CM scenarios, particularly quick battles, happen at ranges and in conditions that downplay the Panther's primary advantages, strong frontal armor and a long-range gun.

If you simulate a long-range encounter (1,500 meters or more) with moderate cover and terrain, a Panther can do quite well. But most quick battles are set up in hilly, wooded terrain (or worse urban) with relatively small maps sizes. So encounter ranges are more on the order of 500-1000 meter or even less. So it becomes much easier to flank the panthers, negating its advantage in frontal armor, and practically negating it's long-range killing power as well. Add in all-veteran tank crews for Allies, and the Germans lose any experience advantage that they might have had in real life, too.

In other words, you get a lot of engagements like Arracourt and not a lot like the tank battles around Caen (a little bit of a mixed metophor, I know, because there were a lot of Tigers at Caen).

[Extraordinarius]

CM Panthers seem properly modelled in general. The problem is the relative cost to the Tiger, which is utterly incomprehesible. With no Rarity, any Panther costs approximately 30 points more than a Tiger. Referring specifically to CMAK, the advantages of the Panther are:

4-5 mph speed
'Slow' turret as opposed to 'Very slow'

The advantages of the Tiger are:

much heavier side and rear armor
much more effective HE round
11 rounds more ammo

Apparent difference found by me in game play:

A Tiger seems much more likely to survive a penetrating hit.

Different but apparently irrelevant:

frontal armor - seems funtionally equivalent; Panthers' better slope gives similar results.
penetration - Panthers' higher armor penetration does not matter because either one will blow through the armor of any Allied AFV at any range achievable on game maps.

In real life (source = Panzertruppen by Thomas L. Jentz), a Panther cost half what a Tiger did, counted in Reichsmarks or man-hours as you prefer. Actual total unit inventories on all fronts peaked for the Tiger at about 675 in July 1944 and then dropped to less than 300 by October. Panther totals peaked at 2300 in September 1944 and never dropped below 1900 until after February of 1945.

In this game a German player would be foolish not to select a Tiger in preference to a Panther except in cases of bad luck with variable rarity. Unfortunately, this is a major perversion of reality.

[Copper]

Some interesting points there E... thanks..!