Joa, wenn schon dann auch gleich einen Lee gegen einen Panther wir wollen ja total unfair sein und den nicht mehr eingesetzten Panzer mit dem Panther vergleichen xD also zu dem Zeitpunkt hätte man wenigstens schon den M1 Sherman verwenden können.
Vergleichbar M3Lee mit Panther o.O also da schießt sich Deutschland aber selbst ins Bein xD der Panther ist vergleichbar mit dem Pershing ein bisschen unterlegen aber noch vergleichbar.
@ArchitectDream As I recall, the the US got to the Elbe, well into the pre-agreed Soviet zone of occupation. The US ended up all the way into Czechoslovakia. Certainly one Russian who operated the Sherman liked it better than the T-34, enough to write a book about it.
@ArchitectDream Panther was an overpriced antitank gun. It had to be moved by train to its operating location because the engine, final drives, and suspension had low reliability. If your mobility is based on being moved by trains, then bricks are mobile.
@ArchitectDream The 4.3 number comes from Stephen Zaloga. Argue with him. Firing first in a battle is life itself, not a perk. Look at Arracourt, Falaise, Norville. When Panthers attacked the US, they failed. Every time. No exceptions.
@ArchitectDream The big deal in wwii combat was whether you were attacking. If attacking, that meant the enemy got the first shot, and the first shot meant an average 4.3 to 1 exchange rate. The US army was successful, always driving the germans back, and so was nearly continually attacking. US only lost 2 to 3 shermans to each panther? That shows superiority of Sherman, beating the 4.3 to 1 number despite attacking.
@ArchitectDream "At the Time" is the important part. The M-3 had a higher power to weight than the M-4 Sherman, which both had higher power to weight than Panther. Accordingly, in hill climb, M-3/M-4 would be superior to Panther. Don't look to Mr. Gobbels for objective "proof" of anything.
@tHaH4x0r that's exactly right. but hitler was overconfident he could win with superior machinery alone. he refused to heed his generals. hitler's ego, stupidity and recklessness was a big factor why germany lost the war. sending millions to russia in light winter clothing.advancing so fast the supply lines could not keep up. in 1941, both britain and the US was still not in top shape to fight. as the war in russia bogged down, the allies used the time to prepare.
@razumfrackle the Nazis produced this because they had captured a M-3, but hadn't captured any Shermans at the time. the US tanks had higher power to weight ratios, so the "hill climb" was filmed by having the driver of the M-3 go slow.
people got to understand that this is pure propaganda. if you look at the tracks on the panther there are no rubber pabs on the tracks compared to the m3.. that is why the panther outdid the m3 in every category.. going up hill.. climbing over a barrier.. etc... if the m3 didnt have the rubber pads on the tracks then im sure it could have made it up the hill.. but i still dont think it could have made it over the barrier
@DivisionDirlewanger Actually, yes, it copied the sloped armor front, rounded mantlet, wide tracks, and large road wheels and slack track from T-34. Panther used interleaved roadwheels, and torsion bars, which added to height and weight, and kept 5th crew man in turret. T-34 had 4 man crew, two man turret, coil knee springs which provided some side protection. The Mann tank prototype that lost the competition was an even closer copy of the T-34. US tanks used sloped armor since 1928 Christies
The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire.
The US did have a contender, the M26 Pershing. Unfortunately, US Army doctrine prevented the entry of the large numbers of M26 Pershing into European combat.
It isn't that the US didn't have the technology to battle the Panther on equal footing. They lacked the proper doctrine and failed to allocate resources away from M4 production to the M26.
@razumfrackle T-34\85 was the best WW2 medium tank. Panthers were expensive, complicated in production, extremely unreliable, and like the tiger, impossible to repair in field conditions.
@DrHavoc1 The Panther's frontal armor was more than twice as thick as the T-34 and yet could travel almost as fast. The Panther Pzgr 42 AP round fired from the 75mm cannon had 30% more mass and almost twice the effective range of the BR-365 AP round fired from the Russian 85mm cannon.
Reliability aside, no modern tanker would chose the T34/85 over the Panther.
Considering speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire, the German Panther reigned supreme.
"...the T-34-85 tank was not quite the equal of the Panther...A German Army study dated October 5, 1944 showed that the Panther could easily penetrate the turret of the T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, and the frontal hull armor at 300 m, whereas from the front, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet part of the Panther turret at 500 m."
@razumfrackle The Panther was a direct response to the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks. First encountered on 23 June 1941, the T-34 outclassed the existing Panzer III and IV.
The DB design was a direct homage to the T-34. It resembled the T-34 hull and turret form.
Copy-pasted from wikipedia.
Besides, in an all out war, reliability is probably the most important feature of a tank. What the germans did was make an expensive and more complicated copy of the T-34 and its advantages were actually flaws.
@DrHavoc1 ha Ha, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.
Despite reliability issues the Panther was still able to take out T34/85's at four times the distance - a ballastic fact that would mitigate any inability to move or maneuver.
One on one the T34/85 was no match for the venerable (if flawed) Panther.
@razumfrackle Fact is there had been 57000 T-34's built threw the war period, Panthers built? around 6000. That's a 10 to 1 ratio, add to that the vulnerability of immobilized vehicles due to mechanical failure and the efficiency of the soviet assault aviation(IL-2's). Immobilized T-34 could be towed from the field by a fellow T-34. Could the panther do the same? Probably not, as its engine was barely enough to carry its own weigh around, let alone another tank.
First, the Panther had a 690 hp engine capable of propelling its 44 tonne mass to a speed of almost 30 mph.
Second, read my first comment: "The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire."
I made an entirely true and factual statement. The Panther was much better armored, had a far better gun and was about as fast and maneuverable as any T34.
@razumfrackle Except the Panther couldn't fire (and hit) while on the move.Only US tanks could do that, because all WWII US tanks had stabilized guns. Noone else had them.
@DonMeaker the M4 Sherman was the best tank fielded in North Africa by either side. It had a highly advanced stabilized gun that gave it an advantage in any engagement less than 500 meters.
@razumfrackle except that the M-4 with 75mm gun could hit Panther with WP smoke, and then the Panther would not hit because it could not see. The Panther could survive that, but it had to run. One Panther crew dismounted and ran, and then decided they were cut off, and ran back to their Panther after the smoke cleared, to soak up three more rounds.
@DonMeaker:"except that the M-4 with 75mm gun could hit Panther with WP smoke, and then the Panther would not hit because it could not see"
yeah, I saw that episode of 'Greatest Tank Battles' on the Military Channel.
My contention still stands:"The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire."
The M4's stablized gun was a big plus, but not enough to offset the Panther's 76mm. Tank on tank the Sherman was outclassed.
@razumfrackle I didn't see that episode. I read about that tactic in the 2nd Armored division history.
Panther had a 75mm gun, but one with higher velocity than Sherman's. On the other hand, Sherman's 75mm gun had a superior HE round, being based on the ww1 French 75 howitzer. German HE rounds used PETN which is more sensitive to shock than TNT. Because of that, Panther's HE would sometimes catastrophically detonate. That could kill dismounts outside the vehicle.
@razumfrackle I disagree that the sole measure of a tank's ability is it's ability in tank on tank battle. US fielded two classes of armored vehicles, and the Tank Destroyer was intended to defend against tank assaults, and they did so well that every german attack from Kasserine to the Ardennes failed to meet its operational objectives. US tanks were intended to excel in exploitation and infantry support. they did. In practice, US tanks and TDs both fired more HE than Armor piercing rounds.
@DonMeaker Tank Destroyers caused the Germans to fail to meet their operational objectives at the Kasserine pass?
That's not a defendable statement.
As for your argument, go back to my original contention, "The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire."
Every modern medium and MBT is designed to excel at tank-on-tank battle. The Panther, more than any other design of its era, was the inspiration for this.
@razumfrackle The exchange ratio of TD vs. Tanks at Kasserine was 1-1, enough that the Germans withdrew rather than advance on their objectives. Panther did not have much mobility, due to very low reliability of final drives, engines, and roadwheels. Each had a life of about 1000 km, and all three in combination gives reliability of 333 km. Fail. Panther's 75mm gun had a poor HE round. Tanks use more HE rounds than AP. Panther was an effective antitank gun, but overpriced for that role.
@DonMeaker:"TD vs. Tanks at Kasserine was 1-1, enough that the the Germans withdrew [from the Kasserine pass because of American TD]
rubbish. Don, you have a gift for numbers games. The Germans were outnumbered and still had an overall tank kill ratio of 134/34. To spin it any other way is absurd. The Germans retired because they believed they could not secure the pass for an Allied counter-attack and not out of respect for our 75mm M3 TD (a joke compared to their 88mm batteries).
@razumfrackle Most of our 75mm TD were half tracks at that time. They were effective against German tanks. They were not intended to be used against 88s. US used asymmetric doctrine at that time, rock-paper-scissors like. Mobile guns to stop tanks, Tanks to exploit against enemy artillery. Artillery against enemy Infantry. That doctrine worked so well that every german tank attack against US was stopped short of its objectives.
@DonMeaker:"That doctrine worked so well that every german tank attack against US was stopped short of its objectives."
Not at the Kasserine pass it didn't, nor in the opening days the the Battle of the Bulge. The US won in Europe because we had far greater numbers, control of the air and much better logistics (i.e. lots and lots of 'red ball' trucks full of stuff - esp. gas).
German tanks and tactical tank doctrine were far superior to ours.
@razumfrackle German objective at Kasserine was the airfield at Tebessa. Germans never got close.
The bulge objectives were beyond the Meuse. Germans didn't get close to that.
German doctrine in the latter days was 'a hope and a prayer' being sent off despite no fuel. Rather like the Japanese Yamoto battleship sent off to fight fueled for a one way trip. It didn't work, and it is not good doctrine.
Jeez Don, I know your a swell guy and all, but come on. Trying to rewrite the Kasserine as anything but an American route ... geez
As for the Bulge, gas my man, gas. Every historian knows it. The Germans ran out of gas. They drove their armor as far as they could go and then walked back - that was the great American victory at the Bulge.
The Panther was superior to anything the allies had (until the M26 and the comet) in every category but maintenance and range.
@DonMeaker Even the soviets said that even though the sherman was considerably worse then theirs, the people that used it said that it was better for some niches
@dardo1201 Uh, care to back up your claim with some sources?
Every contemporary book or publication I've ever read states the contrary.
Citation ~ Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza
"We were very impressed when we got our first Sherman tanks. The workmanship was superb, the transmission was excellent, and it was very roomy and comfortable."
"I have used different tanks, the Sherman was the most well rounded"
@dardo1201 Even the Soviets? Let us check facts in history. Korea- T-34 and IS-1/2 got their butt kicked. Israeli-Arab Wars- T-34 and T-54 repeatably conquered by the M50 Sherman. T-34? Nope.
@yummmm11 In some ways. In other ways it lacked. Panther was less reliable, had slower traverse, and no stabilized gun. it was also higher by 10 inches, and so harder to hide, and wider, so less able to penetrate woods or cities. It had wider treads, and so was better on soft ground, a better gun, and better frontal armor (while quality was controlled). Panther was harder to penetrate, but more likely to detonate if penetrated.
@razumfrackle The successful defense at both Kasserine and Sbiba passes on 19 February obliged Rommel to review his original plan. 805th TD was a key part of that defense. 894th TD at Thala were a successful part of that defense.
No doubt that Panther had excellent antitank capabilities, particularly from ambush. Other platforms had that capability and cost much less, like Hertzer. What Panther couldn't do was attack well
@razumfrackle Sherman could attack better, because of its faster traverse, stabilized gun, better HE round, WP round, higher reliability, higher P/W ratio. The Panther/Tiger were very good defensive antitank platforms. Sherman was a Tank, and excelled at infantry support during "breaking the crust" and exploitation during "eat the pie" after the German lines were penetrated.
@DrHavoc1 ok reading your too points, the t-34 and panther were both good tanks, but the panther was a much better tank, with far fewer problems then you think, most were due to lack of supplys and fuel for the tanks, which is not the panthers fault, but the german armys. The Germans always have and always will build the best tanks.
@razumfrackle When ever Panther attacked Sherman, Panther lost in large numbers. Where Sherman attacked Panther, Sherman lost in moderate numbers. Sherman had a stabilzed gun, so could fire on the move. By contrast, Panther had no stabilization, and had to halt, race engine to traverse, and then fire if it wanted to hit.
Other than comparing the Suspension and Uphill Performance between both tanks, at 0:34 Im sure the M3 Grant wouldve been able to climb that wall obstacle with very little effort like the Panther, if only the Treads were designed like the Panther's Treads, cause you clearly see that the Treads on the M3 is just rounding off the corner and slipping back.
The "m" series of american tanks were designed to be cheap, easy to repair and transport, and be a all around decent medium tank. American generals at the time knew at the time that their main tank series were less effective but didn't think they would run into many Panthers or Tigers, which were better despite maintenance and logistical problems.
Ok, Here are the facs, This video was made IN germany DUREING WW2. It was shown like a comercial. They would not say "hey guys look the american tank is better than our was are fucked" No they wanted to boost moral, so you make what you have look better. We did this to. I do not know if the Lee could beat this tank but what i do know is that this is rigged so they can boost moral.
Lee's cycled out before Panthers made it to units......early panthers all lose to Lee easy....they kept breaking down with that transmission....meanwhile Lee was invincible to the Japanese forces...stayed in Pacific.....Panthers got better but never fully overcame transmission.. in a drag race never take a panther it would knock off gear teeth if accelerated too fast...Sherman/Lee meanwhile had angle tripled herring bone gears ... really strong....
@crpdst2003 You have a bad point there. M4 and M3 had the same suspension and track setup. In the test for obstacle clearance the M4 would have failed too. And tanks were designed for drag racing. Overall, one can't compare a tank like Panther with a farmer's armored truck like M4.
panther can be knockout by any tank just shot panther at the back and side no heavy tank can be knockout even the russian juggernaut tank can be knockout by panzerfaust.
@El7IncA HUH!.......thats an insult to Germans too....they couldn't stop those toys
flooding into their interior?... everything up to Tiger was T-34 fodder, and Panther was a deliberate copy that got too heavy....Sherman could road march with 2000 mile plus track life while Germans had 200 miles.....Panzers went to battle on the back of trains....USA, UK, and USSR road marched their vehicles...imagine that tactical flexibility allied to ironclad air support....
@crpdst2003 You know, russian T34's were prohibited to enter artillery duels with some of their fodder, like Stug's. Pz IV were on equal terms with the T34 as long as we don't take into consideration the economy factor.
As for Panther a copy of T34, that is not really the case. What was copied? The sloped armor? You can't be serious in your claim that is a copy just based on sloped armor.
They moved around with trains because it was cheaper and less fuel demanding.
@nyctasiaselesq@nyctasiaselesq Whoops, I meant to say T-34, not Panther. ^^; Here's the Daimler Benz prototype. I'd post a link, but the comment won't post if I do.
@Pershingtank You refer to the Daimler-Benz VK 3002 project that was rejected in favor of the MAN design (the actual Panther tank). There was also a project submitted by Skoda, the Panzerkampfwagen T-25. Pretty advanced for that day too.
@Pershingtank The Daimler-Benz VK 3002 is almost 100% shape copy of the T34. Still, what went inside were german designed weapons and systems, and it had a different road wheel setup compared to T34. It is speculated that this is the reason for losing to the MAN design (the resemblance in shape).
@crpdst2003 just an example...it was 1000 usa tanks 1000 russians tanks and 1000 english pirates tanks againts 100 german tanks..thats why they won period.
@El7IncA keep dreaming dude. by 1939, the German army possessed some 590,000 horses...was still primarily dependent on horses, total number of horses used by wehrmacht ww2 - 2.8 million.
over 4/5 ths of the wehrmacht depended on horse drawn wagons during ww2. Much of the german wehrmacht went to war just like their'e grandfathers did in ww1 on foot or horse drawn wagon.
The spearheads went 'varoom' and the rest of the army went 'clippty clop'.
@El7IncA no it did'nt, unless your'e whinny little 12yr old who lives in his mom and dads basement ?
The 'axis powers ' included germany, italy and japan.
In 1939' thru the Molotov Ribbentropp Pact germany and the USSR became 'BFF' ( allies ) divided up eastern europe into spheres of influence and together 'Cockblocked ' and invaded Poland together. - germany from the west and the USSR from the east. get over your'e 'period' and get a box of tampons.
General Lees were phased out after Tunisia. Germans didn't have Panzerfaust weapon available until later. The mountainous terrain of Liri Valley and MonteCassino precluded tank combat.
It would be more appropriate to compare a panther with an M4 easy Eight Sherman with its improved heavy duty suspension, wider tracks, etc. (some Shermans also had diesel engines).
The interim/stopgap M3 Medium tank was developed in 1941 and first used during the May-June Gazala campaign by the Brits, & was very successful against the German MkIII, MkIV, & AT guns.
M3 Mediums were never used against Panthers by the Western Allies since they had been retired for use in training & the Brits sent a good number to the CBI (China-Burma-India) Theater where they did OK against the Japanese.
This is a Nazi propaganda film made for dumb civilians.
@rampking1, I know. I have read & studied history for decades. I am near 60.
The USA long 76mm was used in Normandy, but there was a shortage of HVAP ammo so regular AP was the main ammo type used. After Normandy HVAP became much more plentiful. The 76.2mm TD was also used to ggod effect in Normandy. In Sept. 1944, the M-36 Jackson TD with the 90mm gun became available.
M3 was not used when the Panther was available. M3 was a stopgap measure & did well against MkIII & MkIV pzs in North Africa & Sicily.
The M4 Easy Eight Sherman with long 76mm gun firing HVAP easily holed Panthers & Tiger I's except for the front glacis plate of the Panther. The long 76mm firing HVAP ammo had better penetration than the USSR 85mm & USSR tests & documents confirm this.
Most mechanically reliable tanks of the war were the Sherman & T-34.
Christoff, You're correct for most part. the M3 Grant/Lee wasn't suited against the Mark4 Panzer. it was never capeble of beating it. It had a 75mm M3 gun that was capeble of taking out mark4 but at the time, the Panzer4's were allready being replaced bu Long Barrled versions.
you are correct that the 76mm guns of the M4a3E8 was capeble agianst Panthers, but they're were simply not enough og them, and the U.S ordance used them in cumstom squads of Sherman insted of Normall once. like they did with the Firefly.
at the end the M4 Sherman was favored to keep in production to the M6 Heavy Tank. that could drasticly decrease production hights of Shermans, Cromwells, and Ammo.
Hi, Yeah, I know. there weren't a lot of Easy Eights but production was increasing. By Fall of 1944 ~1 in 4 or 5 Shermans was an Easy Eight, although there were units that had a higher ratio. Each platoon had 1 or 2 & some platoons were composed entirely of them by Fall of 1944. ~300 Jumbo Shermans were also made.
M3 gun wasn't as good as either German long 75mm in the MkIV, but it could still penetrate the frontal armor of the 1942-43 versions of the MkIV at a decent range.
Correct about the M3 in North Africa where it's 75mm made a huge impact at El Alamein...in 1941*.
The 76mm on the Sherman was much too late to the game. They could have used it during the Normandy Invasion in June 1944*.
Based on known intelligence from battles in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy we knew the 75mm was a cruel joke against up-armoured Panzer IV, Panther's and Tigers. There should have been a post-war investigation into this fiasco.
one reason is:When u fire up a diesel engine on the battlefield,the result is a plume of black smoke,therefore you gave away your position..then the 88 did the rest..Plus the T-34`s engine was originally a marine engine.And the whole us army was running on petrol at the time,..logistics
Hier reden wieder fast nur dumme Bastarde, ohne Ahnung von ihrem Leben oder sonst was......wie immer diese Ammi oder Engländer Spaken...lächerlich....reißt euer Maul nicht so weit auf!!! Die 2 Besten sind Deutschland und Russland!!!
@mattador2792 I think he was talking about WWII not present day.. but since you mentioned it.. The Leopard 2A6 with L/55 has greater reach then the Abrams. Besides now adays.. it is basically who sees each other first and gets the shot off. Airpower is really the dominating factor on the Battlefield today.. and I have to give the edge to the US in that department.
Thats true! And the only tank more rare on the Battlefields of Western Europe than the Pnzr5 would have been the Pershing. The Pershing was the superior tank of the two but there were so few of either actually in combat that its pointless. The Sherman "Easy8", tho still under-powered, would have been the best choice.
A real comparison would have been any German Tank vs any UK or US Ground Support Aircraft!...
Sorry, I wasn't claiming that they weren't mass produced, but as I said they were rare in Western European battlefields. Altho it is generally true that US soldiers most often ID'd every german tank as a Panther or Tiger in AAR's. Most, by a long shot, of the tanks the Western Alliance ran up against were PnzrIII and IV's.
Even if they had a Sherman E8 or a Pershing ( neither of which exsisted when this film was made) they wouldn't have allowed them to outperform the German tank... Compare an M3 to a PnzrI or II, the M3 would devastate the PnzrI, and the II only had a 20mm AA cannon...
It is not about German propaganda, everybody knows that german tanks at the last years of WW2 owned American and british tanks, both in firepower and armor. Check the north africa battle... germans lost because bad strategy and the bombing of their heavy militar industry
You miss my point, which was that the Germans who made this clip purposely compared their newest tank to Americas oldest tank in order to make the Pnzr5 look better.
And your assesment of German armor is off a bit. Germany's production numbers increased throuout the war despite the bombings. And while the Pnzr5 was a good tank it was mechanically unreliable, and the Pnzr6 (Tiger, King Tiger, Royale, et, et) was a worthless propaganda machine. It broke down if you looked at it wrong.
I was talking about the PanzerVI when I said that, and no, the PnzrVI was a terrible machine of war. They were incredibly unreliable and prone to breakdown, they were good as self-propelled arty, were they didn't have to manuver, but in the field they are all reputation and no substance.
They couldn't carry enough fuel to operate indipendantly, the list goes on and on.
Just about operational range: both ausf H and ausf B are in the average of most allied tanks -soviet's excepted. About mechanical failure, the early launches for ausf H (and this is also true for Panther for that matter) just glued to them some historical exageration about unreliability. Lower maneuvrability for PZ VI? Right. And unmatched firepower. As well as unmatched armor. Be it late IS-2 or Pershing.
Yet, with their known weak points, they did pretty well. Pretty better than any allied tanks.
Average scores of both sides speak of themselves.
And this last point, you should think to that: knowing what you're fighting in: Allied tanks equipages were also fighting, knowing the weaknesses of their vehicles, as did the germans.
Panther 4fever ! M3 is suck !
laptevkostya 1 month ago
Joa, wenn schon dann auch gleich einen Lee gegen einen Panther wir wollen ja total unfair sein und den nicht mehr eingesetzten Panzer mit dem Panther vergleichen xD also zu dem Zeitpunkt hätte man wenigstens schon den M1 Sherman verwenden können.
oxxExtinctionXXO 1 month ago
@oxxExtinctionXXO 1.Der Vergleich würde mit einem M4 Sherman statt dem M3 Lee oder mit einem M26 Pershing nicht viel anders aussehen.
2. Sind Beutefahrzeuge nicht unbedingt einfach aufzutreiben.
HermannWillie90 3 weeks ago
Lol a Lee is no match for a Panther! XD
rabies79 2 months ago
The Germans developed a panther and (tiger finalized), according to the principle of T34
redneck10ivan 3 months ago
Vergleichbar M3Lee mit Panther o.O also da schießt sich Deutschland aber selbst ins Bein xD der Panther ist vergleichbar mit dem Pershing ein bisschen unterlegen aber noch vergleichbar.
oxxExtinctionXXO 4 months ago
The PK had fun that day! :-D
BigAndTall666 6 months ago
Panthers weak side and rear Armour plagued it till the end. I think its the first tank to be armed with an awesome powerful 75mm gun.
karthikbans 6 months ago
at 0:39 you get a very good shot at the panthers supreme suspension system! It just flows over the bumps
Draious 7 months ago 2
Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce
maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very
front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final
drives, made of low-grade steel.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ArchitectDream As I recall, the the US got to the Elbe, well into the pre-agreed Soviet zone of occupation. The US ended up all the way into Czechoslovakia. Certainly one Russian who operated the Sherman liked it better than the T-34, enough to write a book about it.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ArchitectDream Panther was an overpriced antitank gun. It had to be moved by train to its operating location because the engine, final drives, and suspension had low reliability. If your mobility is based on being moved by trains, then bricks are mobile.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ArchitectDream The 4.3 number comes from Stephen Zaloga. Argue with him. Firing first in a battle is life itself, not a perk. Look at Arracourt, Falaise, Norville. When Panthers attacked the US, they failed. Every time. No exceptions.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ArchitectDream The big deal in wwii combat was whether you were attacking. If attacking, that meant the enemy got the first shot, and the first shot meant an average 4.3 to 1 exchange rate. The US army was successful, always driving the germans back, and so was nearly continually attacking. US only lost 2 to 3 shermans to each panther? That shows superiority of Sherman, beating the 4.3 to 1 number despite attacking.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ArchitectDream Panther hp/ton was 13.77 horsepower per ton, but 15.39 PS/tonnes. They are different units. That would give the M-3 the advantage.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
0:40 thats the fastest i've ever seen a Panther move :O !!!!
Bamchucknorris 8 months ago
@ArchitectDream "At the Time" is the important part. The M-3 had a higher power to weight than the M-4 Sherman, which both had higher power to weight than Panther. Accordingly, in hill climb, M-3/M-4 would be superior to Panther. Don't look to Mr. Gobbels for objective "proof" of anything.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
bottom line: germany lost the war.
a mighty sword is useless in the hands of an idiot.
a corporal for a commander-in-chief? lol! no wonder.
superb war machinery and superb tactics MUST go hand in hand...or else.......you lose.
roycosing 9 months ago
@roycosing Well said.
murderdoll9191 9 months ago
@roycosing
i think they lost the war primarily because they attacked russia, attacking 3 fronts at the same time costs valuable resources that they didnt have.
tHaH4x0r 9 months ago
@tHaH4x0r that's exactly right. but hitler was overconfident he could win with superior machinery alone. he refused to heed his generals. hitler's ego, stupidity and recklessness was a big factor why germany lost the war. sending millions to russia in light winter clothing.advancing so fast the supply lines could not keep up. in 1941, both britain and the US was still not in top shape to fight. as the war in russia bogged down, the allies used the time to prepare.
roycosing 9 months ago
To the best of my knowledge the Lee and the Panther never faced each other in combat.
Not sure why the NAZIs produced this. Certainly an M4 would have been a more valuable comparison.
razumfrackle 10 months ago
@razumfrackle the Nazis produced this because they had captured a M-3, but hadn't captured any Shermans at the time.
DonMeaker 9 months ago
@razumfrackle the Nazis produced this because they had captured a M-3, but hadn't captured any Shermans at the time. the US tanks had higher power to weight ratios, so the "hill climb" was filmed by having the driver of the M-3 go slow.
DonMeaker 9 months ago
people got to understand that this is pure propaganda. if you look at the tracks on the panther there are no rubber pabs on the tracks compared to the m3.. that is why the panther outdid the m3 in every category.. going up hill.. climbing over a barrier.. etc... if the m3 didnt have the rubber pads on the tracks then im sure it could have made it up the hill.. but i still dont think it could have made it over the barrier
dBilb2691 10 months ago
Panter as a resalt copy t-34
shuljup 10 months ago
@shuljup Panther copied from T-34? lol, faggot.
DivisionDirlewanger 10 months ago
@DivisionDirlewanger Actually, yes, it copied the sloped armor front, rounded mantlet, wide tracks, and large road wheels and slack track from T-34. Panther used interleaved roadwheels, and torsion bars, which added to height and weight, and kept 5th crew man in turret. T-34 had 4 man crew, two man turret, coil knee springs which provided some side protection. The Mann tank prototype that lost the competition was an even closer copy of the T-34. US tanks used sloped armor since 1928 Christies
DonMeaker 8 months ago
T34 showed them what the tank is.
Ouija121085 11 months ago
The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire.
The US did have a contender, the M26 Pershing. Unfortunately, US Army doctrine prevented the entry of the large numbers of M26 Pershing into European combat.
It isn't that the US didn't have the technology to battle the Panther on equal footing. They lacked the proper doctrine and failed to allocate resources away from M4 production to the M26.
razumfrackle 11 months ago
@razumfrackle T-34\85 was the best WW2 medium tank. Panthers were expensive, complicated in production, extremely unreliable, and like the tiger, impossible to repair in field conditions.
DrHavoc1 10 months ago
@DrHavoc1 The Panther's frontal armor was more than twice as thick as the T-34 and yet could travel almost as fast. The Panther Pzgr 42 AP round fired from the 75mm cannon had 30% more mass and almost twice the effective range of the BR-365 AP round fired from the Russian 85mm cannon.
Reliability aside, no modern tanker would chose the T34/85 over the Panther.
Considering speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire, the German Panther reigned supreme.
razumfrackle 10 months ago
@DrHavoc1
From wikipedia:
"...the T-34-85 tank was not quite the equal of the Panther...A German Army study dated October 5, 1944 showed that the Panther could easily penetrate the turret of the T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, and the frontal hull armor at 300 m, whereas from the front, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet part of the Panther turret at 500 m."
razumfrackle 10 months ago
@razumfrackle The Panther was a direct response to the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks. First encountered on 23 June 1941, the T-34 outclassed the existing Panzer III and IV.
The DB design was a direct homage to the T-34. It resembled the T-34 hull and turret form.
Copy-pasted from wikipedia.
Besides, in an all out war, reliability is probably the most important feature of a tank. What the germans did was make an expensive and more complicated copy of the T-34 and its advantages were actually flaws.
DrHavoc1 10 months ago
@DrHavoc1 ha Ha, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.
Despite reliability issues the Panther was still able to take out T34/85's at four times the distance - a ballastic fact that would mitigate any inability to move or maneuver.
One on one the T34/85 was no match for the venerable (if flawed) Panther.
razumfrackle 10 months ago
@razumfrackle Fact is there had been 57000 T-34's built threw the war period, Panthers built? around 6000. That's a 10 to 1 ratio, add to that the vulnerability of immobilized vehicles due to mechanical failure and the efficiency of the soviet assault aviation(IL-2's). Immobilized T-34 could be towed from the field by a fellow T-34. Could the panther do the same? Probably not, as its engine was barely enough to carry its own weigh around, let alone another tank.
DrHavoc1 10 months ago
@DrHavoc1 dude, you can't let it go can you?
First, the Panther had a 690 hp engine capable of propelling its 44 tonne mass to a speed of almost 30 mph.
Second, read my first comment: "The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire."
I made an entirely true and factual statement. The Panther was much better armored, had a far better gun and was about as fast and maneuverable as any T34.
razumfrackle 10 months ago
@razumfrackle Except the Panther couldn't fire (and hit) while on the move.Only US tanks could do that, because all WWII US tanks had stabilized guns. Noone else had them.
DonMeaker 9 months ago
@DonMeaker the M4 Sherman was the best tank fielded in North Africa by either side. It had a highly advanced stabilized gun that gave it an advantage in any engagement less than 500 meters.
Beyond that the Panther owned the battlefield.
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle except that the M-4 with 75mm gun could hit Panther with WP smoke, and then the Panther would not hit because it could not see. The Panther could survive that, but it had to run. One Panther crew dismounted and ran, and then decided they were cut off, and ran back to their Panther after the smoke cleared, to soak up three more rounds.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker:"except that the M-4 with 75mm gun could hit Panther with WP smoke, and then the Panther would not hit because it could not see"
yeah, I saw that episode of 'Greatest Tank Battles' on the Military Channel.
My contention still stands:"The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire."
The M4's stablized gun was a big plus, but not enough to offset the Panther's 76mm. Tank on tank the Sherman was outclassed.
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle I didn't see that episode. I read about that tactic in the 2nd Armored division history.
Panther had a 75mm gun, but one with higher velocity than Sherman's. On the other hand, Sherman's 75mm gun had a superior HE round, being based on the ww1 French 75 howitzer. German HE rounds used PETN which is more sensitive to shock than TNT. Because of that, Panther's HE would sometimes catastrophically detonate. That could kill dismounts outside the vehicle.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker We are talking tank on tank here. So let's compare AP not HE.
The Panther 75mm (not 76mm - my bad) KwK 42 AP round had the following armor piercing performance: 500m: 174mm and 1000m: 149mm
The M4 Sherman w/ 75mm firing the M72 AP was dismal by comparison: 500m: 76mm
Even the M4 Sherman 76mm firing the HV AP M93 was inferior: 500m:146 mm and 1000m:127mm
And the vaunted Sherman Firefly using APCBC ammunition: 500m: 140mm and 1000m: 131mm
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle I disagree that the sole measure of a tank's ability is it's ability in tank on tank battle. US fielded two classes of armored vehicles, and the Tank Destroyer was intended to defend against tank assaults, and they did so well that every german attack from Kasserine to the Ardennes failed to meet its operational objectives. US tanks were intended to excel in exploitation and infantry support. they did. In practice, US tanks and TDs both fired more HE than Armor piercing rounds.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker Tank Destroyers caused the Germans to fail to meet their operational objectives at the Kasserine pass?
That's not a defendable statement.
As for your argument, go back to my original contention, "The German Panther, better than any other WWII tank design, best combined elements of speed, mobility, armor and cannon fire."
Every modern medium and MBT is designed to excel at tank-on-tank battle. The Panther, more than any other design of its era, was the inspiration for this.
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle The exchange ratio of TD vs. Tanks at Kasserine was 1-1, enough that the Germans withdrew rather than advance on their objectives. Panther did not have much mobility, due to very low reliability of final drives, engines, and roadwheels. Each had a life of about 1000 km, and all three in combination gives reliability of 333 km. Fail. Panther's 75mm gun had a poor HE round. Tanks use more HE rounds than AP. Panther was an effective antitank gun, but overpriced for that role.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker:"TD vs. Tanks at Kasserine was 1-1, enough that the the Germans withdrew [from the Kasserine pass because of American TD]
rubbish. Don, you have a gift for numbers games. The Germans were outnumbered and still had an overall tank kill ratio of 134/34. To spin it any other way is absurd. The Germans retired because they believed they could not secure the pass for an Allied counter-attack and not out of respect for our 75mm M3 TD (a joke compared to their 88mm batteries).
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle Most of our 75mm TD were half tracks at that time. They were effective against German tanks. They were not intended to be used against 88s. US used asymmetric doctrine at that time, rock-paper-scissors like. Mobile guns to stop tanks, Tanks to exploit against enemy artillery. Artillery against enemy Infantry. That doctrine worked so well that every german tank attack against US was stopped short of its objectives.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker:"That doctrine worked so well that every german tank attack against US was stopped short of its objectives."
Not at the Kasserine pass it didn't, nor in the opening days the the Battle of the Bulge. The US won in Europe because we had far greater numbers, control of the air and much better logistics (i.e. lots and lots of 'red ball' trucks full of stuff - esp. gas).
German tanks and tactical tank doctrine were far superior to ours.
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle German objective at Kasserine was the airfield at Tebessa. Germans never got close.
The bulge objectives were beyond the Meuse. Germans didn't get close to that.
German doctrine in the latter days was 'a hope and a prayer' being sent off despite no fuel. Rather like the Japanese Yamoto battleship sent off to fight fueled for a one way trip. It didn't work, and it is not good doctrine.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker
Jeez Don, I know your a swell guy and all, but come on. Trying to rewrite the Kasserine as anything but an American route ... geez
As for the Bulge, gas my man, gas. Every historian knows it. The Germans ran out of gas. They drove their armor as far as they could go and then walked back - that was the great American victory at the Bulge.
The Panther was superior to anything the allies had (until the M26 and the comet) in every category but maintenance and range.
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and
its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our
Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the
especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight.
Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-
crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely
superior to our Panzers.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@razumfrackle The commander of the Panzer Lehr Division, Gen. Fritz
Bayerlein, reported the weaknesses of the Panther tank in the
fighting in Normandy: While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the
PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The
Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good ...
[the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of
its width.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker Even the soviets said that even though the sherman was considerably worse then theirs, the people that used it said that it was better for some niches
dardo1201 7 months ago
@dardo1201 Uh, care to back up your claim with some sources?
Every contemporary book or publication I've ever read states the contrary.
Citation ~ Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza
"We were very impressed when we got our first Sherman tanks. The workmanship was superb, the transmission was excellent, and it was very roomy and comfortable."
"I have used different tanks, the Sherman was the most well rounded"
jigglypiggly 7 months ago
@dardo1201 Even the Soviets? Let us check facts in history. Korea- T-34 and IS-1/2 got their butt kicked. Israeli-Arab Wars- T-34 and T-54 repeatably conquered by the M50 Sherman. T-34? Nope.
Normacly 6 months ago
@Normacly
ww2 t34 rape german ;] easy xD
lolmenia 5 months ago
@lolmenia ha..ha haha were did u get ur history lesson from? the russians them self?
lieutenant805 3 months ago
@DonMeaker panther was better than any allied tank dumbass
yummmm11 4 days ago
@yummmm11 In some ways. In other ways it lacked. Panther was less reliable, had slower traverse, and no stabilized gun. it was also higher by 10 inches, and so harder to hide, and wider, so less able to penetrate woods or cities. It had wider treads, and so was better on soft ground, a better gun, and better frontal armor (while quality was controlled). Panther was harder to penetrate, but more likely to detonate if penetrated.
DonMeaker 4 days ago
@DonMeaker i would chose it over a pershing any day
yummmm11 3 days ago
@razumfrackle The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country,
while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore
are very restricted in their ability to fight.
All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more
maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and
guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun.
From report by Albert Speer after inspection of the front. 1944
DonMeaker 8 months ago
Weak side
armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of
porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the
tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision
slits makes defense against close attack impossible.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
High silhouette. Very
sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side
armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of
porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the
tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision
slits makes defense against close attack impossible.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@razumfrackle The successful defense at both Kasserine and Sbiba passes on 19 February obliged Rommel to review his original plan. 805th TD was a key part of that defense. 894th TD at Thala were a successful part of that defense.
No doubt that Panther had excellent antitank capabilities, particularly from ambush. Other platforms had that capability and cost much less, like Hertzer. What Panther couldn't do was attack well
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker:"What Panther couldn't do was attack well"
Like the Sherman could attack any better? Isn't that what this discussion is about?
razumfrackle 8 months ago
@razumfrackle Sherman could attack better, because of its faster traverse, stabilized gun, better HE round, WP round, higher reliability, higher P/W ratio. The Panther/Tiger were very good defensive antitank platforms. Sherman was a Tank, and excelled at infantry support during "breaking the crust" and exploitation during "eat the pie" after the German lines were penetrated.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DrHavoc1 ok reading your too points, the t-34 and panther were both good tanks, but the panther was a much better tank, with far fewer problems then you think, most were due to lack of supplys and fuel for the tanks, which is not the panthers fault, but the german armys. The Germans always have and always will build the best tanks.
spirit774 9 months ago
@razumfrackle When ever Panther attacked Sherman, Panther lost in large numbers. Where Sherman attacked Panther, Sherman lost in moderate numbers. Sherman had a stabilzed gun, so could fire on the move. By contrast, Panther had no stabilization, and had to halt, race engine to traverse, and then fire if it wanted to hit.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
Other than comparing the Suspension and Uphill Performance between both tanks, at 0:34 Im sure the M3 Grant wouldve been able to climb that wall obstacle with very little effort like the Panther, if only the Treads were designed like the Panther's Treads, cause you clearly see that the Treads on the M3 is just rounding off the corner and slipping back.
EvilFingers 1 year ago
Nazzy rubbish.
Bodie007 1 year ago
there is only 1 year between Panther and Lee and you say that thats unfair.
Warlord13413 1 year ago
M3 was a formidable if it was build in World War One.
gm79 1 year ago
@gm79 no, it were build 1942. the Panther were build 1943
Warlord13413 1 year ago
Comment removed
gm79 1 year ago
The "m" series of american tanks were designed to be cheap, easy to repair and transport, and be a all around decent medium tank. American generals at the time knew at the time that their main tank series were less effective but didn't think they would run into many Panthers or Tigers, which were better despite maintenance and logistical problems.
uni4rm 1 year ago
Ok, Here are the facs, This video was made IN germany DUREING WW2. It was shown like a comercial. They would not say "hey guys look the american tank is better than our was are fucked" No they wanted to boost moral, so you make what you have look better. We did this to. I do not know if the Lee could beat this tank but what i do know is that this is rigged so they can boost moral.
dirtbiker4lfe 1 year ago
is like to compare a Piper Cub against a ME 262 , ridiculous
pintoland 1 year ago
Lee's cycled out before Panthers made it to units......early panthers all lose to Lee easy....they kept breaking down with that transmission....meanwhile Lee was invincible to the Japanese forces...stayed in Pacific.....Panthers got better but never fully overcame transmission.. in a drag race never take a panther it would knock off gear teeth if accelerated too fast...Sherman/Lee meanwhile had angle tripled herring bone gears ... really strong....
crpdst2003 1 year ago
@crpdst2003 You have a bad point there. M4 and M3 had the same suspension and track setup. In the test for obstacle clearance the M4 would have failed too. And tanks were designed for drag racing. Overall, one can't compare a tank like Panther with a farmer's armored truck like M4.
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago
@ ...newer suspensions to support heavier chasis of dumbo's thick armor or upgunning to Easy 8 ...that carried the Sherman far into the future...
eventually mounting 105mm for Israelsi. Many Shermans remain in
reserve and used into 90's as MBT.. continues to be used
as SP guns, Armoured Ambulances, and various Engineering tasks like bridging and tank recovery....
crpdst2003 1 year ago
Germans, their designs couldn't be beat, it still can't be
SMGJohn 1 year ago
@SMGJohn
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker
SMGJohn 8 months ago
You can't compare those two.
Lachausis 1 year ago
panther can be knockout by any tank just shot panther at the back and side no heavy tank can be knockout even the russian juggernaut tank can be knockout by panzerfaust.
Gab1n0III 1 year ago
1:01 Fire the Panzershreck!!
SpongeyFilmer 1 year ago
if they made at least 500,000 panthers the germans might have succeded in there counter attacks
TheShart1234 1 year ago
Leave it to germans to make a tank.
Leopard 2, Abrams and T-90 are all in the TOP3.
The chinese tanks are pieces shit copies. China is unable to develop anything in it´s own.
Maverick110290 1 year ago
Leave it to germany to be unfair xD
peepeevagi 1 year ago
German tanks are the best !
Crotiger99 1 year ago
american, english and russian tanks in WW2 were toys....The German tank was definitely best tank of WW2 that was a fucking tank....
El7IncA 1 year ago
@El7IncA HUH!.......thats an insult to Germans too....they couldn't stop those toys
flooding into their interior?... everything up to Tiger was T-34 fodder, and Panther was a deliberate copy that got too heavy....Sherman could road march with 2000 mile plus track life while Germans had 200 miles.....Panzers went to battle on the back of trains....USA, UK, and USSR road marched their vehicles...imagine that tactical flexibility allied to ironclad air support....
crpdst2003 1 year ago
@crpdst2003 You know, russian T34's were prohibited to enter artillery duels with some of their fodder, like Stug's. Pz IV were on equal terms with the T34 as long as we don't take into consideration the economy factor.
As for Panther a copy of T34, that is not really the case. What was copied? The sloped armor? You can't be serious in your claim that is a copy just based on sloped armor.
They moved around with trains because it was cheaper and less fuel demanding.
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago
@nyctasiaselesq One company's prototype (Forgot whether it was MAN or Daimler Benz) looked very much like the Panther.
Pershingtank 1 year ago
@Pershingtank I'll be dammed if I understand what you want to say.
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago
@nyctasiaselesq @nyctasiaselesq Whoops, I meant to say T-34, not Panther. ^^; Here's the Daimler Benz prototype. I'd post a link, but the comment won't post if I do.
Pershingtank 1 year ago
@Pershingtank You refer to the Daimler-Benz VK 3002 project that was rejected in favor of the MAN design (the actual Panther tank). There was also a project submitted by Skoda, the Panzerkampfwagen T-25. Pretty advanced for that day too.
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago
@nyctasiaselesq yes
Pershingtank 1 year ago
@Pershingtank The Daimler-Benz VK 3002 is almost 100% shape copy of the T34. Still, what went inside were german designed weapons and systems, and it had a different road wheel setup compared to T34. It is speculated that this is the reason for losing to the MAN design (the resemblance in shape).
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago
@crpdst2003 just an example...it was 1000 usa tanks 1000 russians tanks and 1000 english pirates tanks againts 100 german tanks..thats why they won period.
El7IncA 1 year ago
@El7IncA keep dreaming dude. by 1939, the German army possessed some 590,000 horses...was still primarily dependent on horses, total number of horses used by wehrmacht ww2 - 2.8 million.
over 4/5 ths of the wehrmacht depended on horse drawn wagons during ww2. Much of the german wehrmacht went to war just like their'e grandfathers did in ww1 on foot or horse drawn wagon.
The spearheads went 'varoom' and the rest of the army went 'clippty clop'.
Imagine outrunning your supplies and support.
fluffy1931 1 year ago
@fluffy1931 ok let me examplain this for you, Germany fought againts the whole world period.
El7IncA 1 year ago
@El7IncA no it did'nt, unless your'e whinny little 12yr old who lives in his mom and dads basement ?
The 'axis powers ' included germany, italy and japan.
In 1939' thru the Molotov Ribbentropp Pact germany and the USSR became 'BFF' ( allies ) divided up eastern europe into spheres of influence and together 'Cockblocked ' and invaded Poland together. - germany from the west and the USSR from the east. get over your'e 'period' and get a box of tampons.
fluffy1931 1 year ago
General Lees were phased out after Tunisia. Germans didn't have Panzerfaust weapon available until later. The mountainous terrain of Liri Valley and MonteCassino precluded tank combat.
IanHunedoara8 1 year ago
It would be more appropriate to compare a panther with an M4 easy Eight Sherman with its improved heavy duty suspension, wider tracks, etc. (some Shermans also had diesel engines).
christof139 2 years ago
The interim/stopgap M3 Medium tank was developed in 1941 and first used during the May-June Gazala campaign by the Brits, & was very successful against the German MkIII, MkIV, & AT guns.
M3 Mediums were never used against Panthers by the Western Allies since they had been retired for use in training & the Brits sent a good number to the CBI (China-Burma-India) Theater where they did OK against the Japanese.
This is a Nazi propaganda film made for dumb civilians.
christof139 2 years ago
@rampking1, I know. I have read & studied history for decades. I am near 60.
The USA long 76mm was used in Normandy, but there was a shortage of HVAP ammo so regular AP was the main ammo type used. After Normandy HVAP became much more plentiful. The 76.2mm TD was also used to ggod effect in Normandy. In Sept. 1944, the M-36 Jackson TD with the 90mm gun became available.
christof139 2 years ago
can any1 tell me how much it would cot to buy one of these tanks???
Ivannator138 2 years ago
M3 was not used when the Panther was available. M3 was a stopgap measure & did well against MkIII & MkIV pzs in North Africa & Sicily.
The M4 Easy Eight Sherman with long 76mm gun firing HVAP easily holed Panthers & Tiger I's except for the front glacis plate of the Panther. The long 76mm firing HVAP ammo had better penetration than the USSR 85mm & USSR tests & documents confirm this.
Most mechanically reliable tanks of the war were the Sherman & T-34.
christof139 2 years ago
Christoff, You're correct for most part. the M3 Grant/Lee wasn't suited against the Mark4 Panzer. it was never capeble of beating it. It had a 75mm M3 gun that was capeble of taking out mark4 but at the time, the Panzer4's were allready being replaced bu Long Barrled versions.
ThePanzerWarMachine 2 years ago
you are correct that the 76mm guns of the M4a3E8 was capeble agianst Panthers, but they're were simply not enough og them, and the U.S ordance used them in cumstom squads of Sherman insted of Normall once. like they did with the Firefly.
at the end the M4 Sherman was favored to keep in production to the M6 Heavy Tank. that could drasticly decrease production hights of Shermans, Cromwells, and Ammo.
ThePanzerWarMachine 2 years ago
Hi, Yeah, I know. there weren't a lot of Easy Eights but production was increasing. By Fall of 1944 ~1 in 4 or 5 Shermans was an Easy Eight, although there were units that had a higher ratio. Each platoon had 1 or 2 & some platoons were composed entirely of them by Fall of 1944. ~300 Jumbo Shermans were also made.
M3 gun wasn't as good as either German long 75mm in the MkIV, but it could still penetrate the frontal armor of the 1942-43 versions of the MkIV at a decent range.
christof139 2 years ago
@christof139
Correct about the M3 in North Africa where it's 75mm made a huge impact at El Alamein...in 1941*.
The 76mm on the Sherman was much too late to the game. They could have used it during the Normandy Invasion in June 1944*.
Based on known intelligence from battles in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy we knew the 75mm was a cruel joke against up-armoured Panzer IV, Panther's and Tigers. There should have been a post-war investigation into this fiasco.
rampking1 2 years ago
why did all german and allied tanks use gasoline (not all) but most While Russia was all diesel
Russia for the win in tanks, but i still love the panther
WinnyJ1 2 years ago
one reason is:When u fire up a diesel engine on the battlefield,the result is a plume of black smoke,therefore you gave away your position..then the 88 did the rest..Plus the T-34`s engine was originally a marine engine.And the whole us army was running on petrol at the time,..logistics
egerhardcore 2 years ago
If i remember correctly.
Diesel wasn't that reliable back then either, and german manufactures didn't like diesel.
Well either way its better than what the French used... aircraft fuel, if my memories serves me right
WinnyJ1 1 year ago
Hier reden wieder fast nur dumme Bastarde, ohne Ahnung von ihrem Leben oder sonst was......wie immer diese Ammi oder Engländer Spaken...lächerlich....reißt euer Maul nicht so weit auf!!! Die 2 Besten sind Deutschland und Russland!!!
sdkfz162kingtiger 2 years ago
An M3 Grant Versus a Panther?! thats not a competition. that's a slaughter!! LOL
You deffinatly can see why Germany, even today is KNow for their Tanks!
60 years on, German Panzer are still terrifying! mention the word Panzer a couple of times with American Tankers. they will be afwely quite! =)
ThePanzerWarMachine 2 years ago
Aww, that's not a fair comparison.
The M3 was ancient by the time panthers were rolling off the line.
peepeevagi 2 years ago
only two countrys have good tanks - Russia and Germany
Jacquinot1982 2 years ago
no, allies had also good tanks, like M26 Pershing or M36 Jackson, Centurion, Sherman firefly ;)
chappuchino 2 years ago
aha sherman firefly! he said good tanks lol Panther, King Tiger, Jagdpanther, Stug, Tiger, T-34 and the T family lol
pete1munchen 2 years ago
@Jacquinot1982 And the US, don't forget the Abrams
mattador2792 1 year ago
@mattador2792 I think he was talking about WWII not present day.. but since you mentioned it.. The Leopard 2A6 with L/55 has greater reach then the Abrams. Besides now adays.. it is basically who sees each other first and gets the shot off. Airpower is really the dominating factor on the Battlefield today.. and I have to give the edge to the US in that department.
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@mattador2792
bwhahhahahaa
u mean the piece of crap with a german gun?
natsplit 1 year ago
I want the Panzerschreck...
Also, it would be more even to compare the PzKpfw. V Panther to the M26 Pershing.
Pershingtank 3 years ago
Thats true! And the only tank more rare on the Battlefields of Western Europe than the Pnzr5 would have been the Pershing. The Pershing was the superior tank of the two but there were so few of either actually in combat that its pointless. The Sherman "Easy8", tho still under-powered, would have been the best choice.
A real comparison would have been any German Tank vs any UK or US Ground Support Aircraft!...
OPE08 3 years ago
The Panther was mas produced. They built nearly 6000 of them.
longy221 3 years ago
Sorry, I wasn't claiming that they weren't mass produced, but as I said they were rare in Western European battlefields. Altho it is generally true that US soldiers most often ID'd every german tank as a Panther or Tiger in AAR's. Most, by a long shot, of the tanks the Western Alliance ran up against were PnzrIII and IV's.
OPE08 3 years ago
That video was made around 70 years ago. Like my Grandad's '03 30-06 Springfield that shot the German who made the film! LOL!
jtrisgood 4 years ago
It's really very unfair for the M3...
cwjian90 4 years ago 22
@cwjian90 have you ever seen fair propaganda?
macbrink 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cwjian90 have you ever seen fair propaganda?
macbrink 11 months ago
C'mon, how to compare Panter with General Lee tank... the last is a joke
COBLIS 4 years ago 12
Just like ALL German propaganda films of the era.
Even if they had a Sherman E8 or a Pershing ( neither of which exsisted when this film was made) they wouldn't have allowed them to outperform the German tank... Compare an M3 to a PnzrI or II, the M3 would devastate the PnzrI, and the II only had a 20mm AA cannon...
OPE08 3 years ago
It is not about German propaganda, everybody knows that german tanks at the last years of WW2 owned American and british tanks, both in firepower and armor. Check the north africa battle... germans lost because bad strategy and the bombing of their heavy militar industry
Monyax 3 years ago
You miss my point, which was that the Germans who made this clip purposely compared their newest tank to Americas oldest tank in order to make the Pnzr5 look better.
And your assesment of German armor is off a bit. Germany's production numbers increased throuout the war despite the bombings. And while the Pnzr5 was a good tank it was mechanically unreliable, and the Pnzr6 (Tiger, King Tiger, Royale, et, et) was a worthless propaganda machine. It broke down if you looked at it wrong.
OPE08 3 years ago
They did pretty well, for "worhtless propaganda machine"... pretty better than any allied tank in fact...
latexlover888 2 years ago
I was talking about the PanzerVI when I said that, and no, the PnzrVI was a terrible machine of war. They were incredibly unreliable and prone to breakdown, they were good as self-propelled arty, were they didn't have to manuver, but in the field they are all reputation and no substance.
They couldn't carry enough fuel to operate indipendantly, the list goes on and on.
OPE08 2 years ago
I too was speaking of the PZ VI.
Just about operational range: both ausf H and ausf B are in the average of most allied tanks -soviet's excepted. About mechanical failure, the early launches for ausf H (and this is also true for Panther for that matter) just glued to them some historical exageration about unreliability. Lower maneuvrability for PZ VI? Right. And unmatched firepower. As well as unmatched armor. Be it late IS-2 or Pershing.
latexlover888 2 years ago
Admittedly, Tigers or Panther were not perfect.
None of the two have changed the course of war.
Yet, with their known weak points, they did pretty well. Pretty better than any allied tanks.
Average scores of both sides speak of themselves.
And this last point, you should think to that: knowing what you're fighting in: Allied tanks equipages were also fighting, knowing the weaknesses of their vehicles, as did the germans.
latexlover888 2 years ago
got that right...the US and the russians can thank victory to nothing lewss than mass production...germany was beaten by quantity not quality.
DULDEN85 2 years ago
I love the M3 Lee!
emmthreejonny 4 years ago
Nine sprecken Dutch, sprecken ze English.
elli782 4 years ago
ha ha very funny, now why not write that in english
roberthisanoob 4 years ago
Achtung! This is English site!!!! Schnell!! Schnell!!
jtrisgood 4 years ago