Talk:7.5 cm KwK 42

Untitled

On examining and comparing the penetration of the Panther's KwK 42 and the Tiger's KwK 36, I've noticed that the Panther's gun isn't more penetrative than the Tiger's when using APCR ammunition; it actually becomes less so at longer ranges.

With APCBC-HE ammo, it penetrates noticeably more, but then evens out at about 2000 yards.

Having no wholly superior KE-ammo properties and an apparently shorter accurate range and weaker high-explosive shell (due to smaller calibre), can it really be called more powerful? I think that there was a reason for the astounding successes of individual Tiger tank crews driving the slow beasts.

I would to say your last statement that "individual Tiger tank crews" had "astounding successes" is only partially true. The myth behind the Tiger tank was that of its multiple kills of which a number where attributed to the wrong tank. In reality the Panther did as well if not better than the Tiger in the field. The reason why we have so many wrongly attributed kill is easily explained as such. The Tiger tank was that bogey tank that was apparently so good that a good number of allied tank crews will say they have been hit by a Tiger when it could have been any other tank. You might argue that they would have seen it but no, why would a tank be visible to the enemy when it doesn't need to? Just saying the Panther did as well as the Tiger. There are probably some crews in the Panthers that didn't get the justice they deserved as the Tiger is viewed as more interesting. - Dictonary1 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious APCBC-HE charge...

The specs table says it was a mere 18 g of RDX. This seems very very odd, since even 20mm HE rounds used by the LW carried that much... typo, and it should read 180 g? Can someone who added the figure can cross-check? Kurfürst (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's correct. Citing from memory: Was an AP shot with a small explosive content intended to explode after penetration to kill the crew. --Denniss (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pzgr. 39/42 Mass

As far as I know the Pzgr. 39/42 was identical to the Pzgr. 39/40 with the exception of the 39/42 having a second driving band.

I think it masses the same as the Pzgr. 39/40 (6.8kg) and most other internet sources seem to reinforce this.

http://www.panther1944.de/Bilder/Panther/KwK/Pz-Gr-39-42_001.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.182.95 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Panther Tank Picture

In the caption I noted that the tank was a Panther of the Ausf. A variant contrary to the file name stating that it was an Ausf. G. I identified it as such because the tank has the round mantle contrary to the Ausf. G's mantlet which had a flattened chin so that shells fired at the mantle wouldn't ricochet into the roof of the driver compartment and/or engine bay. As such it is ruled down to an Ausf. D or Ausf. A. The Ausf. D (which confusingly was produced first instead of the Ausf. A) had the front hull machine gun in a hatch-like system where the Ausf. A converted to a ball type mount. You can tell that this tank has a ball mount as the hull mg mount is not a hatch or meant to open. AS such this tank is an Ausf. A Panther not an Ausf. G. Hope that this issue is cleared up. -Dictonary1 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You are mostly correct other than that Ausf. G also has round mantlet in parallel production with chinned mantlet till the end of the war. The initial production of Ausf. A also has "letterbox" type machinegun port seen on Ausf. D. The key difference between Ausf. D and Ausf. A is a redesigned turret with cast commander cupola. Check this out, it's often erroneously taken as an Ausf. D. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7a/8b/02/7a8b026f33f9ce81b7d353fe8cd3d6c3.jpg--Medalofdead (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sinsheim call it an Ausf A. It's their tank, they ought to know. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)