Destroying the Panthers

[mirth]

Canadian article. Worth the read. Click the Download button on the right for the PDF.

http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol25/iss2/13/

[besilarius]

Excellent find, Mirth.  This is really good.

[mirth]

Buddy from my local gaming group sent me the link. Interesting read.

[ArizonaTank]

Good stuff.  More talking points for me next time I bump into one of those wargaming Teutonophiles at the next Historicon; I had a spirited debate with one of those guys two years ago, over the relative mediocrity of late war Pz IVs vs an up-gunned Sherman, and the fact that in Normandy, only about half of the German medium tanks were Panthers.  He was apoplectic that I would even question the uberness of the Wehrmacht.

[mirth]

Hell, I've seen dudes at cons wearing Das Reich t-shirts and caps lile it's a friggin ball team 

[MIGMaster]

Good stuff - thanks for the heads-up!

[besilarius]

Thee was a book, about 8 - 10 years ago, by a maintenance and repair officer in 3rd US armor division.
Makes me want to go back and compare the two systems.

Having bought into the general wisdom that panthers were mechanically deficient, it now looks like our anti-tank was better than I had thought.
Inparticular, the british 17lb.  In hindsight, it makes the landing of the british on the east of the Normandy landings (nearest Paris and the open plains) a brilliant move.  The US a/t guns were designed to be lighter for movement.  (Weigley's "Eisenhowers Lieutenants")

[Staggerwing]

The German tankers were quite aware of the 17 Pounder's killing power and would try to take out any British Sherman 'Fireflys' first before worrying about the non-upgunned Shermans. Ironically, the British offered the 17 Pounder to the US Army but the US Army's command didn't want to disrupt the production lines and was still not convinced the best way to kill a tank was with another tank, preferring first towed AT guns and later dedicated lightweight tank destroyers, both of which were more suited to defense than offense.