Dragon Panther II - completed 8/16

[pantherf..-Email Not Valid]

I might be in on a Panther GB.   

Just depends. 







Jeff

[afvfan]

Tojo - Thanks Anthony.

T - Good call on the tow shackles. Thanks.

Tobi - Agree with what you're saying. Unless some change proves out to be worse than the old design, that's what you'd expect on future versions, until something better comes along.

Jeff - I think we're discussing not so much an all Panther GB, but rather a paper panzer/future variant/what if affair. This would, of course, include the Panther II series, or even a Panther III, if you think you can take it up the evolutionary ladder.

[pantherf..-Email Not Valid]

Aug 19, 2014 8:23:00 GMT -5 afvfan said:

Jeff - I think we're discussing not so much an all Panther GB, but rather a paper panzer/future variant/what if affair. This would, of course, include the Panther II series, or even a Panther III, if you think you can take it up the evolutionary ladder.

Well why couldn't I? 

I can build anything anyone here can... just depends. 








Jeff

[Tobi]

Guys, check out what I just found:

This is from the book by the mentor of Jentz (his own words) Walter J. Spielberger, about the Panther and its variants, page 172. A picture of the Panther II hatches, as can be identified by the tracks. However, when I have a close look, the radius on the roof cover plate doesn't fit the radius of the hull cut-out. It seems to be a Panther G part, also different in color! I wonder if the Panther II experimental hull did even have a roof when tested? The caption however says this arrangement was foreseen for Panther II. In another picture one can see that the hull has a turret mounted, most likely the wrong Panther G one (not so clear), so maybe this was also just an US modification...

[deafpanzer]

Aug 19, 2014 3:42:15 GMT -5 Tobi said:

Aug 18, 2014 11:10:02 GMT -5 deafpanzer said:

My mistake... it was actually Panther F I bought last week!!! Cyber hobby white box. Hope it has less errors?

The Panther F hull regarding dimensions and most components is virtually that of a Panther G, only with thicker roof armor. 
The radio operator had a ball mount for a StG44 instead of a MG, the drawings in Jeff's bible spin-off "Panzertracts" (also Jentz) don't make a statement about driver's and radio operator's hatches design, but the shape indicates also Panther G.

So if Dragon got that Panther G right, you should be pretty safe when it comes to the hull, for the Schmalturm I can't make a statement without further investigation.

To revive the discussion above a quote from Panzertracts #5-4, page 218:
"Improvements gained by experience and incorporated into the hull design of the Panther II were to be incorporated into the Panther I."

So here it is just like I said before and this makes sense, because when I compare certain features like the cooler air intake guard of a "G" to that of an "A" or a Panther II, its design (not the dimensions) is much closer to the latter. I therefore renew my prior statement regarding the shape and design of the driver and radio operator hatches, that these would have been much likely changed for a possible series production of a Panther II from the prototype hull design to what we know from the "G".

Design work is an evolving process and the Panther II hull we are familiar with was only experimental!

Thanks Tobi... that was helpful!!!

Back to the program... sorry for hijacking!

[pantherf..-Email Not Valid]

Wow... "Jeff's bible spin-off"?  Is this a subtle verse of animosity or just envy?   

Gesh, leave me out of the personal bantering please.  Matching wits with an unarmed man is totally unfair. 







Jeff

[afvfan]

Aug 19, 2014 9:30:12 GMT -5 pantherf..-Email Not Valid said:

Aug 19, 2014 8:23:00 GMT -5 afvfan said:

Jeff - I think we're discussing not so much an all Panther GB, but rather a paper panzer/future variant/what if affair. This would, of course, include the Panther II series, or even a Panther III, if you think you can take it up the evolutionary ladder.

Well why couldn't I? 

I can build anything anyone here can... just depends. 

Jeff

Jeff - I wasn't alluding to your modeling talents with the statement. Writing the original statement caused me to ponder the question for a few minutes. The Panther II mounting an 88 was feasible, however, I think it took the chassis to it's maximum limit for size and weight. I just couldn't conceive of how it would go from there without advancing into a new design. I guess the E-100 could have been called the Panther III if it had progressed that far.

Tobi - The hatch cover shown could have been added by the allies, or it could have just been handy to fill the hole for testing purposes. Since there seems to be documentation the the turret was added later, but no mention of the cover, I tend to lean towards the latter.

Andy - It's all part of the general discussion. No worries about hijacking.

[pantherf..-Email Not Valid]

Aug 19, 2014 19:01:57 GMT -5 afvfan said:

Aug 19, 2014 9:30:12 GMT -5 pantherf..-Email Not Valid said:

Well why couldn't I? 

I can build anything anyone here can... just depends. 

Jeff

Jeff - . The Panther II mounting an 88 was feasible, however, I think it took the chassis to it's maximum limit for size and weight. 

MY belief is that it would not work due to the size limitations of that said turret.  Most likely the REAL REASON it was cancelled as they would only be trading turrets.   

But, that's MY opinion.  LOL








jEFF

[TRM]

...remove the turret, add some plating and weld down an 88 Flak!! Well, I would do it!! ((((LOL))))

[afvfan]

Totally agree, Jeff. Even the standard Panther turret wouldn't have housed the 88. It would have had to have been elongated, or have the loader operating from the rear deck through the open escape hatch.

...remove the turret, add some plating and weld down an 88 Flak!! Well, I would do it!! ((((LOL))))

They did, too.....called it a Jagdpanther.

[Tobi]

Aug 19, 2014 18:09:29 GMT -5 pantherf..-Email Not Valid said:

Wow... "Jeff's bible spin-off"?  Is this a subtle verse of animosity or just envy?   

Gesh, leave me out of the personal bantering please.  Matching wits with an unarmed man is totally unfair. 







Jeff

Sorry Jeff, didn't mean to insult you! But hey, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.   Good again?

For me the Panzertracts series by Jentz is THE reference, but I wouldn't go so far to call it bible, hence the allusion. I own over 20 issues on different subjects, including the complete works on the Panther (5 issues). Nevertheless it won't stop me from drawing my own conclusions instead of taking everything as given, that's just me.

Back to discussion:
Let's conclude hull hatches remain a mystery, Jentz/Doyle have drawn them on CAD with dotted lines for some reason, like they did with the turret! They favored the shape of the Panther A design which is, given the time frame of the prototype hull origin, comprehensible. I'm starting to believe there were no hatches for testing, simply because they were not necessary, like tools and boxes, etc. The prototype had a complete engine compartment with all obstructions to check the cooling performance and it had weight rings, presumably with a correct center of gravity, to check driving performance.

Concerning the gun, from an aesthetically point of view, I simply love the look of the 8.8 on this! I think it's also feasible that this was seriously investigated to some point, given the fact that Panther II and Tiger II were to share components. On the other hand, same gun, why different tanks at all then? Just because of armor? When the Panther did arrive on the battlefield it showed excellent performance both in protection, given the thickness of the armor, and armament, given the caliber. I agree with Jeff that the 7.5/L70 gun would have been most likely been kept in a Panther II, mainly because of turret restrictions as has been said, but also because it was a good gun and an 8.8 would have neglected the necessity for two designs (Tiger II). I think it can also be ruled out that there was a chance for the barrel becoming any shorter, though it was hampering maneuverability. The caliber length was needed to generate muzzle velocity and thus penetrating power, as German industry was suffering a massive lack of tungsten to make projectiles that had the same performance when fired from a shorter barrel. The 8.8/L71 on the Tiger II is a strong indication for the continuation of that trend.

Last but not least, Panther I would not have died like Jeff suggested. There were scenarios to keep it in production either until the turn of the year 1944/45, or even beyond that as a Panzerkampfwagen, or at least as a chassis for a Panzerjaeger (Jagdpanther).

[afvfan]

My take is that the 75mm was quickly losing ground to advancements in allied armor towards the end of the war. As your writing suggests, the Germans realized that fact by moving to a larger gun. Researching the ballistics of the various guns (75/L42, 88/L56, and 88/L71) using non-tungsten ammo leads me to believe that an 88/L60 (same length as the 75/L42) based on the 88/L71's ammunition would have better penetration properties than the 75. It also would have solved a logistics problem by having the two tank guns using the same ammo. The other benefit is that it would have put the gun on a tank that would possibly end up being at least 5 tons lighter than the Tiger I and 15 tons less than the II.

The biggest problem I see in the upgrade would be if there was enough room in the turret to operate the gun easily. That boils down to the size of the turret ring. Could it have been expanded enough to work? I don't know.

While the Panther may have faded, something would have had to fill the gap. The Germans couldn't do without a medium tank of some type.

[Tobi]

Caution, same ammo? Could be, could be not. As you know, the shell for an 8.8/L56 was different from that for the L71.
I'm no expert when it comes to guns, but I guess the barrel length, caliber, powder load, projectile weight and length is a carefully balanced system. Designing a shell that fits both caliber lengths may in turn give away power/advantages on the long one?

The 7.5 was loosing ground towards the end indeed, but only against the super heavy tanks like the IS or the Pershing. Was this development already predictable for the engineers in the concept phase during spring 1943? Further, I think I can recall that the output of 7.5 guns being much higher compared to the 8.8, due to easier manufacturing and less material consumption, but I don't have a proof or the source at hand. So what'd you do when you start to get, let's say, 2 for 1?

Being still fairly complicated to manufacture, the total quantity of Panthers was nearly 6000 compared to about 2300 units of Tiger I, II and Jagdpanther together in an even longer time frame!

Edit: It was the 7.5/L46 PaK getting more and more into trouble, not the 7.5/L70 KwK. In general the caliber had proven its suitability for the anti-armor role.

[afvfan]

Tobi and Jeff, thanks for the spirited conversation. Unfortunately, it's caused me to spend way more time on line than I really have time for at the moment. We'll have to do it again, maybe even continue where we leave off here. I do have some thoughts on your last response, but I really must cut myself off for the time being.

[Tobi]

Bob, thank you as well, I enjoy a lively discussion.

MSC is our home, we stay in touch!

Cheers