@TemDesBur Yeah.

Compared to weapons such as the 76mm M1, the Soviet ZiS-S-53, the Soviet ZiS-2, and the British Ordnance QF 17-pounder, I believe the best of the bunch was the 76mm M1, and that's not due to American bias.

The American 76mm M1 was known for its power and accuracy. None of these guns, save for the 17-pounder firing APDS, could penetrate the front of a Jagdtiger or King Tiger. However, wartime APDS was incredibly inaccurate; it was only until after the war did they manage to make an APDS round that was accurate.

In the meantime, the 90mm M3 (which I didn't add, because it's comparable to the 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger) could penetrate the front of a Jagdtiger with HVAP, and was available for use on the M36 tank destroyer and later, the M26 Pershing heavy tank.

@TemDesBur That too.

I think the main strength of the Sherman was the American insistence on reliability and ergonomics.

Reliability was a given. The drivetrain and suspension of the M4 could be traced back to the M2 Medium Tank, from the 1930's. This gave a LOT of time for R&D to make it work.

@TemDesBur I know.

@TemDesBur There was the proposed Panzer IV K, which had 80mm of sloped frontal armor, like a Panther. This actually save lots of weight in the design and added lots of internal space, but was never adopted.

@TemDesBur Of note about Panther development, it was between three designs by Damiler-Benz, Krupp, and Maschienfabrik Augsburg-Nurnberg AG, or MAN, in the VK 20 program. When this became the VK 30 program after encountering the T-34 and KV-1, Krupp dropped out.

Heinz Guderian ordered a special commission on the study of the T-34, which considered the 76.2mm medium-velocity gun, the sloped armor, and wide tracks to be the most important features.

The Benz design looked like a Teutonized T-34, where the MAN design was more conventional. After trials, where various commissions would favor one design over the other, Hitler decided to go with the MAN design, since it used an existing turret design by Rheinmetall Borisg.

This time-saving measure would prove to be the downfall of the design process, as during the process, Albert Speer noted that although given the name "Panther" to denote agility, Hitler insisted bigger guns and better armor, which brought the weight from 30 tons to 48 tons.

@TemDesBur That too.

@TemDesBur It was designed with one simple goal: be better than the Panzer III and Panzer IV.

That's all they had to do.

@TemDesBur It's also part of the reason why the Germans lost Kursk.

Hitler delayed the offensive to allow the Panther to see combat. This gave the Soviets time to create one of the best counter to blitzkrieg; defenses in depth.

@TemDesBur Right.

IMO, the Panther was designed for long-range combat in Russia, not close-range brawls with Shermans in hedgerows: @TemDesBur

And defenders typically have the advantage over attackers. @TemDesBur

Still had the same side armor. @TemDesBur

@TemDesBur I'd rather be the Sherman crew. Because the question of "Will my tank break down? If so, will I enter the fight as infantrymen?" is not something I'd want to consider.

After all, a Sherman tank provides more physical protection than any steel helmet can dream of.

Anyways, the reason why the Americans left their 76mm-armed Shermans back in England on D-Day was because none of the battalion commanders wanted them. Why? Because they were doing just fine with their 75mm guns, and that the 75mm M3 in Italy was able to knock out Panthers and Ferdinand tank destroyers in combat situations without problems. Why go through the process of adopting a new weapon when something you already have seems to work perfectly fine?

The US Army found that what matters most in a tank battle was who got to shoot first.

In Arracourt, the German force of vastly superior number, with about half of it comprising of Panthers, was slaughtered by the Shermans (who mind you, were armed with the 75mm M3) simply because they can decide if, when, and where to attack. Because of this, the Germans lost about 100 tanks, many of them Panthers, while the Americans lost 25 Shermans and 7 SPG, most likely M18 Hellcat TDs. Most of the tank kills were done by the Shermans.

Looking at the design of the Panther will show its many limitations over the Sherman. It could not fire quickly due to the confines of the turret and large projectile, it could not traverse its turret quickly, the gunner only had a narrow-vision gunsight, and crew ergonomics was poor. This limited the Panther crew's ability to rapidly engage multiple targets at relatively close ranges.

The Americans put a greater emphasis on crew comfort, which was why the Sherman, although being technically inferior, was able to compete with the Panther. Many crews liked the Sherman, simply because it was safer to be in a Sherman tank than to be outside of one. Infantry suffered an 18.5% casualty rate, while tankers suffered a 3% rate, and even then, 33-50% of casualties occurred outside the tank. @TemDesBur

I also think the Sherman was a better tank.

For one, repairing the Sherman in the field is not a hassle. Also, the Sherman is liable to actually run. Third, the real determinant of who won a tank duel was who was Han Solo and shot first.

Provided the first-shot advantage and therefore the ability to choose where to fight, pre-war anti-tank guns with high-velocity ammunition can knock out a Panther. Even a 14.5mm PTRD Soviet anti-tank rifle, firing at the side at short ranges between the tracks and the sponson, could penetrate the sides. The solution for the latter was the addition of 5mm side skirts that covered this area. With the sponson armor presented at a slight slope and the remainder not covered by the side skirts covered by the interlocked roadwheels, it worked well.

With this in mind, the Sherman was armed with a 75mm medium-velocity gun that could penetrate the side armor at combat ranges. Also, Shermans were used by the Allied armies, and were usually attacking. This meant that the Panther would already have the first shot advantage most of the time.

Wargaming logic: Hmm... only 20 vehicles were fitted with the new turret?

Let's give ALL Panthers this turret!

Amazing! How...

打这么多字辛苦了…履带确实费了不少功夫，之所以没用真实履带是因为太过复杂。另外黑豹F型的炮塔应该是这样。虽然我也不太确定，但我连那么多细节都照顾到了总不可能弄错一个炮盾吧。。。总之谢谢评论！

履带好评。虽然还是轮子驱动的，但是能造出3D效果.厉害。交错负重轮神还原。细节不错。炮盾建议改善。只是外观评论。因无法下载未做详细评测。

-BK TEAM@BKZ8-

@SunFire E-50 is a Pz.V's change

I thank it's E-50

cool cooler coolest赞

11下载11UPVOTE

@rubbishcraft 谢谢前辈

@BaconAircrafts Thank you! I hope so