@THEKUBOSSSS Certainly it had a massive huge gun and more armor than anything else but better? not nearly as fast or mobile, not the well balanced package that the Jagdpanther had.
Powerful weapon, just cannon 8.8 cm Pak 43 / 3 L/71, totally useless in close combat, high consumption, its size was very heavy, broke the track very often, very high maintenance.
@Stanislav55 Jagdpathers were equiped with a third exhaust pipe as part of a flame suppressor exhaust system, the other exhaust pipe is actually the vent for the crew heater.
@doktorbimmer I thought it is early production Jagd,but it is not,thats why it`s pretty much surprised me and now I think both of them are vent lines for cooling of engine exhaust manifold which is located on the left side of this tank destroyer.
@Stanislav55 The single drivers port and 2 piece gun barrel would make it later production but built before sept. 44 when the Zimmerit was discontinued. I have not found much info on when the exhaust changed but the Flammvernichter (flame suppressor) muffler would seem correct for the production range. The extra exhaust pipe should be connected to a Eberspacher type petrol heater for the crew compartment.
@doktorbimmer So,we can call it "mid production",because Nazi started to build it since 1943 till the end of war.Two vent lines were first attached on June 1944 and till the late December 1944.What about zimmerit,I`m not sure was it exact same zimmerit of WW II,it may applied after war or even late while a restoration.
@cronauer1985 Certainly not over engineered by todays standards and not by WW2 standards either, it did not have any "gadgetry" like the M4 Shermans Gyroscopic Stabilizer System. The Panther/Jagdpanther were designed to speed up and simplify the production process compared to the Tiger, average life expectancy of a WW2 tank was only 500-600 km and these vehicles were built with those facts in mind. They had a big gun, big motor, lots of armour and the result was an average 20:1 kill ratio
No matter who had the better tanks and the German tanks were very good indeed, the war was always going to end July 1945. A weapon no tank could ever match!
This beast is an engineering masterpiece! Do you have any info as to where it was deployed back in the day? What year? I must see one of these up live, before i die......German technology is the best! Cheers
@Lucicsux Jagdpanthers came in to service I believe in 1944. They seen extensive use through Europe and Russia. There are probably few records remaining to track down information on an individual machine unless this particular one was a dug up relic.
Germany had the industrial Power to build enough fighters and Tanks, problem was more there was not enough manpower, wrong Fighter education system.
Lack of Fuel and Stupid Leaders..not the Military ones.
More Tanks would have Delayed the Defeat for Germany because all the Tanks still need to be Destroyed. And Tanks in Forrest and in Cities are not really touchable by Planes. But still No Manpower for 2 Side wars.
@Glissmann nur das ein Jagdpanther im schnitt 5-15 T34 erledigt hat bevor er selbst außer Gefecht war , somit is die Überlegenheit der Russen hinfällig
Absolutely. Wasted resources building just a relative few Tiger Is, Tiger IIs, Jagdtigers, Elephants, Ferdinands, and that ridiculous "Maus" that was planned. Though arguably, the Tiger I was still practical and relevant; it certainly made all the heavier equipment irrelevant, though. Villers-Bocage and Kursk were great demostrations for the Tiger...
As you said, they should have stuck with Panthers and Jagdpanthers, and even PzIVs/Jagdpanzers to fill the battalions.
@Treetop64 I 100% agree. Panther was only 15-20% more expensive than Pz IV and was maybe even more effective than Tiger. Tiger was just a waste of resources. Fortunately for the world and unfortunately for Hitler, some guys in Nazi germany were to dumb to make the right decisions. Panthers. Jagdpanthers and Pz IV and Stugs was the right way to go.
@RuskiTytan - It wouldn't have made any difference which armored vehicles Nazi Germany had produced or not because the key factor was they *couldn't produce enough of them* to make a difference in that stupid, stupid war they started. Nazi Germany's comparative lack of industrial production ensured their fate before they fired the first shot. This is why some of Hitler's General's tried to assassinate him and sue for peace, before all of Germany was destroyed in that stupid war, as it sadly was.
@RuskiTytan - Nazi Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to manufacture enough Panthers to make a difference. Even if they did, those tanks would have been destroyed by the Allied warplanes that had total air control over Europe because, (again), Nazi Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to manufacture enough planes to keep up with America, let alone England and the Soviet Union. It was a war Nazi Germany couldn't have won under the best of circumstances.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Is it that difficult to comprehend, that without Tiger I, II, Elefant, etc. they would just have more and better tanks. THAT'S GODDAMN ALL. I know that acting smart on the internet makes you feel better, but your responses don;t make any sense. By your logic even if germans produced no tanks at all during the war it would have ended exactly the same day.
I haven't suggested that the result of war would have changed. You are implying that I did. Reading comprehension. Please.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 To make it clear for you (cause everyone else seems to understand) In my opinion several thousand more panthers (they produced more than 1300 tiger 1 and 500 tiger 2 - and 1 tiger costs around as much as 2 panthers) would have made some impact on the pace of allied assault. 1-2 months more for the 3rd Reich is in my opinion perfectly reasonable.
@RuskiTytan - What is your problem pal? Why can't you stick to the topic at hand without attempting to publicly smear someone? Are you that insecure, or are you just a coward hiding behind your keyboard? For crying out loud man, life is too short to be so nasty to people, especially people you don't even know!
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Because I had to explain you very simple concept several times. It just became annoying to me. What was so hard to comprehend, really?
Yes, I;m just a coward hiding behind a keyboard, unlike you, keyboard brave warrior.
I just don't like people who act like they have no reading comprehension.
@RuskiTytan - Son, if you can't comprehend historical facts but instead go off on a childish rant of insults, that is your problem not mine. Good luck to you.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 unfortunately you can't comprehend written text. That's IMO even worse. You think that +3 thousand panthers (better resource management on german side) would have absolutely no impact on the longevity of war. This sounds to me pretty retarded. But you're probably from England or USA, so you can keep thinking that German tanks did nothing but kept getting destroyed by your airforce.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RuskiTytan - Why are you being so rude? Is this an example of the manners that are taught to people raised in Europe? Wow. (shaking head) In WWII, tanks were helpless to roving fighter bombers and with the Allies having complete air control over Europe and as a result, how many tanks Nazi Germany's comparatively small industrial capacity could manufacture would have little impact.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I'm not insulting you. You didn't respond to my arguments, which is considered rude. To me it was a sign of lack of reading comprehension, so I just stated the fact.
You are american, so it explains it all. You have no idea about heavy tanks impact on Eastern Front. It would have surely slowed down Soviet offensive. But you live in fantasy world, where air superiority equals instant win. Suprisingly it took several months to get from Normandie to the German border... strange...
@RuskiTytan what does being american have to do with anything.... fpr all i know america makes some damn fine tanks.... took on the germans and russian modern models were taken on in desert storm..... 4 US tanks destroyed vs the 1.2k opposition tanks destroyed
@Holyhitman173 QuincyAdams is probably american and has some weird views on german WW II military
German and russian modern models in Iraq? Are you kidding? They had SOME T-72 in the oldest version, which were pretty obsolete by 1991 with their ineffective ammunition. Mostly T55s, wchich were like 35 years old and T62s. They didn;'t have any modern german tanks for sure.And don't forget about your air superiority.It's like saying "american tanks are crap, cause 10 t72s can destroy 1000 shermans.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 You are just a perfect example, that people in US are tought fantasy history and pure bullshit. I hope you are happy with your delusional views. Sorry for this argument. I think even 10000 panthers wouldn't help Germans to make the war even a week longer. They all would have been destroyed 30 minutes after being unloaded from the train in France or Soviet Union. Germany lasted that long only because Americans and Brits waited for Soviets to get to the Berlin. This makes sense.
@RuskiTytan Are you crazy man?`10 000 of this tanks? This is the most succesfull tank the germans had in WWII. One of them could destroy 4 or 5 T 34s in a easy way! I tell you : 10 000 would help us to make the war even more than a week.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 why does 1 person saying something rude mean ALL EUROPEANS are taught to behave like that? seriously come up with something better cuz by saying this you are just as pathetic as tytan is.
@Zdutchman123 Eh, it's the same logic where there is one loud American tourist and suddenly we're all rude obnoxious twits.
Granted, in the one time I did see a loud american tourist abroad, I wanted to throw him off the bus on principle. So atleast there is some sympathy. :)
@RuskiTytan - Why are you being so rude? Is this an example of the manners that are taught to people raised in Europe? Wow. (shaking head) In WWII, tanks were helpless to roving fighter bombers and with the Allies having complete air control over Europe and as a result, how many tanks Nazi Germany's comparatively small industrial capacity could manufacture would have little impact.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I have to disagree aswell, IF the Germans would not have fought on the exaggeratingly many fronts as they did, they would probably have a chance of victory.
@Tokatt - That isn't a Panther, that is a Jagdpanther. There's nothing, "sweet", about a machine designed to kill people and anyone that could love such an evil thing might do well with counseling.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 i know its a Jadgpanther and only hippys think this way. If that machine was soft i would fuk it its so cool and pretty. A master peace of engineering
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I find history very intresting, its your somewhat curious take on history I find very boring. Having read some of your comments I find you insulting and naive, but I am glad you find history so black and white, that you can pretend to be a know it all.
See, there you go again, thinking you are a wit and sounding like a halfwit. I find being lectured on historical accuracy, from a man who believes in the Bible as quite ironic, mind you, really what should we expect from a right wing religious fundmentalist! As for the "son" are we related? I dont think so, so patronising can now be added to your list of faults along side presumption, arrogance amonst others.
@lambhdeargh - Again, I am very sorry you find it somehow necessary to personally attack other people, especially people you don't even know, yet you come to these magical conclusions. So sad. You are quite clearly very much younger than I, hence the reference to you as, "son", which is commonly used and well know. Try to have a nice day and don't hurt anyone.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Jumping to those magical conclusions seems to be your forte, I have garnered my opinion of you, from previous posts, your youtube channel and your favourites. Also, my age is unknown to you, so how would you very clearly know my age? As I would say, we are either of a similar age, or most likely I am older than you. So "son" pogue ma thon an bod ceann thu.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@lambhdeargh - It is quite apparent you get off on attempting to insult people over the Internet that you don't even know, while at the same time passing judgement on people whilst hiding behind your computer. Congratulations, you're a hero. Again, your insecurity is showing. Have a nice day.
You just don't see the irony of that statement do you? You have made a poor showing of judging and insulting others including myself, yet only you are in judged and insulted, all while you hide behind your computer! You make me laugh, next you will be telling us how creationism is fact, and how evolutionism is a hoax designed to confuse intellectually weak people, or that the death of 180,000 Iraqis was a good thing. Ohh, sorry you did claim that last one!
@JohnQuincyAdams1 You see, I responded to your bilious comments, but you are obviously blind to your own hatred, and only see it in others. By insinuating that I need counselling, you one again attempt to direct attention away from your own obvious insecurities, by focusing it upon others. BTW just curious, how was the death of 180,000 Iraqis by the coalition a good thing in your eyes? I would call it a crime, but I am funny that way.
@JohnQuincyAdams1 So, you don't want to answer a question about your assertion that 180,000 Iraqi deaths were a good thing? Just playing that lame old record about seeking counselling, whats wrong, not want to admit that you are a hateful sectarian bigot? I can direct you to the comment if you wish, but I would really like you to justify that one to me, as I think your mask was never on for it to even slip.
@Panteraforever67 Because Mr pedant, this person made the claim that 180,000 Iraqi deaths were a good thing considering a majority were commited by the coalition. is this ok by you?
Part 1: I would rank that statistic alongside the one that states, 67% of statistics are made up! As no quantitative analysis of Iraqi deaths has been made (the USA seems positively disintrested) a proper figure seems unlikely to be agreed upon. Many hospitals were ignored in the few attempts at reaching some figure, and Islamic burial rites dictate that a body is buried within 24 hours, so the scale of deaths would be classed as higher than stated...
@lambhdeargh Part 2: As for victims and who killed them, It is accepted that the majority have been killed by insurgents, but not the 94% as you claim. This still leaves a large and uncomfortable amount of deaths commited by coalition forces. Now, we all condem insurgents and their methods, but I find most people can be quite silent when these deaths are raised, obviously evenhandedness only stretches so far! So while you have a right to be patriotic, make sure its not blind patriotism.
LMFAO!. Dude don;t you pay attention to whats going on? There are no U.S. combat troops in Iraq and yet hundreds of Iraqis are still dying by INSURGENT hands. Get real, stop spewing your ignorant bullshit. You went from saying that the Coalition caused 180K civilians deaths to admitting the majority of those civilians were killed by insurgents. Which is it?
@Panteraforever67 Since 2003 there have been reportedly over 1 million violent deaths reported in Iraq, according to a prestigious british polling group ORB up to 56% could be attributed to the US or its allies. If you take into account the lower pro rata figure, that means that up to 2006, the US led coalition were killing 5000 Iraqis every month, research indicated that this is more than likely higher (around 10,000). I was trying to be nice to you, but as you said, do some research idiot!
LMAO! Funny how you just made that up. I just found that article. "Of those responding, 78 percent said their households had experienced no violent deaths, 16 percent had experienced one death, 5 percent two deaths, 1 percent three deaths or more. Given the number of households in the country, 4,050,597 according to 2005 census figures, this works out to nearly 1.2 million deaths."
IT'S a POLL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE WORK. LMFAO.
@Panteraforever67 Funny how I made that up and then you found the report! So, did I make it up or was it on the internet? Judging from your response, you just looked it up on wiki then tried to sound all knowledgeable, and considering the report also neglected to include the 2 most restive provinces in Iraq for security reasons! Ohh, what was the reason for this illegal war again, WMD's, axis of evil, removing a dictator or was it the terrorist route you finally settled on?
Yeah you made up the part that said "56% could be attributed to the US or its allies". It was a poll done to 1,000 Iraqi citizens and if you read it, it also excluded SOME OF THE MOST PEACEFUL parts of Iraq due to the Kurds not allowing the interviews. Why is it you keep making shit up or omitting key parts. But then again,it's just a poll, it means nothing. And BTW, I don't think Wiki would have a page on POLLS. LMFAO, Dumbass.
Oh and buddy, you know Wikileaks? That website that exposed all those documents, do some resaerch because they found WMD's in Iraq, or so says Wikileaks released documents. Do a little web searching,dumbass.
And no it didn't ask who killed the said family members all it asked was HOW they died, I.E. bullet shot, explosion,etc.
Lmfao you keep making bullshit up to try and prove a point but have already contradicted yourself and proved my point for me. Thanks dumbass.
@Panteraforever67 They found chemical agents and a home made lab, hardly weapons of mass destruction, nor a reason for the invasion as they are mostly post Saddam! Also wikileaks publishes documents, not all of which are considered reliable. As for the ORB report, how come THEY say that 56% can be attributed to the US led coalition? Making stuff up like your 94%! Get real, you are trying to defend the indefensible. Ohh, the LMAO thing, only dickheads do that, and you are a what?
"Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict."
Lmao, post Saddam? Yeah those insurgents created sophisticated labs to create nerves gas
The ORB report didn't claim that, but even it it did it's nothing but a poll. Thanks for showing that you're a dumbass.
@Panteraforever67 I can't help but get the feeling you are one of these people that thinks the US led coalition didn't kill anyone but insurgents, I bet you you even think it was justified under international law?(which, I might add, it wasn't). So, Slan agat agus tog go bog e an bod ceann thu!
That's not what I think, or I would have said so. But I get the feeling you're one of those dope smoking trolls that has no life and loves to make shit up as they go to get a thrill out of the attention.
LOL NATO and the U.N. have a different opinion then you. Go smoke another bowl, dumbass.
@Panteraforever67 I would suggest you do a quick google search about the legality if the Iraqi Invasion, Also Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, said the war in Iraq was illegal! Ohh, I don't smoke cigarettes never mind drugs, nice try though, arsehole.
@lambhdeargh Before you bore us all to tears, I forgot to put *then* in front of UN Sercetary General. Mind you, I didn't add any LOL, LMAO or some such, just to pretend I was funny, unlike a certain fuckwit!
When I say "LOL" it means in laughing, not that I think I'm funny. Comical how stupid you are. You think when someone puts "LOL" it means they think they are funny? LOL now that is funny, you're such a fucking idiot.
@Panteraforever67 Yeah, right, you just go around LYFAO! Now, read this and follow the instructions. Type "was the war in Iraq legal" in google search, read the articles that come up (the Guardian one is quite good), then stop quoting UN resolutions to back you up as they don't. Now, I know you will disagree with anything I say, but many lawyers who are experts in the field of international law! Could you be that arrogant and stupid?
God you're truly fucking stupid. You're opinion and anyone else's opinion including mine does not make anything a fact. Just because some crack head thinks he's right doesn't make it so. There are thousands of web pages from "experts" that claim the war was legal, so who is right? It doesn't matter, really. Instead of concentrating on the original topic, which you agreed I was right, you keep going on and on changing the subject.
@Panteraforever67 Hmm, the original topic was the number of deaths and who caused them, research suggests we are underestimating the deaths due to the illegal invasion and you are pretending they didn't exsist!
The U.N. resolutions don't back me up? Too bad "EXPERTS" say they do, dumbass. Face it, you can't win an argument when you've already contradicted yourself and said I was correct in the original point. Instead of admitting you're a tool you keep changing the subject trying to drag on the argument, which proves you're nothing but a troll.
@Panteraforever67 So Kofi Annan is wrong? I would rate his opinion over yours any day of the week, and since you picked the fight with me that makes you the troll.
"UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion"
"UNSC resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002 to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (resolutions 660,661, 678, 686,687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284)"
@Panteraforever67 So you didn't read the verdict of many distinguished lawyers who when asked if the war was legal, they stated that it wasn't? I suppose Kofi Annan knows nothing? Nah, you are wrong, you just haven't got the balls to admit it.
@Panteraforever67 Actually, it did ask who was responsible for killing the family member, I read the report, obviously you didn't, how else could they attribute deaths to a group if it wasn't asked? I know you think you are being smart, but trust me, you are very wide of the mark.
Хорошо, что они хоть гдето сохранились живые это же история. К стати в Кубинке есть Пантера тоже живая на ходу.
469panzer 5 days ago
походу, заебись.
MegaTitan43 2 months ago
awesome
Ustepok 3 months ago 3
Jagdtiger is better.
THEKUBOSSSS 3 months ago
@THEKUBOSSSS Certainly it had a massive huge gun and more armor than anything else but better? not nearly as fast or mobile, not the well balanced package that the Jagdpanther had.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
она восстановленная или?
Koljunchik 3 months ago
Schon ein Unterschied diese schönen Benzinmotoren als ein DIesel.
LimaAdrian 3 months ago
Is a original jagpanther?
even the engine?
cant read german sorry =/
boinaverdee 4 months ago
@boinaverdee Yes, Its a real Jagdpanther with its original Maybach engine
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 3
This is a work of art in the battlefield. So beautiful.
Sakuikazuchi 4 months ago 3
nice ass.
goreziad 4 months ago
Oh what a beauty... My favourite tank of all time. ;( I wish I could drive one let alone touch a working restoration.
RobotsGreatWar2 4 months ago 5
The Germans where way ahead of their time.
MarineCorps413 5 months ago 49
By far the best armoured vehicle of WW2, so modern looking for that time too. Great restoration! an absolute masterpiece!
doktorbimmer 5 months ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
Powerful weapon, just cannon 8.8 cm Pak 43 / 3 L/71, totally useless in close combat, high consumption, its size was very heavy, broke the track very often, very high maintenance.
In fact, it was not copied from anyone.
Gianni7381 3 months ago
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
Экземпляр с покрытием из циммерита?
Xenophoebus 5 months ago
злая красавица )
masalexv 6 months ago
дайте порулить =(
Egorka18076 6 months ago
ahhhhh,An jagdpanther still looks fresh off the battlefield.watch out abrahms the tank aka tank killer is BACK!!!!
angelofwaranddeath 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you think "Patch Adams" (JohnQuincyAdams1) is a ass clown!
doktorbimmer 7 months ago 54
Amazing how modern the Jadgpanther still looks, very advanced design for 1943.
doktorbimmer 7 months ago 8
There is something beautiful about the look of a Jagdpanther. When it's not trying to kill you of course.
prez58 7 months ago 6
Only the germans know how to restore and paint their old tanks perfectly!
tonidmc 8 months ago 2
This Jagd is still in a good condition huh,but whats wrong with its exhaust pipes?Why are there 4 of em? 0_0
Stanislav55 8 months ago
@Stanislav55 thats original all the jagdpanzer had it dunno why really, the normal panther tank doesnt have it
hondansr50ccsnel 8 months ago
@hondansr50ccsnel jagdpanther*
hondansr50ccsnel 8 months ago
@Stanislav55 Jagdpathers were equiped with a third exhaust pipe as part of a flame suppressor exhaust system, the other exhaust pipe is actually the vent for the crew heater.
doktorbimmer 7 months ago 2
@doktorbimmer I thought it is early production Jagd,but it is not,thats why it`s pretty much surprised me and now I think both of them are vent lines for cooling of engine exhaust manifold which is located on the left side of this tank destroyer.
Thanks for helpin me anyway :)
Stanislav55 7 months ago
@Stanislav55 The single drivers port and 2 piece gun barrel would make it later production but built before sept. 44 when the Zimmerit was discontinued. I have not found much info on when the exhaust changed but the Flammvernichter (flame suppressor) muffler would seem correct for the production range. The extra exhaust pipe should be connected to a Eberspacher type petrol heater for the crew compartment.
doktorbimmer 7 months ago 3
@doktorbimmer So,we can call it "mid production",because Nazi started to build it since 1943 till the end of war.Two vent lines were first attached on June 1944 and till the late December 1944.What about zimmerit,I`m not sure was it exact same zimmerit of WW II,it may applied after war or even late while a restoration.
Stanislav55 7 months ago 3
Comment removed
Stanislav55 8 months ago
I wonder was this peterol or diesal,I know most tanks at the time were peterol.
gaelgeseomra 9 months ago
How was it that the Germans made such beautiful machines of war? Superb engineering and sweet designs.
thegoosebrain 9 months ago 64
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@thegoosebrain too over engineered , they were made to last , but in combat you needed a quick repair not top quality. repairs took ages.
cronauer1985 4 months ago
@cronauer1985 Certainly not over engineered by todays standards and not by WW2 standards either, it did not have any "gadgetry" like the M4 Shermans Gyroscopic Stabilizer System. The Panther/Jagdpanther were designed to speed up and simplify the production process compared to the Tiger, average life expectancy of a WW2 tank was only 500-600 km and these vehicles were built with those facts in mind. They had a big gun, big motor, lots of armour and the result was an average 20:1 kill ratio
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 14
No matter who had the better tanks and the German tanks were very good indeed, the war was always going to end July 1945. A weapon no tank could ever match!
JANNOSPR 9 months ago
i would kill to have one of these!
PCTechTalks 9 months ago
HEAVY METAL
lew7272 9 months ago
Greaaaaaat vid! Where is this display? I saw this same vehicle on static display in Koblenz 5 years ago... must really make a return!
douglasgleeson 10 months ago
Soll das die frühe Ausführung sein? Die Auspuffanlage und das Zimmerit...
PfhUkJiu101 10 months ago
This beast is an engineering masterpiece! Do you have any info as to where it was deployed back in the day? What year? I must see one of these up live, before i die......German technology is the best! Cheers
Lucicsux 10 months ago 6
@Lucicsux Jagdpanthers came in to service I believe in 1944. They seen extensive use through Europe and Russia. There are probably few records remaining to track down information on an individual machine unless this particular one was a dug up relic.
ArmourWorld 10 months ago
what a beauty!!!
tropicthunder332 11 months ago
imagine facing one of these as a footsoldier while it slowly turns the turret towards you..
bierfrau9 11 months ago
As sexy as a vintage muscle car.
anvilofcrom 11 months ago
the new mercedes ??
artacania 1 year ago
those squeks are epic that hows nowdays tanks should sound!!
sheyon1000 1 year ago
Did anyone else just get a boner?
PanzerAngriff 1 year ago 5
Wow!...that looks good. Great to see it going.
fluffycat087 1 year ago
Best tank-destroyer in WWII.
freddurobin 1 year ago 5
Germany had the industrial Power to build enough fighters and Tanks, problem was more there was not enough manpower, wrong Fighter education system.
Lack of Fuel and Stupid Leaders..not the Military ones.
More Tanks would have Delayed the Defeat for Germany because all the Tanks still need to be Destroyed. And Tanks in Forrest and in Cities are not really touchable by Planes. But still No Manpower for 2 Side wars.
McWayne0 1 year ago
alter panzer waren ziemlich klein oO
THExROBONATOR 1 year ago
5***** superb machine and video , just that bloke with camcoder annoys me :-)
petrwarry72 1 year ago
da hätten auch ein paar mehr Jagdpanzer keinen Unterschied mehr ausgemacht - Überlegenheit der Russen an der Ostfront: 10:1 - völlig aussichtslos.
Glissmann 1 year ago
@Glissmann nur das ein Jagdpanther im schnitt 5-15 T34 erledigt hat bevor er selbst außer Gefecht war , somit is die Überlegenheit der Russen hinfällig
BassPolo 1 year ago
Comment removed
BassPolo 1 year ago
Comment removed
BassPolo 1 year ago
Comment removed
BassPolo 1 year ago
Comment removed
BassPolo 1 year ago
Comment removed
BassPolo 1 year ago
der beste jagdpanzer des ww2 nur zu spät und zu wenig produziert
sepp45529 1 year ago
the germans should have stuck to building just this type of tank and the normal panther,forget about the heavier tanks, a total waste
PanzerjagerMMX 2 years ago
@PanzerjagerMMX
Absolutely. Wasted resources building just a relative few Tiger Is, Tiger IIs, Jagdtigers, Elephants, Ferdinands, and that ridiculous "Maus" that was planned. Though arguably, the Tiger I was still practical and relevant; it certainly made all the heavier equipment irrelevant, though. Villers-Bocage and Kursk were great demostrations for the Tiger...
As you said, they should have stuck with Panthers and Jagdpanthers, and even PzIVs/Jagdpanzers to fill the battalions.
Treetop64 1 year ago
@Treetop64 I 100% agree. Panther was only 15-20% more expensive than Pz IV and was maybe even more effective than Tiger. Tiger was just a waste of resources. Fortunately for the world and unfortunately for Hitler, some guys in Nazi germany were to dumb to make the right decisions. Panthers. Jagdpanthers and Pz IV and Stugs was the right way to go.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago
@RuskiTytan Screw the Panzer IV it was outdated by 1943 just produce the hulls for SPGs and StuGs
DasFuhrerinagstring 1 year ago 2
@RuskiTytan - It wouldn't have made any difference which armored vehicles Nazi Germany had produced or not because the key factor was they *couldn't produce enough of them* to make a difference in that stupid, stupid war they started. Nazi Germany's comparative lack of industrial production ensured their fate before they fired the first shot. This is why some of Hitler's General's tried to assassinate him and sue for peace, before all of Germany was destroyed in that stupid war, as it sadly was.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago 2
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I have to disagree. With more/better tanks war could have ended few months later or allied loses would have been bigger.
Of course Germany would have lost, that's for sure. But I don't think that more panthers on the front = no difference.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RuskiTytan - Nazi Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to manufacture enough Panthers to make a difference. Even if they did, those tanks would have been destroyed by the Allied warplanes that had total air control over Europe because, (again), Nazi Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to manufacture enough planes to keep up with America, let alone England and the Soviet Union. It was a war Nazi Germany couldn't have won under the best of circumstances.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Is it that difficult to comprehend, that without Tiger I, II, Elefant, etc. they would just have more and better tanks. THAT'S GODDAMN ALL. I know that acting smart on the internet makes you feel better, but your responses don;t make any sense. By your logic even if germans produced no tanks at all during the war it would have ended exactly the same day.
I haven't suggested that the result of war would have changed. You are implying that I did. Reading comprehension. Please.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 To make it clear for you (cause everyone else seems to understand) In my opinion several thousand more panthers (they produced more than 1300 tiger 1 and 500 tiger 2 - and 1 tiger costs around as much as 2 panthers) would have made some impact on the pace of allied assault. 1-2 months more for the 3rd Reich is in my opinion perfectly reasonable.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago
@RuskiTytan - What is your problem pal? Why can't you stick to the topic at hand without attempting to publicly smear someone? Are you that insecure, or are you just a coward hiding behind your keyboard? For crying out loud man, life is too short to be so nasty to people, especially people you don't even know!
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago 3
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Because I had to explain you very simple concept several times. It just became annoying to me. What was so hard to comprehend, really?
Yes, I;m just a coward hiding behind a keyboard, unlike you, keyboard brave warrior.
I just don't like people who act like they have no reading comprehension.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RuskiTytan - Son, if you can't comprehend historical facts but instead go off on a childish rant of insults, that is your problem not mine. Good luck to you.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 unfortunately you can't comprehend written text. That's IMO even worse. You think that +3 thousand panthers (better resource management on german side) would have absolutely no impact on the longevity of war. This sounds to me pretty retarded. But you're probably from England or USA, so you can keep thinking that German tanks did nothing but kept getting destroyed by your airforce.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RuskiTytan - Why are you being so rude? Is this an example of the manners that are taught to people raised in Europe? Wow. (shaking head) In WWII, tanks were helpless to roving fighter bombers and with the Allies having complete air control over Europe and as a result, how many tanks Nazi Germany's comparatively small industrial capacity could manufacture would have little impact.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I'm not insulting you. You didn't respond to my arguments, which is considered rude. To me it was a sign of lack of reading comprehension, so I just stated the fact.
You are american, so it explains it all. You have no idea about heavy tanks impact on Eastern Front. It would have surely slowed down Soviet offensive. But you live in fantasy world, where air superiority equals instant win. Suprisingly it took several months to get from Normandie to the German border... strange...
RuskiTytan 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
RuskiTytan 1 year ago
@RuskiTytan what does being american have to do with anything.... fpr all i know america makes some damn fine tanks.... took on the germans and russian modern models were taken on in desert storm..... 4 US tanks destroyed vs the 1.2k opposition tanks destroyed
Holyhitman173 1 year ago
@Holyhitman173 QuincyAdams is probably american and has some weird views on german WW II military
German and russian modern models in Iraq? Are you kidding? They had SOME T-72 in the oldest version, which were pretty obsolete by 1991 with their ineffective ammunition. Mostly T55s, wchich were like 35 years old and T62s. They didn;'t have any modern german tanks for sure.And don't forget about your air superiority.It's like saying "american tanks are crap, cause 10 t72s can destroy 1000 shermans.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago 5
@JohnQuincyAdams1 You are just a perfect example, that people in US are tought fantasy history and pure bullshit. I hope you are happy with your delusional views. Sorry for this argument. I think even 10000 panthers wouldn't help Germans to make the war even a week longer. They all would have been destroyed 30 minutes after being unloaded from the train in France or Soviet Union. Germany lasted that long only because Americans and Brits waited for Soviets to get to the Berlin. This makes sense.
RuskiTytan 1 year ago 7
@RuskiTytan Are you crazy man?`10 000 of this tanks? This is the most succesfull tank the germans had in WWII. One of them could destroy 4 or 5 T 34s in a easy way! I tell you : 10 000 would help us to make the war even more than a week.
Gleichtritt 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 why does 1 person saying something rude mean ALL EUROPEANS are taught to behave like that? seriously come up with something better cuz by saying this you are just as pathetic as tytan is.
Zdutchman123 1 year ago 7
@Zdutchman123 Eh, it's the same logic where there is one loud American tourist and suddenly we're all rude obnoxious twits.
Granted, in the one time I did see a loud american tourist abroad, I wanted to throw him off the bus on principle. So atleast there is some sympathy. :)
Sorrigan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RuskiTytan - Why are you being so rude? Is this an example of the manners that are taught to people raised in Europe? Wow. (shaking head) In WWII, tanks were helpless to roving fighter bombers and with the Allies having complete air control over Europe and as a result, how many tanks Nazi Germany's comparatively small industrial capacity could manufacture would have little impact.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I have to disagree aswell, IF the Germans would not have fought on the exaggeratingly many fronts as they did, they would probably have a chance of victory.
KalleMickelborg 11 months ago 6
@PanzerjagerMMX - The Jagdpanther was not a tank, it was a tank destroyer.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago
i love you sweet Panther
Tokatt 2 years ago
@Tokatt - That isn't a Panther, that is a Jagdpanther. There's nothing, "sweet", about a machine designed to kill people and anyone that could love such an evil thing might do well with counseling.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 i know its a Jadgpanther and only hippys think this way. If that machine was soft i would fuk it its so cool and pretty. A master peace of engineering
Tokatt 1 year ago 5
@Tokatt - For a masterpiece of engineering, they were total junk when the first hit the battlefield. Most of them broke down.
JohnQuincyAdams1 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 i would like to run you over with one you dirty hippy
Tokatt 1 year ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 ..all tanks break-down no matter who produces 'em......you stupid prejudiced fuck
zyklonb1488SS 1 year ago 9
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Stop, please, you are boring the life clean out of me!
lambhdeargh 5 months ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lambhdeargh - It's unfortunate that you find history so boring. Good luck.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 I find history very intresting, its your somewhat curious take on history I find very boring. Having read some of your comments I find you insulting and naive, but I am glad you find history so black and white, that you can pretend to be a know it all.
lambhdeargh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lambhdeargh - Son, it's unfortunate that historical accuracy threatens your feelings of self-worth so much.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1
See, there you go again, thinking you are a wit and sounding like a halfwit. I find being lectured on historical accuracy, from a man who believes in the Bible as quite ironic, mind you, really what should we expect from a right wing religious fundmentalist! As for the "son" are we related? I dont think so, so patronising can now be added to your list of faults along side presumption, arrogance amonst others.
lambhdeargh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lambhdeargh - Again, I am very sorry you find it somehow necessary to personally attack other people, especially people you don't even know, yet you come to these magical conclusions. So sad. You are quite clearly very much younger than I, hence the reference to you as, "son", which is commonly used and well know. Try to have a nice day and don't hurt anyone.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Jumping to those magical conclusions seems to be your forte, I have garnered my opinion of you, from previous posts, your youtube channel and your favourites. Also, my age is unknown to you, so how would you very clearly know my age? As I would say, we are either of a similar age, or most likely I am older than you. So "son" pogue ma thon an bod ceann thu.
lambhdeargh 5 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lambhdeargh - It is quite apparent you get off on attempting to insult people over the Internet that you don't even know, while at the same time passing judgement on people whilst hiding behind your computer. Congratulations, you're a hero. Again, your insecurity is showing. Have a nice day.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1
You just don't see the irony of that statement do you? You have made a poor showing of judging and insulting others including myself, yet only you are in judged and insulted, all while you hide behind your computer! You make me laugh, next you will be telling us how creationism is fact, and how evolutionism is a hoax designed to confuse intellectually weak people, or that the death of 180,000 Iraqis was a good thing. Ohh, sorry you did claim that last one!
lambhdeargh 5 months ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lambhdeargh - I hope you feel better soon. Have a nice day.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 Feeling fantastic thanks, slan leat
lambhdeargh 5 months ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lambhdeargh - Odd that you would feel, "fantastic", with the venomous bile and hatred you enjoy spreading. Seek counseling.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 You see, I responded to your bilious comments, but you are obviously blind to your own hatred, and only see it in others. By insinuating that I need counselling, you one again attempt to direct attention away from your own obvious insecurities, by focusing it upon others. BTW just curious, how was the death of 180,000 Iraqis by the coalition a good thing in your eyes? I would call it a crime, but I am funny that way.
lambhdeargh 5 months ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lambhdeargh - Try to get that counseling soon, before you hurt someone. Good luck.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 So, you don't want to answer a question about your assertion that 180,000 Iraqi deaths were a good thing? Just playing that lame old record about seeking counselling, whats wrong, not want to admit that you are a hateful sectarian bigot? I can direct you to the comment if you wish, but I would really like you to justify that one to me, as I think your mask was never on for it to even slip.
lambhdeargh 5 months ago 20
@lambhdeargh
I didn't know that the Insurgents fought for the coalition. Good one.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 Because Mr pedant, this person made the claim that 180,000 Iraqi deaths were a good thing considering a majority were commited by the coalition. is this ok by you?
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
According to the casualty organizations around 94% of all civilian casualties were inflicted by insurgents. Do some research, idiot.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67
Part 1: I would rank that statistic alongside the one that states, 67% of statistics are made up! As no quantitative analysis of Iraqi deaths has been made (the USA seems positively disintrested) a proper figure seems unlikely to be agreed upon. Many hospitals were ignored in the few attempts at reaching some figure, and Islamic burial rites dictate that a body is buried within 24 hours, so the scale of deaths would be classed as higher than stated...
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh Part 2: As for victims and who killed them, It is accepted that the majority have been killed by insurgents, but not the 94% as you claim. This still leaves a large and uncomfortable amount of deaths commited by coalition forces. Now, we all condem insurgents and their methods, but I find most people can be quite silent when these deaths are raised, obviously evenhandedness only stretches so far! So while you have a right to be patriotic, make sure its not blind patriotism.
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
LMFAO!. Dude don;t you pay attention to whats going on? There are no U.S. combat troops in Iraq and yet hundreds of Iraqis are still dying by INSURGENT hands. Get real, stop spewing your ignorant bullshit. You went from saying that the Coalition caused 180K civilians deaths to admitting the majority of those civilians were killed by insurgents. Which is it?
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 Since 2003 there have been reportedly over 1 million violent deaths reported in Iraq, according to a prestigious british polling group ORB up to 56% could be attributed to the US or its allies. If you take into account the lower pro rata figure, that means that up to 2006, the US led coalition were killing 5000 Iraqis every month, research indicated that this is more than likely higher (around 10,000). I was trying to be nice to you, but as you said, do some research idiot!
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
LMAO! Funny how you just made that up. I just found that article. "Of those responding, 78 percent said their households had experienced no violent deaths, 16 percent had experienced one death, 5 percent two deaths, 1 percent three deaths or more. Given the number of households in the country, 4,050,597 according to 2005 census figures, this works out to nearly 1.2 million deaths."
IT'S a POLL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE WORK. LMFAO.
Good job showing you don't know shit.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 Funny how I made that up and then you found the report! So, did I make it up or was it on the internet? Judging from your response, you just looked it up on wiki then tried to sound all knowledgeable, and considering the report also neglected to include the 2 most restive provinces in Iraq for security reasons! Ohh, what was the reason for this illegal war again, WMD's, axis of evil, removing a dictator or was it the terrorist route you finally settled on?
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
Yeah you made up the part that said "56% could be attributed to the US or its allies". It was a poll done to 1,000 Iraqi citizens and if you read it, it also excluded SOME OF THE MOST PEACEFUL parts of Iraq due to the Kurds not allowing the interviews. Why is it you keep making shit up or omitting key parts. But then again,it's just a poll, it means nothing. And BTW, I don't think Wiki would have a page on POLLS. LMFAO, Dumbass.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
Oh and buddy, you know Wikileaks? That website that exposed all those documents, do some resaerch because they found WMD's in Iraq, or so says Wikileaks released documents. Do a little web searching,dumbass.
And no it didn't ask who killed the said family members all it asked was HOW they died, I.E. bullet shot, explosion,etc.
Lmfao you keep making bullshit up to try and prove a point but have already contradicted yourself and proved my point for me. Thanks dumbass.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 They found chemical agents and a home made lab, hardly weapons of mass destruction, nor a reason for the invasion as they are mostly post Saddam! Also wikileaks publishes documents, not all of which are considered reliable. As for the ORB report, how come THEY say that 56% can be attributed to the US led coalition? Making stuff up like your 94%! Get real, you are trying to defend the indefensible. Ohh, the LMAO thing, only dickheads do that, and you are a what?
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
"Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict."
Lmao, post Saddam? Yeah those insurgents created sophisticated labs to create nerves gas
The ORB report didn't claim that, but even it it did it's nothing but a poll. Thanks for showing that you're a dumbass.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 I can't help but get the feeling you are one of these people that thinks the US led coalition didn't kill anyone but insurgents, I bet you you even think it was justified under international law?(which, I might add, it wasn't). So, Slan agat agus tog go bog e an bod ceann thu!
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
That's not what I think, or I would have said so. But I get the feeling you're one of those dope smoking trolls that has no life and loves to make shit up as they go to get a thrill out of the attention.
LOL NATO and the U.N. have a different opinion then you. Go smoke another bowl, dumbass.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 I would suggest you do a quick google search about the legality if the Iraqi Invasion, Also Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, said the war in Iraq was illegal! Ohh, I don't smoke cigarettes never mind drugs, nice try though, arsehole.
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh Before you bore us all to tears, I forgot to put *then* in front of UN Sercetary General. Mind you, I didn't add any LOL, LMAO or some such, just to pretend I was funny, unlike a certain fuckwit!
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
When I say "LOL" it means in laughing, not that I think I'm funny. Comical how stupid you are. You think when someone puts "LOL" it means they think they are funny? LOL now that is funny, you're such a fucking idiot.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panteraforever67 Yeah, right, you just go around LYFAO! Now, read this and follow the instructions. Type "was the war in Iraq legal" in google search, read the articles that come up (the Guardian one is quite good), then stop quoting UN resolutions to back you up as they don't. Now, I know you will disagree with anything I say, but many lawyers who are experts in the field of international law! Could you be that arrogant and stupid?
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
God you're truly fucking stupid. You're opinion and anyone else's opinion including mine does not make anything a fact. Just because some crack head thinks he's right doesn't make it so. There are thousands of web pages from "experts" that claim the war was legal, so who is right? It doesn't matter, really. Instead of concentrating on the original topic, which you agreed I was right, you keep going on and on changing the subject.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 Hmm, the original topic was the number of deaths and who caused them, research suggests we are underestimating the deaths due to the illegal invasion and you are pretending they didn't exsist!
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
The U.N. resolutions don't back me up? Too bad "EXPERTS" say they do, dumbass. Face it, you can't win an argument when you've already contradicted yourself and said I was correct in the original point. Instead of admitting you're a tool you keep changing the subject trying to drag on the argument, which proves you're nothing but a troll.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 So Kofi Annan is wrong? I would rate his opinion over yours any day of the week, and since you picked the fight with me that makes you the troll.
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
"UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion"
"UNSC resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002 to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (resolutions 660,661, 678, 686,687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284)"
You=fail.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 So you didn't read the verdict of many distinguished lawyers who when asked if the war was legal, they stated that it wasn't? I suppose Kofi Annan knows nothing? Nah, you are wrong, you just haven't got the balls to admit it.
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@lambhdeargh
Oh and BTW, the poll never asked who killed the said family member. Go troll harder somewhere else. Lmao, people like you are TOOO easy.
Panteraforever67 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 Actually, it did ask who was responsible for killing the family member, I read the report, obviously you didn't, how else could they attribute deaths to a group if it wasn't asked? I know you think you are being smart, but trust me, you are very wide of the mark.
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
@Panteraforever67 Must get you those glasses you so obviously need!
lambhdeargh 4 months ago
ja maybach 12 zylinder. ca 27l hubraum und ca 700 ps
danici92 2 years ago
Ist das der Originalmotor?
zemsi 2 years ago
Ja, ein Maybach.
111Peter 2 years ago
Ist das der Originalmotor?
zemsi 2 years ago