Panzer V (Phanter). Battle of Kursk

[CaronJenxv888]

so miau wer will camen

[PANZERDEAL]

nice clip of the mk. 5,tho..

[PANZERDEAL]

nope. those are winter scenes, not July..

[Panzertaktik]

Thanks for the video. The Panther was really the most successfull of the german tank constructions. It even took only half the time to build a Panther than a Tiger.

[chefrazorboy]

They look like Ausf. A's with that late style cupola to me ... just sayin'

[christof139]

I'm almost 60, & the panther commander I met at the original Squadron Shop here in Michigan in the late 1960s & he served on the East Front mainly - name unknown. Whitman did not take out the Brit. armored column all by himself, because there were 2 other Tiger I's, at least 1 Mk IV & infantry with AT weapons firing on the Brits. Whitman's Tiger & I believe the other Geramn tanks were also knocked out or damaged, but Whitman's Tiger at least was recovered & repaired. It's well documented.

[christof139]

BTW, The Tiger II's shot-up at la Gleize, Belgium were hit from considerable distance, although there was some closer in fighting there as at Stoumont etc.

[christof139]

USA 90mm with HVAP would penetrate the glacis plate of a Panther at range, & could & did deal with Tiger II. Poor crew training is no excuse for the Germans, since in the early war days German tank crews were better trained & more experienced than Allied tank crews, so the tide turned - too bad. That is war dear nazi cry babies.

[konigtigertank]

@christof139

"cry babies"... M. Wittmann would laugh in your face...clown

[christof139]

@konigtigertank, You're an idiot kid. I knew a Panther commander that thought Whitman was full of beans/shit.

[konigtigertank]

@christof139

I'm a 46 y.o. Hitler historian, hardly a kid, with 30+ years of WW2 study.

Who was the Panther commander? and so what what he thought, is that suppose to prove anything??

He was probably envious that his kill score was lower than Wittmann in any case... :)

[christof139]

@konigtigertank, Envious!??! Not at all. He was just honest, but you wouldn't understand that. A soldier would not be 'envious' of another soldier's deeds of courage, mercy, etc.

[christof139]

@konigtigertank, I've also met Uwe Feist way back when, & many others. I also served in the military with WWII veterans etc. etc. etc. Have you beat with the 'historian' aspect also.

[christof139]

@konigtigertank, BTW, you sound like an immature kid.

[konigtigertank]

@christof139

right, jerk

you have not proven anything, except you like to insult to make you more a "man"...

you wish you had the balls to be like Wittmann, a great hero!

[christof139]

@konigtigertan, A sane person does not wish to go to war. It is not a lark. You know nothing & are an immature jackass & have experienced not anything. Go back to your baby crib & have your delusionary dreams.

[MrBobe9]

@konigtigertank You made your point. The germans documented every aspect of their operations, they have records (waffen ss panzer division records in microfilm at Washington DC Archives).

Who is the tank commander, name it and we will search.

[MrBobe9]

@konigtigertank i am glad i am not the only one who are serious students of WWII, i have also more than 30 years of research.

WWII was immense and i am still learning about it, i guess more information is coming out there must be some kind of 50 years moratorium and after that the information is released .

Lots of new information are coming now, also LLOYD CLARK 2011 has new book about KURSK very interesting, with details of battle from point of view of soldiers involved in it.

[christof139]

Panthers had poor ammo storage, & nearly any round penetrating the side & rear of the turret & sometimes the front, & the upper side hull armor (the sponsoons where more ammo was stored) resulted in the ammo burning or exploding. Later model Shermans with wet ammo storage burnt only 16-20% of the time when hit, while Panthers burned close to or over 50-60% or so of the time when penetrated in these areas.

[god4488]

@christof139 The Panther had bad rear and side armour (later G variant had better side protection) anyways the 75mm gun was superior over any other gun made this time (it was even better at penetration and range as the 88mm) the speed of the tank as well as the mobility were also superior over the t-34 and other light tanks. And mostly the enemy tanks never came in to the range to kill a panther. The most panthers were destroyed by planes or naval guns same like tiger IIs.

[christof139]

@god4488, No, most Panthers were destroyed by Allied armor on both the West & East Fronts, & analyses of battlefield wrecks confirm this. Allied seapower did not decimate the Panthers at Mortain, etc. or in Alsace-Lorraine or the Bulge, but Allied armor did.

You know nothing of what occurred, or warfare period. IOTW, you are an uniformed idiot.

In the Bulge about 60 - 90 long barrelled 76mm Shermans were lost & the Germans lost ~190 Panthers.

[god4488]

@christof139 idiot. the reason for the high losses are clear. The high losses of 198 Panthers were caused by city combat the German high command normally used Panzer IV or Panzer III for close quarter warfare (often with short barrel) they didn't had enough at the western front. Also the high losses were caused by newly formed panther crews and often by crews which never had combat experience. In a open battle Panthers would still rule in Speed mobility and firepower against american crap.

[christof139]

@god4488, Idiot yourself. Their was limited 'city' combat in the Bulge: Stoumont, Stavelot, & other villages. This cannot be used as an excuse. By the time of the Ardennes the MkIII was only used as command & observation vehicles, not as a MBT.

[christof139]

@god4488, By the time of the Ardennes the easy eight Sherman with wet ammo storage, improved suspension & wide tracks was being used & ALL USA AFVs & trucks etc. were much more reliable than the panthers with their final drive problem that was never solved, & the Tigers that continually broke down. The long 76mm with HVAP was sufficient to penetrate the gun manlet & frontal turret armor of a Panther, & also could take out a Tiger I from a range of ~1,000m, more than enough

[christof139]

@god4488, Panther G's side armor was still insufficent, as most WWII tanks' side armor was. IS-II had better side armor, as did the KV-I.

The defeat of the German counteroffensive in Alsace-Lorraine, particularily when the French armor devastated german panthers with USA 76.2mm Wolverines & long barrelled 76mm Shermans, is another good example showing the panther etc. were not super tanks.

[konigtigertank]

@christof139

"long barrelled 76mm Shermans"?? All Shermans and "wolverines" were junk compared to the Germans tanks. The only "Shermans" that stood a chance against Panthers were the so-called Fireflies and they were only a handful made. Still, the Panthers could deal with them as well. The German tankers had superior firepower and manuever, better gun, armour, optics than any allied tank.

The best opponent against the Panther was the M26 Pershing with it's 90mm; they saw action last 2 mons

[christof139]

@god4488, No the Panther's 75mm L70 was not superior to the Tiger II's 88mm L71 nor the 128mm of the Jagd Tiger, but was superior to the 88mm L56 of the Tiger I & 75mm L48 of the MkIV etc. The 75mm - with modifications - was produced & used by France in the early AMX-13 light tank, & France also produced some Panthers after WWII. Panther was a great tank, but many problems with it were never corrected.

[konigtigertank]

@christof139

the only "problem" that was never ameloriated was the final drive gear.

The main problem with it was for the Russian and allied tanks that never got over being destroyed by it!!

[christof139]

At ranges of ~300m & less the British, USA, & USSR 57mm AT guns could penetrate the front turret mantlet & armor of a Panther, & easily penetrated the sides of the turret & upper & lower hull, & a USA 57mm round went throught the raod wheels on one side, through the lower hull & through the hull & road wheels of the opposite side. The frontal glacis plate of the Panther could not be penetrated by 57, 75 or 76mm & I believe 85mm guns.

[bunsinh456]

Really? Phanter?

[christof139]

All Panther models were easy to knock out from the side, even the later G's with the mor sloped upper side armor because it was still too thin. 57mm AT guns, short Sherman 75mm & short T-34 76.2mm guns easily knocked them out from the side.

There were 200 Panthers at Kusrk in a brigade attached to GD Div. 2 had engine fires upon unloading from trains, & ~44 more broke down during the first 2 or so days of Kursk. The final drives only lasted for ~160km before they broke down.

[god4488]

@christof139 nearly all tanks on the german side were mostly "forced" into battle the engineers often didnt had enough time to fix problems. The engineers warned the german high command that the tanks like panther or KingTiger could have problems but they wanted the tanks on the battlefield. And imagine tanks at this time were put into production after 1 monts of their invention.. today it takes more then 5 years until a vehicle will reach the prototype status.

[christof139]

@god4488, There wasn't any tank in WWII that went into production after only 1-month developemnt, & only the Soviet IS-152 (& maybe the SU-122) comes close to that short of time between developement & production.

[zdravc88]

@christof139 Tiger E and Panther was sent to the combat with little testing.Panther D was proof for that.Operation Citadel was delayed because of the Panthers.But G version was superior to all alied medium tanks

[christof139]

@zdravc88, Yes I know, I am ~60 & know all this. Thank you & bye-bye.

[69sexdemon69]

They may not have needed the 88's, But the Panther II could have taken them, They where planned to use same 88 as the Tiger II, as many parts between the Tiger II and Panther II where the same, Making production and maintenance simpler.

[69sexdemon69]

As for side armor.. Earlier Panthers sucked.. Later ones suck as the G's where spectacular.. 40mm sloped armour..  did the job.. and as for production.. even with serious allied bombings they still increased production numbers by ALOT.. If the germans had em when they first came in Russia.. oo total ass wooping.. Better yet.. if they had Panther II'sfitted wit 88's

[jackzero99]

@69sexdemon69 They didn't need the 88's as their 75mm L71 was superior to the 88mm L56 on the Tiger at distances under 1500m, where most tank fights took place.

[69sexdemon69]

If my numbers are correct there where 5,976 Panthers built, Oh and for peoples info.. Ill have to find the stuff again.. But the Panthers never made it to the battle of kursk.. they where stuck on trains i think just out of germany.. Only there tank crews got there.. not the tanks.. And when comes to numbers with russians vs germans.. i would rely more on German figures.. More then once been proven to be far more curate.

[jackzero99]

@69sexdemon69 They were at Kursk, but not effective as they still had numerous problems

[christof139]

There were only some 5,000 and some odd number of Panthers built. Their side armor wasn't thick enough and the front of the turret could be holed by 57mm and up guns at varying ranges, but the frontal glacis plate was very good..

[TroyaE117]

The Panther was cheap, was it?

[TroyaE117]

A superb tank, but expensive to produce, so inevitably, they were too few.

[RedGunBullets]

you mistaken it with the tiger which was to expensive to produce and etc. the panther was build about 7.000 pices

[Vaiseyy]

These Panthers a Version A or G, u can see that because of the MG at the front....Panther Version D hadn't such an MG-Box, but only the D-Version had been in action at Kursk

[stonewall554]

the tanks shown in this video are Panthers and Panzer 4H's, not a single tiger shown. Many people, including the russians often mistook the the Panzer 4H for a tiger due to a similar silhouette. thats why the russians report knocking out 2,000 tigers during Kursk when only 1,368 were ever made through the whole war

[Aaidas2]

I think there is a Tiger at 0:33

[stonewall554]

your absolutly correct that is a tiger at 0:33 ..missed that one...nice catch!

[breezeman199]

Exaggeration is common in war. Maybe its the adrenalin rush. Enemy casualties always tend to be over-stated. The Japanese pilots were notorious for this.

[stonewall554]

exactly my point....and i agree it could be the adrenalin

[procopro]

Gee these Panthers turned out to be real fuck-ups, breaking down everywhere during Operation Zitadelle.

[dmoehn]

tiger mark 4??? wtf? tiger I was a panzer VI and it was a very good design, if the germans had only taken the time to equip it with an adequate engine instead of rushing it to the fronts, and not let the luftwaffe break down, yeah, it probly would have won the war for them

[thesublimemoment]

Strange. I thought there were no more than 70 tigers in action at any time because of maintenance problems.

And I thought the tiger and panther were inspired by the KV1 and T34 respectively.

[tanasexu]

Strange.That small force became legend,the research for the Tiger started in 1940,and yes the panther is inspired from the T34 only it was a tank made by the Germans(wonderfull)

[Quickfitfitter]

The Tiger had similar or better reliability than Panzer IV. Panther was the most unreliable of those three. Panther was inspired by T-34. Tiger was heavier but it was designed earlier than Panther. The transmission of Panther and Tiger couldn't handle the strong motor. German Industry wasn't completely prepared for these new tanks. It was planned that Panzer III and IV would stay the backbone for a long time. But russian tanks were too strong for these early models.

[raverswillrave]

also guys german armor was the best period the tanks and their crews did not fail the goverment failed.but with that said the germans were simply overran and out produced and it doesnt matter how good your tanks are if you dont have gass to fuel em up.the t34 wasnt that bad the russian tactics were just horrible.THE Tiger ace of Tiger aces Otto Carius wrote a book after the war if you want first hand accounts of how it went down read his book.and guys dont let the mem. of the pz. man die.

[raverswillrave]

panthers were not that good they had more problems than the tigerI.Beside tiger I was the most fielded tank from 1943-45 there were more tigers fighting than panzer4s and the tiger and panther both used light weight engines designed for aircraft anyone who doesnt beleave this all you have to do is check the facts out.panther was more produceable but that doesnt matter when they are not in the fight the panzer4 and tigerI were better solutions than the panther.

[stonewall554]

accourding to production documents you are completely wrong. between 1943 and 1945 1,290 tiger 1 were produced (78 were made in 1942) for a total of 1,368. The Panther from the same time frame 1943 to 1945 6,557 were produced and the Panzer IV (including the F1, F2, H and G models)11,537 were produced. the tiger was not the most produced or most fielded tank (US and Russian tank production was much much higher)

[mathiehesse]

cameronburge is right!

[germanyforever40]

The Warmacht leader Wilhelm Kietel, under Hitler ordered his troops to kill 50 to 100 Russian Communists (That's CIVILIANS folks)to atone for the death of every Dead German Soldier. The final number was 12 Russians for every 1 Dead German. (Wonder what he was thinking when he came up with the number 50 to 100?) The Germans are usually more prcise.

[germanyforever40]

MDO206, Your right. The Germans did slaughter the Russians. They did really cruel stuff like using little kids for target practice, and using entire Village population for fodder between them and Red Army. They leveled hundreds of villages. WHY?, Land?

No wonder Boris was dead set on exacting some revenge.

[mangravy1]

The Sherman was crap, the Tiger was great, but the T-34 was even better. That's why the Germans copied the sloping armor for the King Tiger. T-34 had the best weight to protection ratio.

[jobu88]

Not really. T-34 was better than most German tanks in 1941 Pz II , Pz III). The T-34 had some major flaws-- cramped crew compartment that limited rate of fire, no radio, etc. The T-34 was totally outclassed by the Tiger and later by the Panther. When the T-34 with an 85mm gun appeared in 1944 it could at least kill Tigers and Pantehrs under the right conditions, but Panthers and Tigers could still kill T-34s at any range. You're right that the Sherman was crap.

[SWmodel29]

Tiger was crap too.

Because its engine was crap.

Panther was the best German tank of ww2.

In start of war german tanks were crap.

In start of war the british Matilda tank was very good.

Tiger II was also not a very good tank because its action radius was to small.

[jobu88]

Tiger was not crap, it had engine problems and sucked down gas, but not crippling problems.

The Panther was indeed the best all-around tank of the war, AFTER the Germans worked out engine and drive train problems that were as bad or worse than the Tiger's.

Start of war German tanks were better than anyone else's except Russia, and Russia didnt have T-34 or KV-1 in enough numbers to make a difference until 1943.

Tiger II's radius was awful, but it could kill anything.

[jobu88]

Germany couldn't stop tank production of the Pz IV long enough to re-tool factories for all Panther production. And no matter what kind of tank they produced, Russian tank production would have buried them in the end anyway. Germany was never going to win the tank production battle. Tiger and Panther's very high number of man-hours to build actually worked against them in that regard.

[md0206]

What costs for germany ? lol you seem to forget that 22 million russians died because of the Nazi's. The russians were slaughtered.

[Paulycover]

28 milion actualy...and many more are not acounted

[j22nus]

panther was one of the turning points in tank history and certainly the best tank of world war 2.

[tHeWasTeDYouTh]

Panther Vs kicked t-34 asssss

[SmiertSpionem]

Calm before the storm...

[LordLemanRuss]

Ich sag doch: Deutsche Panzer sind die BESTEN!

[Najica]

Zugestimmt

[beckett2005]

buuhaaa...haaa...A ja tebya skazu: FERGISS NIE PROCHOROWKA.

German tanks were crap. Motors were driven with gasoline and not diesel oil - they burned well.

Kursk is where Germans finally got it, not Stalingrad but Kursk. T34 were more suited tactically and economically. Even most German antitank guns Marder were equipped with Russian guns. What Germans had better was Goebel's newsreels that you can now watch and salivate. gosh, how can you forget who lost the war and with what cost for Germany.

[aleontez]

kids dont anderstand things like that:)

Russian tanks where the best tanks ever made. the history told us about that on every step. aber warum? ich will nicht lernen ! :)

[beckett2005]

Of course, I did not mean German young panzer soldiers were crap. I wanted only to claim that German tanks were not necessarily the best. Eg. Sherman was a result of mass production project and for assault - economically it was quite good for the needs of western front. Give too strong plates and it eats too much fuel... One of the overlooked reasons why Ardennes German counterattack could fail before it started.

[add35]

are you sure about what you've just said?sherman like t34 was a piece of crap.read the real history buddy and after that talk,you have been brain washed.........why americans ....and again the most beautiful people in the world russians stole everything what they could(in matter of tehnology )from germany?because that stuff wasn't good?how about the rockets?submarines?atomic bomb?even tanks....read buddy don't let this u.s. media to affect your brain.with respect to all u.s. loses!

[beckett2005]

Primo design of t34 and sherman was a compromise to achieve both military tactics (fast forward offencive action, not heavy devensive), and mass production, moreover, t34 was diesel (read Suvorow ab advantages). Most people exagerrate German design (most guns were copied or even salvaged from Russian guns) for eg. tank fighter Marder. Russian strategy was heavily copied from german, of course. AND VICE VERSA.

[beckett2005]

Germans showed massive lack of sense spending enourmous resources of extravagant weapons without tactical justification, Mass production of Katiusha (so much feared on Eastern Front), armor plated tank fighting planes like Suchoy and fast medium tank like T34 would be more profitable for Germans than V1, V2, jet fighter, Tiger, Mouse Tank,... more modern subs would be better than Heavy Cruisers like Tirpitz, Bismark... Germany actually lost the war because of ill investment in weapons.

[beckett2005]

At one point Russian offensive looked like: enormous congestion of artillery (howitzers every 5m, lots of katiusha multirocket) followed by sturmovniki fighter planes to get rid of heavy armor, and t34 plus Guard and Sturm brigades, is any of Goebels propaganda showing this Red Storm? Germans were given (probably secret talks) halve a year to prepare a defence on Vistula river. 600 km depth for defence and manover and half a year time....where were those SS big mouths to fight?

[beckett2005]

The answer was one, nazis wasted most of their economic capacities of weapons extravaganca. It actually ruined their war economy.

[SWmodel29]

yeh only thing they had to do was mass produce the Panther tank and stop produce Tiger 1 and 2 tanks.

[brokencasket]

There was more than 1 version of the Marder....and not all of them used the Russian PAK 36 ATG, the Marder IIIH used the German PAK 40 ATG for example....German tanks were Diesel as well and none of them used Russian guns in their turrets, they were made by Reinmetall Borsig.

[tommcd]

that's great man, just great.