German Panther Ausf. D
 

Jan 1943 Through Sept 1943, 850 Panther D (Sd. Kfz. 171) tanks were created. Weighing in at 44800(kg), this beast held 79 75mm KwK 42 L/70 tank shells and two 7.92mm MG34 (coaxial, bow) machine guns. But don't let it's weight fool you, it could travel at 46-55 km/h making it a deadly weapon.

This is an updated model, because we realized how off the other one was...

http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com...er_D_Small.jpg

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Sooooo much better than the previous one. Good job!

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Much better! But there is still somthing funny about it. When i compare this one with Master Minder's I can tell that his turret is bigger, you can tell by the ratio of sizes of turret to hull. Im not sure which one is right, but im guessing the turret might need to be a bit bigger? All in all I like it. GJ

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

love it, much better than the "original". Now i cant place my finger on it, but it seems to be missing something..........................O YEAH!!! a skin :naughty: :lol:

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

well dur, but thats not the point, nice model, it'll look cool with a skin

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Yeah, thats a big improvement :)

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

WOOOOOOO UPDTAES!!!!! OMGZZZ!!!!!!!!!!

*runs around like a tard hugging various staff members out of sheer happyness*

Now THAT's more like it team! Way to go boys.... you all get a cookie for this one.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I cant believe you guys already made a new model. Gj!

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Good job.

The dimensions on both models seem a bit different. Is it supposed to look like that?

The D model tracks seem ok, but the G model tracks don't look like panther tracks: they should be hanging on the top, like on the D model. You must use the same tracks for both models, what's gonna be?

I suggest the D ones, which must have less polys.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

well i think the 2 panthers had different suspensions which would modify the wheel layout which in turn modifys the tracks but i might be thinking of something else.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Oh Yeah :rock:

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Just great, another tank to make the allies sh-t their pants when it shows up. As if the tiger wasn't enough of a base-reAper. One suggestion on how to make it fair: create code that makes the Nazi tanks break down at random. ;-) After all, they could barely make it 50 miles without a problem.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Much better.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

yea good thing bf can make maps 50 miles long

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Niiice!

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I can't believe my eyes, IT IS BEAUTIFULL!!!! *fainted....

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

So you mean the allieds tanks never broke down. What i read, and i read alot of wwii books, the german tanks was superior british and american tanks in almost all aspects.
Like in Africa the brits matildas and crusaders didn't stand a chance against the german panzer IV.

oh, and BTW, is there gonna be a 88 in 0.6?

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

yes, cause there are 2 different types in 0.5 already!

model looks stunning, good job there!

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

These are all excellent models, but are you planning to make literally every German tank? I know they had hundreds, but surely you could settle on the 10/15/20+ you have now? I know this mod has always been German-centred, but I enjoy FH for more than just the total tank supremacy. ;)

Or are you making so many because you are being so historically accurate you're only using one type of tank in like 1 single map, and then never again? I don't totally understand; so feel free to correct me. But this does seem like a German tank mod sometimes! I'm not complaining, I'm sure balance will come, but I was wondering how many more tanks the Germans even had! :)

Like I say, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, but I do notice there seems to be a lot more German stuff, and particularly tanks, in the face of not very many allied counterparts. So many so that it's actually getting confusing - in every map, its a new set of tanks, you have no idea what's strong and what's not.

Anyway, good work!

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

This is mainly a rumour that's somehow turned to believed fact over the last 60 years.

Most of the "German breakdown" rumours started because of the Panther being fielded in Kusk before they were ready, also the only reason that the Tiger II's broke down was that they were most often being driven by drivers who had been weeks before in a STUG or PIV and had not been trained on the King Tigers.

Another things is that it wasn't unusual for a german tank to be over a year old, while a Russian or US tank seeing 2 months was a miracle. Also the US and British had plenty of repair facilities and plenty of spare parts while German panzers had to make due with fewer oil changes and worn out parts due to poor supply lines and allied bombing of their factories.

Finally most of the allies tanks were 1/2 the weight of the German panzers, thus larger vehicles need more maintainance, something the germans could rarely do.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

If I may add

The Panther A and D did have a known problem with overheating and blown head gaskets on the Maybach engine and suffered transmission breakages. The G model used the improved engine and transmission and was a very reliable vehicle.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

You're right there, they really took a while to get the Panther ironed out. Although I find it interesting that nobody remembers (in books or documentaries) that for the first 2 years of the war russians drove T-34's into combat with an extra transmission and spare parts tied to the back of them because they were so prone to failure.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

nice again

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I wonder if the Radial engine had anything to do with it? Strange having a tank with an aircraft engine in it. You'd have to wonder how much gearing down that would require.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I think both models are great. Both have the right terret size. Its just that Omnis terruet is turned giving the illusion that it is smaller. All in all I think Omni's Panther is the best so far. Masterminder's model still needs some work. First of all the tracks are to narrow. Second, the tracks sag to much. They should be like Omni's. Third, the lay out of the road wheels is different on each side. Again look at omni's model as his lay out is correct. And last, the barrel seemss to thick and where it ges into the mantlet is wrong. The ferrel where it goes into the mantlet is to long. Again look at Omni's model to compare.
Other than that the G is great. Omni, GREAT job!! I hope you can do as good a job on the skin.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

sherman was known as tommy cooker ! od name for a tank?

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I believe it was due to even glancing blows causing the tank to burst into flames. One thing that American tankers really resented was when they destroyed a german tank more often than not most of the crew go out alive, while they were assured a fiery painful death if they hit a pothole the wrong way.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I just find it hilarious that the Soviet Union, who's armor matched or outdid that of Germany for the entire length of the war has 2 tanks models as compared to Germany's 20+.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I think he want kv and IS series

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

OK now it wasnt quite that bad that it burst into flames if you looked at it. The Sherman used aviation fuel which burned a little too well. Add to that that the ammo storage was in the sides where it was often hit and that German anti-tank guns had no problems penetrating a Sherman after 1943 and it all adds up to a mess.

Shermans was modified with the wet stowage system where the ammo was stored in water filled bins to quench a fire before it erupted. Also, an armored patch was placed on the side of the hull with intent of improving armor over the ammo. Problem is German gunners learned this and it became an aiming spot.

The avgas was always a problem that never went away. Germany used gasoline engines also but used a fuel additive that made the fuel harder to catch fire.

Besides Tommy cooker the Sherman was also called a Ronson after the famous lighter. The lighter companys motto was "Always lights on the first strike". Just like a Sherman.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Never heard of a Ronsonal, but I have heard of Ronsons.

http://www.flyingtigerantiques.com/i.../1011_007.html

And the Sherman being called a Ronson is well publicized. My bad on the Zippo motto but I have seen that attributed to the Ronson as well.

Anyhow you get the idea.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Way to give good reasons for your statements, jackass. The fact of the matter is, T-34/76s and KV-1s dominated the German Panzers until the introduction of the Panthers, which were then matched by T-34/85s. The Tigers were successful in 1943 up until the introduction of the IS-1 and the SU tank destroyer models. The IS-2, the most advanced tank in the world, then ran the show up until the German defeat in Berlin.

And all of these myths about the "great" King Tigers are false. In fact, they were less successful than the early Tigers since they were rushed into production and assembled with lower-grade metals. Here's a pic of a King Tiger than got taken out by a 57mm AT gun!

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/king_06.jpg

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Yep, taken out by a lowly soviet cheap 57 mm field AT gun......

Better prepare being flamed some more Artie......a lot of (flamer)posters still want to hang on to the legends of the invulnerable tigers, first brought into the world by the smart propaganda minister Goebbels. For them it is the same when you tell a 12 year old kid Santa claus doesn't really exist.......

A little study of armour penetration charts would make them wiser.....but they refuse to study that, probably afraid what the conclusions will be. You should have read the thread where i posted about the inferior quality of the armour plates of the King Tiger , caused by severe shortages of essential materials for alloys at the end of the war......i was flamed to hell and back ! But these were the real life facts....

The design was perfect......only the engine wich broke down all the time because it was severely underpowered for the weight, and the weak armour ( it was thick enough, but lacked hardness and thoughness of good quality armour) In reality it was nothing more then a bunker that could move.

When i would have had good quality armour, and a way more powerfull and reliable engine it would have been a dangerous tank.

Ofcourse for the FH game it will be the ideal king tiger that germans could only wish for. But i like it that way too, it is still a game.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Here's a listing of what I think should eventually be added ingame. I'm sure I'm missing some stuff...

BT-7 Light tank
T-26 Light tank
T-40 Light tank
T-60 Light tank
KV-1 Heavy tank
IS-1 Heavy tank
IS-2 Heavy tank
SU-85 Tank destroyer
SU-100 Tank destroyer
SU-122 Tank destroyer
ISU-152 Tank destroyer
BA-6 Armored Car
BA-64B Armored Car
NKL-26 / RF-8-GA98 Snowmobile

57mm AT Cannon
76mm Field Guns
85mm Field Guns
107mm Field Guns
152mm Howitzers

IL-2 Shturmovik
Yak-1
La-7
TB-3

Mosin Nagant Rifle/Sniper Rifle
SVT-38 Semi-Automatic Rifle
Ppsh 43 SMG (Ppsh 41 is already ingame)
PTRD Anti-tank rifle
PTRS Anti-tank rifle
Maxim Machine Gun

Authentic Soviet Uniforms!

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Exactly. Everyone should check this article out. http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bo.../weapons7.html

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Why no Kv-2?

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Those were actually produced before the KV-1 (1940), but yeah, that would be another good addition.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

They already know that article.....

They don't consider it "representative" that it is being test shot by SU 100 and SU 122 guns, found on common soviet tank destroyers or assault guns. That it was molested at the real eastern front by these weapons doesn't seem to come to mind....

But 76 mm of the common ZIS 3 gun went through aswell.......it really was crappy steel.....

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Better watch what you say Killor...the Tiger and King Tiger are like holy relics in here...

Even (some of) the FH devs were on the defensive on this subject......

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I agree with Artie at one point:

FH SHOULD HAVE MORE ALLIED ARMOUR.

PERIOD.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I think the Allies are well represented.

You have the Anmericans with the

M3 Stuart
M4 Sherman
M7 Priest
M10 Wolverine
M18 Hellcat
M36 Jackson

Still need

M4A3E2(76) "Jumbo"
M5 Stuart
M24 Chaffee
M26 Pershing

Brits have

Matilda I and II
Crusader
Cromwell
Churchill
Achilles(M10 with 17lbr)
Sherman Firefly

About only things I dont see is a
Archer Tank Destroyer
Valentine Infantry Tank
Bishop SP Gun

Russians have had several threads dedicated to tehir vehicles.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Yeah, but the Matilda II, Crusader and Sherman variations are crap models, made by DaCrapper (worst modeller ever) and they should be replaced by "StugIIIG quality" models.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Yeh, I'm starting to agree with art a bit here.

With the amount of russian maps (at least 2:1 to other front maps) the russians have dick all right now. The t34s are like shermans becuase they get worked by anything bigger then a pnzr4, the 85mm gun doest seem to make much diffrence. The only additions theyve had is 2 handguns and 2 planes so far. They are in desperate need of some new equipment.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Nice remake!

Now this looks pretty realistic.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Yep thats a good Panther D.

As for armoured effectiveness the Russian site does explain a lot about poor Soviet weapons design. The 88 shows this in stark reality no other penetration was thru thru. We already know that the 100mm and larger guns could penetrate the KT but that only prove that the bigger the gun the better the penetration. For WWII balistics where AT is concerned the golden rule is if the gun caliber matches or exceeds the armour thickness it will penetrate.

This is the essense of the WWII Tank debate: logistics superiority vs technical superiority. The allies had a 6:1 logistics superiority when the axis had a 4-5:1 technical superiority. All the allies needed to do was pour in the troops and equipment, the germans had to maintain control of the battle field to retain strategic initiative and recover any losses. This was lost by the Germans at Kursk but it was a close run thing.

The germans pressed every serviceable tank, gun etc into service as you can see from newsreel footage and photographs. Whilst they held the battlefield neither the Soviets or the Western Allies could move forward. The germans were masters of the armoured counter attack.

I nearly 12 months of fighting the Germans took territory from the French Coast to Moscow (rough totals of the battles). It took the Allies three years to retake it. In the end the Allied losses were over 50 million (all causes) the Axis was 6 million. This also seems to correlate to allied to axis tank losses Stug 4:1, Pz III & IV 5:1, Panther 4.75: 1, Tiger 1 5:1, Tiger II 3:1.

Ultimately the logistics vs technical debate continued through the Cold War and this is where we find ourselves today. Western armour design is very high tech as compared to former Soviet and current Sino armour.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Quoted to emphasize importance:

Russians need IS-2's, KV-1's, KV-2's, and some SU-85's and SU-122's and possibly some Valentines.

Then possibly some more US and Brit tanks, and then we can move onto the Elefant, King Tiger, Jagdpanther, and Nashorn.

Edit: Although The game doesn't nearly represent the attrition that the soviets had to endure. (most of it was due to training).

Tank Losses

Year.......German.......Soviet

1941.......2,758..........20,500
1942.......2,648..........15,000
1943.......6,362..........22,400
1944.......6,434..........16,900
1945.......7,382..........8,700*

(1945 figures also include losses on the Western front and losses due lack of fuel)

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

I'm Japanese BF fan, I think it nice in model, then I 'm most concerned about its color, but the number of D type was so small,
so I have no information about its original color at Kususk in 1943.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

Kingtigers had a lot of problems with poor quality, but am I wrong if I say that there actually where some that had better armour (I think I have read it somewhere). IS-2 would have had a chance against it, but they had even worse steel. The IS-3 had better and thicker steel and a lot better design, and was undoubtedly at least as good as the KT. The only problem was that it was introduced only a couple of weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
T-34/85 hadn't really so good chances against Panthers, but of course a big amount of sowiet losses was caused by the worse tactics and such things.
And I would like to add a few tanks to the list earlier in this thread:

BT-2
T-70
IS-3
ISU-122
SU-152

And Mosin rifles would be great.

PS. M1-A1 Abrams is a crappy tank, but sadly it will soon be replaced with something better.

Re: German Panther Ausf. D
 

The IS-3 is generally regarded as a parade tanks since none of them made it to the front in time to fight German Tanks and spent most of their time driving up and down Red Square.

Regarding the King Tiger, while it's true that compared to the Tiger I the standards were lowered due to allied bombing and time restraints it's still safe to say that a KT is gonna own an IS-2 in a one on one fight considering the only vehicle mounted weapon the allies had that could penetrate the KT's front hull was the british 17 pounder.

The Russians got penetrations in tests on the KT, but once you take a look at the methods used you can pretty well rule out their validity.