Production increased but the transportation infrastructure collapsed, Women were never fully integrated into the work force they used slave labor or conscriped foreign workers. Not the most motivated people. 8000 Panthers 50000 shermans and about the same T34s. A Panther with out gas is just a pill box. As American tankers got better german tankers got worse, poorly trained no gas. Cream of panzers killed in Russia.
@tangocharlie11 None of that changes the fact that the M4 had to somehow get around the back of the Panther at close range to have any chance of knocking it out. Made even more difficult that the M4 had no speed advantage over the Panther and was in fact slower on soft ground, Panther could easily knock-out a sherman front-on at over a mile that with the fact that the M4 had a nasty habit of instantanously bursting into flames. M4 sounds like a great tank... only if your a Panther crew.
@doktorbimmer You are absolutely right, The US Army blew it in 1943, The M4 was a good tank until 43. US Army doctrine was flawed. Tanks were for explotation Tank Destroyers were to battle tanks. Slowed down development of better tanks,and guns. The Zaloga book is a good source. The Pershing 6 months earlier would have been a better match against the Panther. Or at least putting 17 pders in US M4s.
@88pie88 Not true, the camoflage applied would be correct as to color and was expected to be applied in the field, German tanks left the factory in field(panzer) gray or yellow drab, approved colors of concentrated paint paste (made to be thinned with gasoline) and spray gun was supplied for each tank. There were recommend patterns but these varied as each unit was allowed patterns that suited local conditions and terrain. Later in the war tanks were dispatched directly to the front w/o camo.
@SMGJohn There are only a couple 75mm schmalturn turret Panthers in exsistance, I don't think they ever actually built any 88mm Panthers.. its too bad they didn't. These guys built the new turret from scratch, would have been awesome if they had built it into a 88mm Ausf. F Panther
@doktorbimmer It's sad, I would love to see a turbine powered Panther 46' model with a Schmalturm turret and 88mm as they had planned. But the war ended, not that it was a bad thing
@SMGJohn That would have been the ultimate super tank of WW2! The gas turbine engine and new transmission/drive that was planned to go in the the Panther would have had over a 1,100 hp! giving it a hp/ton ratio better than a Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams and a top speed in excess of 45mph! along with the long barrel 88mm gun it would have the Allied tank crews scared silly. The shortage of nickel and cobalt for turbine blades would have plagued the project as it did their jet aircraft engine program.
@doktorbimmer Yes it would have been a tanks so fast and so deadly. The war alone could been won by that tanks. Germany only lost because they weren't able to mass produce three very important things, Jet aircrafts, Panthers and STG44 Assault rifles. They where all the advantages the allies or Soviets didn't have or could just dream about
@SMGJohn hey don't let facts spoil your dream. No oil, no raw materials, not enough men, an economy never fully mobilized because it was run by morons. A maniac leader who wasted soldiers and material. But well handled Shermans could beat Panthers. 4th Armored div. Battle of Arracort.
@tangocharlie11 Thats an interesting opinion but the facts actually show that despite heavy bombing damage Germanys military industrial output increased every month up to the very end of the war.
Statistics and first hand accounts show that the M-4 Sherman performed very poorly against the Panther.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@doktorbimmer That assumtion is in correct. Its not anti-magentic itself it nothing more then cement that prevents any kind of attachable explosive from having a smooth surface to cling to.
@roaklin Correct, anti-magnetic is the correct term as used in most of the references, this is no doubt confusing as it would be best described as "anti-magnet" coating having no magnetic properties itself or mean to resist the effect of magnetic fields. It is in fact nothing more than a clever non-metalic coating made up of wood dust, clay and PVA adhesive, applied to a specific thickness as to prevent a magnet from coming in close contact with the steel hull of the tank. Thanks for your reply
@JPMorganMustDie They are diesel. No tanks was virtual silent. It would had to be steam powered in order to be silent, heck even todays tanks are noisy.
@SMGJohn Only the Soviets used Diesel tanks in WW2 and only the heavy tanks at that. Diesel power did not see wide spread military use till later in the cold war years.
If Hollywood does a next movie set WWII, they need to use a restored Panther like this. And an Elefant. It's too bad only in Call of Duty: United Offensive has Elefants.
@caddydave i remember watching the panther episode of tank overhaul and when it got to the end i was so angry that they hadnt fininshed it on the show! thanks for posting this! and btw, is the main gun and MGs capable of firing blanks?
Yes, thats exactly my point! M26 was withdrawn from service 2 years before the war ended. 309 M26s was less than 25% of the Korean tank force and was 0% by Oct 1950. Ford GAF was used in M4 until the end of its service. The M46 and M26s built after 1948 used the Continental engine not the GAF
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@doktorbimmer You said the M26 was withdrawn from service (presumably entirely) before the M4, which isn't entirely true at all. It was withdrawn from Korea after serving well and seeing far more combat then the M46s that replaced it, but it was still in active service in West Germany until the mid-1950s, when they were replaced by M47s. So the M4 and the M26 were retired around the same time.
@wun1gee Yes, Out of the entire production run of original M26s around 2000 units built before 1948 (and barring a few that may have escaped conversion).1200 M26s were converted to M46 specs., plus the 1156 M26E2 and M46 built after 1948. Most pre1948 M26s not converted were withdrawn from service by around 1950 and those built or converted to M46 specs stayed in service until around 1957-58
@diadorim1234 Thats a good question! Some of the original Zimmerit coating would have to be removed during the restoration work so undoubtably what were seeing is a partial or total replacement coating. The formula and ingredients of Zimmerit are still readily available (Barite, PVA glue, yellow pigment, zinc sulfide and wood filler [saw dust] ) and the pattern duplicated. A modern material like body filler might also be used but I'm betting its brand new real Zimmerit.
Patton was one of those responsible for delaying the M26's combat debut ,if they had to fight inside a sherman vs a panther or tiger may have been a different story.This rubbish about the sherman being better from a logistic point of view is just that rubbish,better to have 1 m26 that could actualy survive in combat than any number of shermans needed to take on the German heavies
@tanza101 Patton was not the only reason, the M26 itself was one of the reasons. Started out as an upgraded version of the M4 Medium Tank, but throu a long series of prototypes evolved into a Heavy Tank. This is not the best way to design a tank of coarse and the M26 suffered from many performance issues including being very underpowered & overstressed. Although the M26 had enough firepower/armour to match a Panther or Tiger it was not a very successful tank and was phased out very early.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They weren't really phased out early. Pershings saw combat in Korea alongside M46s before the M47 came online. Post-war, US tank design was in over-drive and pretty much everything had a relatively short service life. The M46 in particular had a very short service life with the US military, tho it was little more then an upgraded Pershing anyway.
@wun1gee Well, thats really not true is it? The M4 actually outlived the M26, the tank that was to replace it. Most M26s were withdrawn from service and converted to new updated M46 specs, improvements were considered so extensive that they were redesignated as M46 models. Most postwar M26 were really M46s, Unconverted M26 were scrapped while there were still many M4s in service.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@doktorbimmer M26s as M26s were still in service in Korea alongside M46s. In fact, the M26 was involved in 32% of all of the tank-on-tank combat in Korea. Even tho they were withdrawn in 1951. There were 309 M26s in Korea. Both the Sherman and the Pershing were retired from US military service in the mid-1950s. They were still in service in West Germany until at least 1954..The M26 retained the same Ford GAF for it's entire service life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tanza101 That's completely incorrect. You're only looking at the tactical application of armor. The allies did not win by having better armor, they won by having more of it that was more mobile, and required less maintenance. This operational and strategic mobility negated the Panzers' large tactical advantages. The Pershing may have been more powerful, but it was less reliable than the Tiger. Also, the Pershing's 100mm armor is just as vulnerable to an 88 than the Sherman's 64.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There was a British document from the post-war years that studied US armor losses in Europe and came to the conclusion that only some 14% of US armor losses were to German armor. The rest were to mines, AT guns, infantry, accidents..It was feared that the M26 would be too heavy to cross many of the old bridges in Europe--and it was. It was a great tank, but the war wouldn't have ended any sooner had it been fielded sooner, and German armor wasn't the biggest threat to US armor.
@wun1gee Some british document? can you provide any source? 86% of all US armour knocked out by accidents, infantry attack and mines??? really?? 85% due to AT guns.. maybe? but I don't think Germany ever had that many AT guns... seriously, you must have read it wrong.
@wun1gee Thank you for posting your correction, that would make 38.9% of total US tanks lost due to German Armour.. the majority of all US tank losses.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@doktorbimmer My point was being made to counter a post made earlier about how the M26 should have been fielded earlier to counter the threat of German heavies. German heavies were far from the biggest threat to American armor and a heavy tank wasn't required to counter AT guns and SP guns. Of that minute 14% lost to German tanks, the German Mediums were a far bigger threat (Due likely to being far more numerous) then the heavies. US armor losses to German heavies were minimal.
@wun1gee Later in the war Germany focused on the production of tank destroyers and assault guns because they were found to be as effective (if not more effective in certain conditions) than tanks alone. The German Armored force was comprised of a large numbers of and many different models of "SP guns" and as your document stated the larger threat to US forces. It seems the british did not classify or see the need to deploy SP guns the same as the Germans did.
@Imppilz Allied SP gun designs were often based on the M4, simply used a larger gun but crammed into an already small or open top turret, this was not popular with crews and could be less effective in combat. Germanys tank output suffered all kinds of material shortages due to Naval blockades and most notably the bombing later during the war, the shortage of rubber, fuel, rare metals not just ball bearing effected both tanks and SP guns. But you are correct, it would be faster to build SP guns.
Which ones? That they had some really good SPGs, yes. I was merely stating that even anti tank guns could be mounted in turrets and that they were superior to SPGs (in tank hunting).
Well i never said so.. But from all i have found out (I try my best to learn from the ones who actually do study this) that the American late war tank hunters were very good. So you think russian tanks were better or what? I doubt that will find many supporters.
@Imppilz Yes, it was possible to fit the 88mm gun to the Panther "chassis" BUT WITH A LARGER TURRET (are you starting to catch on now?), the Aus F and Panther II were both proposed to be built with the '88' using a larger alongated turret simular to that of King Tiger turret that was designed from the onset to house the '88' gun.
Ahhh yes sorry you said without modification. My apologies.
By the way, the Panther II was never to have the 8.8, just the 7.5. It was cancelled long before the Panther was to have the 8.8 gun (January 1945, but the project only continued in March).
@Imppilz All prior Panzer models were effected by the introduction of the T-34, Panzer I, II, III & IV had to be all upgunned and modified or they were withdrawn from service.. the production lines converted and exisiting chassis's rebuilt into SP guns. Your ball bearing comment I suspect is a total misquote of an article regarding the removal of the the rotating "cupola" (not the turret) on some vehicles. The T-34 wasn't much trouble for a Panther or Tiger as they were designed to counter it.
Yes now that i look it up the main reason must be the overall simplicity of making SPGs ("of anything smaller than a Panther chassis). Im still not convinced that it was forced by getting a bigger gun, since the heavy SPGs were so few in number. The main problems for tank production appears to have been in transmission parts and engines, not turrets.
But still does not make the T-34 a very good tank..
@Imppilz Then name how many SP guns that used the same (or smaller gun) than it original "tank w/ turret" version!!!
Of coarse its faster and easier to build a tank without a turret that was obvious! I already agreed with you on that factor. I'm not a big fan of the T-34 either, it seems to surrounded by a lot of undeserved myths but it was a revolutionary design and it should be given its proper credit.
I did not quite understand what you asked, but if it was how many eg. Stug IV was built versus Pz IV, then it something around 8:1 in favor of the turreted one. For the Tiger 10:1, Tiger II 5:1. Panther maybe 10:1? Not very accurate numbers but good enough for a quick answer.. Of these all had a gun of the same size mounted in its turret (the Panther as you said excluded since production did not start). Pz III also had the 75mm in its turret.
@doktorbimmer HOw was the T-34 a revolutionary design...it was revolutionary in the fact that is took other features of vehicles in service and put them in one tank....that was the only revolutionary thing about it
@wartmcbeighn Yes, revolutionary in that it had all the right design features (including sloped welded armour) in one package, although it was very poorly manufactured it did set a new standard for design when it was introduced that spurred the development of what we would now call the first truely modern tanks to counter it. If not for the T-34 German tank developement may not have progressed much further than Pz IV. As I said before I'm no fan of the T-34, perhaps the most unreliable tank ever
@Imppilz I think the main reason for rise of the SP gun later in the war was the ablity to fit a much larger gun to a vehicle than was otherwise practical mounted in a turret. The Germans knew very well how effective the '88' gun could be against allied armor but it was too big for anything smaller than the Tiger series, other examples just an effort in practicallity to utilize larger available guns in older outdated tank chassis. In some roles the SP guns were actually more effective than tanks
@Imppilz Have you ever sat in the gunners seat of a tank? most of the space in the turret is taken up with the breech end of the gun, breech block, recoil mech, counterweights and elevating gear. A bigger gun needs more space to depress, elevate and recoil too.. its not easy to just fit a larger gun in a tank not to mention the each round of ammo is bigger too so it takes up even more precious turret space and allows fewer rounds to be stored.
So you think that because SPGs are better in some situations they are superior to a tank? I am fairly sure that had the Germans had the resources, they would have used turrets, just like anyone really. The tactical disadvantage of not having one is simply too great. The 8.8cm had a practical turret with sufficient space for the Panther. You can not be serious that the SPGs overcame the proplems with space you mentioned.
Why I never said it was the reason altogether, obviously the need was to place a big gun in an SPG, thus the best machine of the war was born, the Jagdpanther. But it was not that space issues were thoroughly overcome with this either, the space was still cramped in Stugs and Hetzers. My reasoning was that had Germany not fought a "delaying war" (with very limited resources) then turreted tanks would have been superior. The Panther D had a completed turret for the 8.8cm L71.
@Imppilz You said they where two of the "prime reasons" you wrote: "One of the prime reasons that the Germans relied on SP guns was the lack of ball bearings and the overall time to build them instead of tanks."
The M36 for example had a very good gun (and by late 44 very good ammo) and all this in a turret. It was mobile and far better by any means than for example the main SPG, STUG.
The T-34, well it was easy to produce but other than that, a deathtrap.
The 8.8cm L71 was possible to mount on a 100mm larger turret ring in the Ausf. D. It was tried with 59 rounds, to be increased to 69 later. -8 and +15 degrees elevation.
@Imppilz The M10 was obsolete by late 44! production had already ceased and they were removed from front line service!
The T-34 may not have been the best tank in the world but its armour package rendered most of the German panzer guns at the time obsolete, unlike the Allies.. the Germans "up gunned" everything as fast as they could, if the turret could not support a bigger gun, the tanks were removed from service and production shifted to SPGs and TDs.
Then again we have to remember that the SPGs were made to kill tanks (after spending some time as infantry support), the T-34 was used for exploitation (holes made by other tanks, or even more likely, artillery).
I use the slightly outdated book from Hillary Doyle and Peter Chamberlain (Encyclopedia of German tanks of World War two) for all numbers etc. English is not my first or even second language but i will do my best.
@Imppilz The M-36 I would disagree was not better that the Stug for the simple reason that ......The Stug hasa very good gun as well as the M36 but didnt suffer from teh lack or armour and open top that hte M36 had..both detrimental to being and effective tank hunter
@wun1gee Starting 1948 a total of 1,200 of the original Ford GA series powered M26s were converted to the Continental engine/Allison powerpack from the M46
There is still a school of thought that says Germany should have made more PzIVs and other lighter vehicles etc But consider this,the Germans had not enough crewman as it was MkIVs and IIIs etc were only a match 1 for one for most allied tanks but a panther or tiger could handle at least 5 shermans no sweat.This would actualy use fewer precious resources than 5 MK IVs lets say and all the backup needed to keep them in action not to mention the morale factor of being in a Panther vs a Sherman
@tanza101 Yes, I totally agree with your theory, it made much more sense for Germany to build fewer but heavier, complex and more advanced design tanks rather than compete with the allies in a numbers game, I think most people miss that point.
@FreeTrecker If German tanks were so bad? Why was America's current Main Battle Tank designed in Germany? Because they still make the best tanks.. period
@FreeTrecker If by over-engineered and complex you mean 'better' than allied tanks you would be right. mechanical issues seem to be more over inflated than ever! but it still doesn't change the fact that the Tigers and Panthers were more effective in combat. The M26 had lots of break downs too that is why it arrived late.. only a couple dozen saw combat, it was soon replaced. Germany didn't have time to fix all the bugs out and had to deal with disruptive bombing, German tanks were still better.
@doktorbimmer The Panther was great and they could make them faster than PzKpfw IV, but the Panther and the Tiger both suffered from meddling in design stage by Hitler who insisted they both be uparmoured. This was done without upgrading the engine, transmission or suspension, so the new designs pushed them past their designed limits, and this was responsible for most of the failures. I think the OVER engineering misconception comes from Porsche's Tiger prototype, which really was optimistic.
@xylaphonemaster Yes, this is true, Armour was added pre-production increasing the weight but hp/weight ratio was still not bad. Many issues with late war production tends to be quality control related, shortages of materials, quality of steel, simple things like rubber hoses and gaskets.. none of these things related to engineering or design. The Porsche Tiger was optimistic but its petrol/electric drive was attractive, a simular design was tried on the M26 Pershing, it was also a failure.
@TheRatedRThuglife7 The German tanks where the supreme tanks of thw World war 2, but due to the allied bombing they didnt have the industry to create tanks at a higher rate. And to make things even more bad hitler changed the primary use off the industry to the V weapons. Hope this helps,mate. i know what im on about, im a world war 2 historian
@folkrace4life I understand, they were the one's in main use but they had little effect on the war. And the V weapons were the "last hope" for Hitler, at least what he thought, the weapon was lacking in precision and only did minimal damage to Britain. I read it up on Ian Kershaw's, Hitler Nemesis. I am sure you know the book. And I am honored to be taught by a historian such as yourself thanks for the clarification.
@TheRatedRThuglife77 The Panthers and Tigers devastated Allied armour forces, the M4 Sherman suffered staggering loss rates against these, this fact is often overlooked in Western history books. but of coarse tanks alone don't win a war.
Russians alone would have been able to defeat Nazis, in fact, American and British believed and wanted that Nazis would have defeated the Russians, but when they saw the russians were reconquering the lost ground, they were in hurry to landing at normandy to catch their portion of the cake.
russia alone would have collapsed under German pressure. Germany destoryed quicker russian tanks as they could build them. Russia had build 72000tanks during the war and lost 83500tanks, without the 22800tanks delivered from the USA and UK the German Army would have stripped the russian Army from their tank force, in 1944 the tank production ratio was only 1:1,85 tanks. If Germany would have turned to full war prodction befor invadeing russia the war would have ended 1941.
The german industry was turned to full war production mid 1942 and reached its peak in 1944 as the tank production ratio exchange went down 1:1,85 (1942 1:5.6). If the industry would have reached its peak in 1941 during the critical very weak phase of the russian Army as their tank force was down to 7000 tanks they would have whipped them of the map
@framorgalia this is nonsens..germany maintained over 41 full equipped divisions in the west in 1941..with another 20 div it takes Moscow before Oct41...US lend-lease: US delivered over 500.000 lorrys,2000 locomotives...this kept russias industry and transport system up and running...US delivered 18.000 planes,9000 tanks...uncounted tank engines,uniforms and canned food for the red army..ALL class A plane fuel for russian air force was delivered from US...
@doktorbimmer Truman had communist leanings too.He could have backed Chiang in his fight against Mao but chose not to.The result is a communist China and 39,000 dead americans in Korea and 58,000 dead in Viet Nam.
@doktorbimmer then i guess you know that in 44 when the soviets invaded poland they marched 2 million poles to thier death...and roosevelt knew about it..but did nothing...hitler would have been easier to deal with,...cool panther v huh
@1942PANTHERV Yes, if history depicts a leader as a hero or villan depends more on who won, the term 'war crimes' never seems to apply to the winning side. Yes, a beautiful restoration of one of the most important designs in WW2 history.
@doktorbimmer but this surprised me.....this guy was great to talk to..a good old boy.....southern accent and all...he was told the ss troops were evil and would torture him.....when his tank was torn apart..the tiger rolled right toward him....trapped as he was he couldn't get out...he started crying..thinking of his family..the crew of the tiger could clearly see him.......the tiger just turned..and drove past him.....he sat for a few min before the moaning of the dr awoke him...
@doktorbimmer he grabbed a med kit..patched them both up good as poss..then ss infantry found them....took care of them better...cigarettes food...off to field hosp for end of war...he never believed that and ss man would be as cruel as he had been told they were...they were just people caught up in war
@Adler133792 Krupp Stahl, Maybach engine.. not Porsche. Most all panzers were powered by a V-12 Maybach. Only the Ferndinand/Elephant had a Porsche/Deutz engine
@doktorbimmer to be more exact: The Ferdinand/Elephant was built on the chassis of the Porche-Tiger prototype.Before WW2 The German government had several big companies build a prototype for the new heavy tank-type thereafter to be named "Tiger".Ferdinand Porche also entered the competition but his design was not approved after testtrials by Hitler (mainly to do with transmission problems) and they were left with several unused "would-be Tiger" chassis which were converted to Elephants.
@ZerokillerOppel1 Yes, I am well aware of its history of the Porsche tanks and that Hg.Porsche was well liked by Hitler, but it was the Hybrid drive system that the two men disagreed on. Porsche invented Hybrid technology(not Toyota) decades befor ethe war started but never seemed to be suited to tank transmission systems (it didn't work for the American M-26 Pershing either) Germany pretty much used any tracked vehicles available that wasn't a Panther or Tiger and made a SP gun out of it
well you know my opinion about world war 2 if germans only fought with russians they would have won the war already todays world may have been different...but americans got in thier way..silly japanese could not do much...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@WoIfenkrieger Also, Germany made very excellent cannons and learned from the Russians how good sloped armor is. A major problem with many German tanks however, is that they were over engineered and were prone to breaking down far too often. A sherman may not go well toe to toe with a Tiger per se, but the numbers and speed helped. Also if a Sherman broke down, it was much faster to get back into the fight. Like a panther driver in the 2nd SS said. You can kill 10 Shermans and 12 followed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Cplblue what;s interesting is (other than the over engineered and shoddy engine a Tiger 1 was actually faster than a Sherman, so if they'd ever worked out the kinks then the allies would of lost thank god for speedy engineering shoddy steal and allied air superiority bombing german factories
@Jadefox32 The Sherman was only very slightly faster than a Tiger 1. Also, the Tiger had problems with its engine yes but mainly its powertrain and suspension. Also, as they widened the tracks they had to have seperate tracks just to transport it by train. Despite the allied bombing of factories, American mass production was just too powerful. 55,000 shermans to 1,350 Tigers built. Sure on 1 on 1 the Sherman was no match, but as a Panther tanker once said "Destroy 10 Shermans, 12 follow"
@Cplblue too true, still though for it's time it was a marvel of technological engineering but yes ultimately if you have say 10 on one eventually you'll get a breach in the armor no matter how thick. that was the sad part for the germans it was technological development that came too little too late for them (that and loss of morale)
@Jadefox32 Well a tank is a tank. Even though there are efficient ways of tanking out tanks, it was merely a small part in the global war. Even if Germany had some of the better tech in the war, ultimately, fighting on several fronts with allies who generally had poorer equipment/training/experience fighting a numerically advantageous enemy they were doomed to fail. For being the "little guy" they sure put up a hell of a fight, but a tank would not have changed that.
@Cplblue Thats about it! Germany took on the World and was out numbered in tanks, bullets and soldiers. Production of less capable systems out paced them. Thank God Hitler was a Corporal, it showed in Russia. If the Germans were able to defeat the Russians this World may have been different.
@WoIfenkrieger I am aware of the victories of Germany. I actually have a lot of interest in the German military of WW2. It was more of a tongue in cheek joke ;) Also the sherman wasn't initally made to battle tanks but instead, designed to support infantry much like a Stug 3 A-F Panzer 4 A-E and Panzer 3 N. We were pretty slow in adapting to combat tanks. However, the M10, M18, M36, and M26 were pretty good at fighting German armor. And T-34s were very well built too.
@Cplblue I read somewhere that at least for the M-26 Pershing that only 12 ever made it to europe (or maybe I misread the numbers) and maybe two ever saw actual combat in the european theater, but yes initially the Sherman was fitted with a short barrel that fired High Explosive Anti Personnel shell's the way the barrle was designed made it pretty much ineffective against other tanks. Once they changed over to a longer barrel that started firing 75mm shells the Allies had more success vs tanks
@Cplblue "the sherman wasn't initally made to battle tanks"??? "M10, M18, M36, and M26 were pretty good at fighting German armor"??? If the M4 wasn't made to battle tanks? then what did we plan to use as a main battle tank? you saying we didn't have one? M10 was considered obsolete and production stopped '43. M18 light tank w/ 1in. armour. M36 good gun, better armour but more underpowered than Tiger. M26 didn't really see any combat. the M36 & M26 did not have the reliability of the M4 either.
@hateman454 Doesn't have to, the allieds won ;D Also theres a video of a Panther being knocked out by an m26 Pershing. Pretty famous footage from WW2.
Production increased but the transportation infrastructure collapsed, Women were never fully integrated into the work force they used slave labor or conscriped foreign workers. Not the most motivated people. 8000 Panthers 50000 shermans and about the same T34s. A Panther with out gas is just a pill box. As American tankers got better german tankers got worse, poorly trained no gas. Cream of panzers killed in Russia.
tangocharlie11 1 week ago
@tangocharlie11 None of that changes the fact that the M4 had to somehow get around the back of the Panther at close range to have any chance of knocking it out. Made even more difficult that the M4 had no speed advantage over the Panther and was in fact slower on soft ground, Panther could easily knock-out a sherman front-on at over a mile that with the fact that the M4 had a nasty habit of instantanously bursting into flames. M4 sounds like a great tank... only if your a Panther crew.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer You are absolutely right, The US Army blew it in 1943, The M4 was a good tank until 43. US Army doctrine was flawed. Tanks were for explotation Tank Destroyers were to battle tanks. Slowed down development of better tanks,and guns. The Zaloga book is a good source. The Pershing 6 months earlier would have been a better match against the Panther. Or at least putting 17 pders in US M4s.
tangocharlie11 6 days ago
why do people always put shitty camo on these tanks. MOST of the time they didnt add camo.
88pie88 1 week ago
@88pie88 Not true, the camoflage applied would be correct as to color and was expected to be applied in the field, German tanks left the factory in field(panzer) gray or yellow drab, approved colors of concentrated paint paste (made to be thinned with gasoline) and spray gun was supplied for each tank. There were recommend patterns but these varied as each unit was allowed patterns that suited local conditions and terrain. Later in the war tanks were dispatched directly to the front w/o camo.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
I would wan't only to see one, but I would have nothing to sit in one if I only could <3
serdel5000 3 weeks ago
No one ever restored a late 1945 Panther with the schmalturm turret and 88mm gun!?
SMGJohn 1 month ago 3
@SMGJohn There are only a couple 75mm schmalturn turret Panthers in exsistance, I don't think they ever actually built any 88mm Panthers.. its too bad they didn't. These guys built the new turret from scratch, would have been awesome if they had built it into a 88mm Ausf. F Panther
doktorbimmer 1 month ago 3
@doktorbimmer It's sad, I would love to see a turbine powered Panther 46' model with a Schmalturm turret and 88mm as they had planned. But the war ended, not that it was a bad thing
SMGJohn 1 month ago 3
@SMGJohn That would have been the ultimate super tank of WW2! The gas turbine engine and new transmission/drive that was planned to go in the the Panther would have had over a 1,100 hp! giving it a hp/ton ratio better than a Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams and a top speed in excess of 45mph! along with the long barrel 88mm gun it would have the Allied tank crews scared silly. The shortage of nickel and cobalt for turbine blades would have plagued the project as it did their jet aircraft engine program.
doktorbimmer 1 month ago 3
@doktorbimmer Yes it would have been a tanks so fast and so deadly. The war alone could been won by that tanks. Germany only lost because they weren't able to mass produce three very important things, Jet aircrafts, Panthers and STG44 Assault rifles. They where all the advantages the allies or Soviets didn't have or could just dream about
SMGJohn 1 month ago 5
@SMGJohn hey don't let facts spoil your dream. No oil, no raw materials, not enough men, an economy never fully mobilized because it was run by morons. A maniac leader who wasted soldiers and material. But well handled Shermans could beat Panthers. 4th Armored div. Battle of Arracort.
tangocharlie11 1 week ago
@tangocharlie11 Thats an interesting opinion but the facts actually show that despite heavy bombing damage Germanys military industrial output increased every month up to the very end of the war.
Statistics and first hand accounts show that the M-4 Sherman performed very poorly against the Panther.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
can i buy him?????
novusordoseclorum86 1 month ago
After that perfect restoration, all the enthusiasts are still waiting for a good viedo seeing this machine moving.
tonidmc 2 months ago in playlist Panther/Jagdpanther 6
I'd sure like to see the interior. Awesome restoration, though.
Mentalplix 2 months ago
Amazing. Good video. If these tanks were used in the '44 Ardennes offensive, then I'm fairly sure my uncle had to face them he was with US 99th Div.
I've seen images of German tanks with some kind of ribbed surface on the turrets & the sides.
Was that some kind of armor?
Ca1861 2 months ago
@Ca1861 Its a special anti-magnetic coating called "Zimmerit" that protects the tank from magnetic mines and explosive charges.
doktorbimmer 2 months ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@doktorbimmer That assumtion is in correct. Its not anti-magentic itself it nothing more then cement that prevents any kind of attachable explosive from having a smooth surface to cling to.
roaklin 1 month ago
@roaklin Correct, anti-magnetic is the correct term as used in most of the references, this is no doubt confusing as it would be best described as "anti-magnet" coating having no magnetic properties itself or mean to resist the effect of magnetic fields. It is in fact nothing more than a clever non-metalic coating made up of wood dust, clay and PVA adhesive, applied to a specific thickness as to prevent a magnet from coming in close contact with the steel hull of the tank. Thanks for your reply
doktorbimmer 1 month ago 7
at least some of them are restored....and not scraped for some stupid reason like iron:(
TheBByamashiro 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I guess you couldn't sneak up behind your enemy in one of these.
They'd here you coming 10 miles away.
JPMorganMustDie 2 months ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 2 months ago
@JPMorganMustDie They are diesel. No tanks was virtual silent. It would had to be steam powered in order to be silent, heck even todays tanks are noisy.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Not Diesel, its a Maybach gasoline V-12
doktorbimmer 2 months ago 2
@doktorbimmer Oh that's even more noisy. I guess Diesel was limited to America and Soviets
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Only the Soviets used Diesel tanks in WW2 and only the heavy tanks at that. Diesel power did not see wide spread military use till later in the cold war years.
doktorbimmer 2 months ago 2
If Hollywood does a next movie set WWII, they need to use a restored Panther like this. And an Elefant. It's too bad only in Call of Duty: United Offensive has Elefants.
BATMADeightynine 2 months ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 3
This tank had a fearsome gun. Only the KingTigers was better
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
I thought The Panthers gun had better range/penetration that the Tiger I but not the Tiger II.
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@caddydave i remember watching the panther episode of tank overhaul and when it got to the end i was so angry that they hadnt fininshed it on the show! thanks for posting this! and btw, is the main gun and MGs capable of firing blanks?
paradox795 3 months ago
But is it a babe magnet?
MegaPoone 3 months ago
@MegaPoone this russain front vet will definetly get the freulein's wet!
veteran2000 3 months ago
germana tehnology wos nr 1 in ww2 it's fact :)
shadownoob83 3 months ago
納稅狗屎
YangChaoFan0204 3 months ago
Yes, thats exactly my point! M26 was withdrawn from service 2 years before the war ended. 309 M26s was less than 25% of the Korean tank force and was 0% by Oct 1950. Ford GAF was used in M4 until the end of its service. The M46 and M26s built after 1948 used the Continental engine not the GAF
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 2
@doktorbimmer corection; Ford GA, M4 used in the Ford GAA, M26 the GAF
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@doktorbimmer You said the M26 was withdrawn from service (presumably entirely) before the M4, which isn't entirely true at all. It was withdrawn from Korea after serving well and seeing far more combat then the M46s that replaced it, but it was still in active service in West Germany until the mid-1950s, when they were replaced by M47s. So the M4 and the M26 were retired around the same time.
wun1gee 4 months ago
@wun1gee Yes, Out of the entire production run of original M26s around 2000 units built before 1948 (and barring a few that may have escaped conversion).1200 M26s were converted to M46 specs., plus the 1156 M26E2 and M46 built after 1948. Most pre1948 M26s not converted were withdrawn from service by around 1950 and those built or converted to M46 specs stayed in service until around 1957-58
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is no ausf A because they forget to add a machin gun to the radio postion.
and that was a great mistake during kursk .
the few panthers that reached the front and didnt caught fire or broke down where knocked ou by close infranty
ianintienhoven 4 months ago
Is the zimmerit real?
diadorim1234 4 months ago
@diadorim1234 Thats a good question! Some of the original Zimmerit coating would have to be removed during the restoration work so undoubtably what were seeing is a partial or total replacement coating. The formula and ingredients of Zimmerit are still readily available (Barite, PVA glue, yellow pigment, zinc sulfide and wood filler [saw dust] ) and the pattern duplicated. A modern material like body filler might also be used but I'm betting its brand new real Zimmerit.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
very weak side armour - 40mm/90 deg
easy flammable benzinen engine.
RobotN001 4 months ago
5 guys command a sherman
CSBRecordsEurope 4 months ago 2
Patton was one of those responsible for delaying the M26's combat debut ,if they had to fight inside a sherman vs a panther or tiger may have been a different story.This rubbish about the sherman being better from a logistic point of view is just that rubbish,better to have 1 m26 that could actualy survive in combat than any number of shermans needed to take on the German heavies
tanza101 4 months ago
@tanza101 Patton was not the only reason, the M26 itself was one of the reasons. Started out as an upgraded version of the M4 Medium Tank, but throu a long series of prototypes evolved into a Heavy Tank. This is not the best way to design a tank of coarse and the M26 suffered from many performance issues including being very underpowered & overstressed. Although the M26 had enough firepower/armour to match a Panther or Tiger it was not a very successful tank and was phased out very early.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They weren't really phased out early. Pershings saw combat in Korea alongside M46s before the M47 came online. Post-war, US tank design was in over-drive and pretty much everything had a relatively short service life. The M46 in particular had a very short service life with the US military, tho it was little more then an upgraded Pershing anyway.
wun1gee 4 months ago
@wun1gee Well, thats really not true is it? The M4 actually outlived the M26, the tank that was to replace it. Most M26s were withdrawn from service and converted to new updated M46 specs, improvements were considered so extensive that they were redesignated as M46 models. Most postwar M26 were really M46s, Unconverted M26 were scrapped while there were still many M4s in service.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@doktorbimmer M26s as M26s were still in service in Korea alongside M46s. In fact, the M26 was involved in 32% of all of the tank-on-tank combat in Korea. Even tho they were withdrawn in 1951. There were 309 M26s in Korea. Both the Sherman and the Pershing were retired from US military service in the mid-1950s. They were still in service in West Germany until at least 1954..The M26 retained the same Ford GAF for it's entire service life.
wun1gee 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tanza101 That's completely incorrect. You're only looking at the tactical application of armor. The allies did not win by having better armor, they won by having more of it that was more mobile, and required less maintenance. This operational and strategic mobility negated the Panzers' large tactical advantages. The Pershing may have been more powerful, but it was less reliable than the Tiger. Also, the Pershing's 100mm armor is just as vulnerable to an 88 than the Sherman's 64.
PkayerZxz2 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There was a British document from the post-war years that studied US armor losses in Europe and came to the conclusion that only some 14% of US armor losses were to German armor. The rest were to mines, AT guns, infantry, accidents..It was feared that the M26 would be too heavy to cross many of the old bridges in Europe--and it was. It was a great tank, but the war wouldn't have ended any sooner had it been fielded sooner, and German armor wasn't the biggest threat to US armor.
wun1gee 4 months ago
@wun1gee Some british document? can you provide any source? 86% of all US armour knocked out by accidents, infantry attack and mines??? really?? 85% due to AT guns.. maybe? but I don't think Germany ever had that many AT guns... seriously, you must have read it wrong.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
@doktorbimmer The document is WO 291/1186. According to said document, US losses were as follows:
Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%
Of the losses to tanks, only 4.3% were to Tigers, 32% to Panthers, 56.5% to Panzer IVs.
wun1gee 4 months ago
@wun1gee Thank you for posting your correction, that would make 38.9% of total US tanks lost due to German Armour.. the majority of all US tank losses.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@doktorbimmer My point was being made to counter a post made earlier about how the M26 should have been fielded earlier to counter the threat of German heavies. German heavies were far from the biggest threat to American armor and a heavy tank wasn't required to counter AT guns and SP guns. Of that minute 14% lost to German tanks, the German Mediums were a far bigger threat (Due likely to being far more numerous) then the heavies. US armor losses to German heavies were minimal.
wun1gee 4 months ago
@wun1gee Later in the war Germany focused on the production of tank destroyers and assault guns because they were found to be as effective (if not more effective in certain conditions) than tanks alone. The German Armored force was comprised of a large numbers of and many different models of "SP guns" and as your document stated the larger threat to US forces. It seems the british did not classify or see the need to deploy SP guns the same as the Germans did.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
@doktorbimmer
One of the prime reasons that the Germans relied on SP guns was the lack of ball bearings and the overall time to build them instead of tanks.
Imppilz 4 months ago
@Imppilz Allied SP gun designs were often based on the M4, simply used a larger gun but crammed into an already small or open top turret, this was not popular with crews and could be less effective in combat. Germanys tank output suffered all kinds of material shortages due to Naval blockades and most notably the bombing later during the war, the shortage of rubber, fuel, rare metals not just ball bearing effected both tanks and SP guns. But you are correct, it would be faster to build SP guns.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 4
The M10, M18 and the M36 were absolutely superior in their role by late 1944.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz ahahah
Do u know about russian tanks?))
Ni1zz 3 months ago
@Ni1zz
Which ones? That they had some really good SPGs, yes. I was merely stating that even anti tank guns could be mounted in turrets and that they were superior to SPGs (in tank hunting).
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz U.S. weapons were not the best in the 2nd World.
Ni1zz 3 months ago
@Ni1zz
Well i never said so.. But from all i have found out (I try my best to learn from the ones who actually do study this) that the American late war tank hunters were very good. So you think russian tanks were better or what? I doubt that will find many supporters.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz Yes, it was possible to fit the 88mm gun to the Panther "chassis" BUT WITH A LARGER TURRET (are you starting to catch on now?), the Aus F and Panther II were both proposed to be built with the '88' using a larger alongated turret simular to that of King Tiger turret that was designed from the onset to house the '88' gun.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
Ahhh yes sorry you said without modification. My apologies.
By the way, the Panther II was never to have the 8.8, just the 7.5. It was cancelled long before the Panther was to have the 8.8 gun (January 1945, but the project only continued in March).
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz All prior Panzer models were effected by the introduction of the T-34, Panzer I, II, III & IV had to be all upgunned and modified or they were withdrawn from service.. the production lines converted and exisiting chassis's rebuilt into SP guns. Your ball bearing comment I suspect is a total misquote of an article regarding the removal of the the rotating "cupola" (not the turret) on some vehicles. The T-34 wasn't much trouble for a Panther or Tiger as they were designed to counter it.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
Yes now that i look it up the main reason must be the overall simplicity of making SPGs ("of anything smaller than a Panther chassis). Im still not convinced that it was forced by getting a bigger gun, since the heavy SPGs were so few in number. The main problems for tank production appears to have been in transmission parts and engines, not turrets.
But still does not make the T-34 a very good tank..
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz Then name how many SP guns that used the same (or smaller gun) than it original "tank w/ turret" version!!!
Of coarse its faster and easier to build a tank without a turret that was obvious! I already agreed with you on that factor. I'm not a big fan of the T-34 either, it seems to surrounded by a lot of undeserved myths but it was a revolutionary design and it should be given its proper credit.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
I did not quite understand what you asked, but if it was how many eg. Stug IV was built versus Pz IV, then it something around 8:1 in favor of the turreted one. For the Tiger 10:1, Tiger II 5:1. Panther maybe 10:1? Not very accurate numbers but good enough for a quick answer.. Of these all had a gun of the same size mounted in its turret (the Panther as you said excluded since production did not start). Pz III also had the 75mm in its turret.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer HOw was the T-34 a revolutionary design...it was revolutionary in the fact that is took other features of vehicles in service and put them in one tank....that was the only revolutionary thing about it
wartmcbeighn 3 months ago
@wartmcbeighn Yes, revolutionary in that it had all the right design features (including sloped welded armour) in one package, although it was very poorly manufactured it did set a new standard for design when it was introduced that spurred the development of what we would now call the first truely modern tanks to counter it. If not for the T-34 German tank developement may not have progressed much further than Pz IV. As I said before I'm no fan of the T-34, perhaps the most unreliable tank ever
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 2
@Imppilz I think the main reason for rise of the SP gun later in the war was the ablity to fit a much larger gun to a vehicle than was otherwise practical mounted in a turret. The Germans knew very well how effective the '88' gun could be against allied armor but it was too big for anything smaller than the Tiger series, other examples just an effort in practicallity to utilize larger available guns in older outdated tank chassis. In some roles the SP guns were actually more effective than tanks
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 3
@Imppilz Have you ever sat in the gunners seat of a tank? most of the space in the turret is taken up with the breech end of the gun, breech block, recoil mech, counterweights and elevating gear. A bigger gun needs more space to depress, elevate and recoil too.. its not easy to just fit a larger gun in a tank not to mention the each round of ammo is bigger too so it takes up even more precious turret space and allows fewer rounds to be stored.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 13
@doktorbimmer
So you think that because SPGs are better in some situations they are superior to a tank? I am fairly sure that had the Germans had the resources, they would have used turrets, just like anyone really. The tactical disadvantage of not having one is simply too great. The 8.8cm had a practical turret with sufficient space for the Panther. You can not be serious that the SPGs overcame the proplems with space you mentioned.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz Hahaha.. I find your "therories" very amusing kid
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
What theories, I for one have not posted any theories? Maybe you answered to the wrong user? I do not know.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz Ball bearings? really? you really think thats why Germany built so many SP guns and Tank Destroyers?
The Panthers turret was big enough for the 88mm gun?
The trend to SP guns had nothing to do with upgrading to larger guns?
Absolutely no mention of the Russian T34?
M10,M18 & M36 absolutely superior by late 44'???? Your right, there is no theory involved... its all pure fantasy
doktorbimmer 3 months ago 2
@doktorbimmer
Why I never said it was the reason altogether, obviously the need was to place a big gun in an SPG, thus the best machine of the war was born, the Jagdpanther. But it was not that space issues were thoroughly overcome with this either, the space was still cramped in Stugs and Hetzers. My reasoning was that had Germany not fought a "delaying war" (with very limited resources) then turreted tanks would have been superior. The Panther D had a completed turret for the 8.8cm L71.
Imppilz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imppilz You said they where two of the "prime reasons" you wrote: "One of the prime reasons that the Germans relied on SP guns was the lack of ball bearings and the overall time to build them instead of tanks."
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
The M36 for example had a very good gun (and by late 44 very good ammo) and all this in a turret. It was mobile and far better by any means than for example the main SPG, STUG.
The T-34, well it was easy to produce but other than that, a deathtrap.
The 8.8cm L71 was possible to mount on a 100mm larger turret ring in the Ausf. D. It was tried with 59 rounds, to be increased to 69 later. -8 and +15 degrees elevation.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz The M10 was obsolete by late 44! production had already ceased and they were removed from front line service!
The T-34 may not have been the best tank in the world but its armour package rendered most of the German panzer guns at the time obsolete, unlike the Allies.. the Germans "up gunned" everything as fast as they could, if the turret could not support a bigger gun, the tanks were removed from service and production shifted to SPGs and TDs.
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
The T-34 armor was nothing special after 1942 and after that the Germans hardly had problems disabling it.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
Then again we have to remember that the SPGs were made to kill tanks (after spending some time as infantry support), the T-34 was used for exploitation (holes made by other tanks, or even more likely, artillery).
Imppilz 3 months ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
@doktorbimmer
I use the slightly outdated book from Hillary Doyle and Peter Chamberlain (Encyclopedia of German tanks of World War two) for all numbers etc. English is not my first or even second language but i will do my best.
Imppilz 3 months ago
@Imppilz The M-36 I would disagree was not better that the Stug for the simple reason that ......The Stug hasa very good gun as well as the M36 but didnt suffer from teh lack or armour and open top that hte M36 had..both detrimental to being and effective tank hunter
wartmcbeighn 3 months ago 3
@wun1gee Starting 1948 a total of 1,200 of the original Ford GA series powered M26s were converted to the Continental engine/Allison powerpack from the M46
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
There is still a school of thought that says Germany should have made more PzIVs and other lighter vehicles etc But consider this,the Germans had not enough crewman as it was MkIVs and IIIs etc were only a match 1 for one for most allied tanks but a panther or tiger could handle at least 5 shermans no sweat.This would actualy use fewer precious resources than 5 MK IVs lets say and all the backup needed to keep them in action not to mention the morale factor of being in a Panther vs a Sherman
tanza101 4 months ago
@tanza101 Yes, I totally agree with your theory, it made much more sense for Germany to build fewer but heavier, complex and more advanced design tanks rather than compete with the allies in a numbers game, I think most people miss that point.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 4
@tanza101
It all comes down to range. If the Shermans cannot close in, any of the later German tanks could have taken out as much Shermans as they had ammo.
kop4321 4 months ago 4
@FreeTrecker If German tanks were so bad? Why was America's current Main Battle Tank designed in Germany? Because they still make the best tanks.. period
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 5
@FreeTrecker If by over-engineered and complex you mean 'better' than allied tanks you would be right. mechanical issues seem to be more over inflated than ever! but it still doesn't change the fact that the Tigers and Panthers were more effective in combat. The M26 had lots of break downs too that is why it arrived late.. only a couple dozen saw combat, it was soon replaced. Germany didn't have time to fix all the bugs out and had to deal with disruptive bombing, German tanks were still better.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 5
@doktorbimmer The Panther was great and they could make them faster than PzKpfw IV, but the Panther and the Tiger both suffered from meddling in design stage by Hitler who insisted they both be uparmoured. This was done without upgrading the engine, transmission or suspension, so the new designs pushed them past their designed limits, and this was responsible for most of the failures. I think the OVER engineering misconception comes from Porsche's Tiger prototype, which really was optimistic.
xylaphonemaster 4 months ago
@xylaphonemaster Yes, this is true, Armour was added pre-production increasing the weight but hp/weight ratio was still not bad. Many issues with late war production tends to be quality control related, shortages of materials, quality of steel, simple things like rubber hoses and gaskets.. none of these things related to engineering or design. The Porsche Tiger was optimistic but its petrol/electric drive was attractive, a simular design was tried on the M26 Pershing, it was also a failure.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago 2
@FreeTrecker Not disagreeing with you. So why don't you explain why so many people love the German tanks, then?
UTubeIsTrackingYou 4 months ago 30
@UTubeIsTrackingYou Because of the fact that the german tanks, primarily the late ones where the prime tanks of the world at this time.
folkrace4life 4 months ago 51
@folkrace4life what do you mean by prime?
TheRatedRThuglife77 2 months ago
@TheRatedRThuglife7 The German tanks where the supreme tanks of thw World war 2, but due to the allied bombing they didnt have the industry to create tanks at a higher rate. And to make things even more bad hitler changed the primary use off the industry to the V weapons. Hope this helps,mate. i know what im on about, im a world war 2 historian
folkrace4life 2 months ago 2
@folkrace4life I understand, they were the one's in main use but they had little effect on the war. And the V weapons were the "last hope" for Hitler, at least what he thought, the weapon was lacking in precision and only did minimal damage to Britain. I read it up on Ian Kershaw's, Hitler Nemesis. I am sure you know the book. And I am honored to be taught by a historian such as yourself thanks for the clarification.
TheRatedRThuglife77 2 months ago
@TheRatedRThuglife77 The Panthers and Tigers devastated Allied armour forces, the M4 Sherman suffered staggering loss rates against these, this fact is often overlooked in Western history books. but of coarse tanks alone don't win a war.
doktorbimmer 2 months ago 38
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@UTubeIsTrackingYou Some sort of sick facination for German engineering i think.. Search me..
JOHNO4992 4 months ago
I have one in World of Tanks. It's indeed beautiful tank!
orcmorrie 5 months ago
@orcmorrie Can I have your World of Tanks Panther?
TheCIScommander 4 months ago
@TheCIScommander lol when i have my PantherII you can get it ;-)
orcmorrie 4 months ago
God she's beautiful...
Uni0nDirect0r 5 months ago 3
The suspension & track assembly on those was beyond complex...it was a work of art.
redreaper2020 5 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@redreaper2020 Complex work of art on tank design in a desperate total war of attrition = not good.
UTubeIsTrackingYou 4 months ago
My birthday is 4 days later...
MOOOOOOOOOOM! I know what I want now.
Flueeeee 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dear Santa please give me this time an original ...
Battleminecraft 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MasterAceman123456 Yes really awesome. This certainly took 50 thousand lifes.
Really beatiful.
Eiscakeman 5 months ago
Cool. Can I have it?
TheCIScommander 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
American Restoration!
patzgcrux 5 months ago
This brings joy to to the heart of an old panzer commander!
veteran2000 5 months ago
Russians alone would have been able to defeat Nazis, in fact, American and British believed and wanted that Nazis would have defeated the Russians, but when they saw the russians were reconquering the lost ground, they were in hurry to landing at normandy to catch their portion of the cake.
framorgalia 5 months ago
@framorgalia
russia alone would have collapsed under German pressure. Germany destoryed quicker russian tanks as they could build them. Russia had build 72000tanks during the war and lost 83500tanks, without the 22800tanks delivered from the USA and UK the German Army would have stripped the russian Army from their tank force, in 1944 the tank production ratio was only 1:1,85 tanks. If Germany would have turned to full war prodction befor invadeing russia the war would have ended 1941.
nagmashot 5 months ago 4
@nagmashot
The german industry was turned to full war production mid 1942 and reached its peak in 1944 as the tank production ratio exchange went down 1:1,85 (1942 1:5.6). If the industry would have reached its peak in 1941 during the critical very weak phase of the russian Army as their tank force was down to 7000 tanks they would have whipped them of the map
nagmashot 5 months ago 3
@nagmashot I totally agrre with you
Panzersoldat073 5 months ago
@framorgalia this is nonsens..germany maintained over 41 full equipped divisions in the west in 1941..with another 20 div it takes Moscow before Oct41...US lend-lease: US delivered over 500.000 lorrys,2000 locomotives...this kept russias industry and transport system up and running...US delivered 18.000 planes,9000 tanks...uncounted tank engines,uniforms and canned food for the red army..ALL class A plane fuel for russian air force was delivered from US...
chris99103 5 months ago 4
@chris99103 Roosevelt really liked those communists,he even gave them eastern europe.
mrtommynazi 5 months ago
@mrtommynazi I'm pretty sure deep down.. Roosevelt was a communist
doktorbimmer 5 months ago
@doktorbimmer Truman had communist leanings too.He could have backed Chiang in his fight against Mao but chose not to.The result is a communist China and 39,000 dead americans in Korea and 58,000 dead in Viet Nam.
mrtommynazi 5 months ago
@doktorbimmer then i guess you know that in 44 when the soviets invaded poland they marched 2 million poles to thier death...and roosevelt knew about it..but did nothing...hitler would have been easier to deal with,...cool panther v huh
1942PANTHERV 4 months ago 2
@1942PANTHERV Yes, if history depicts a leader as a hero or villan depends more on who won, the term 'war crimes' never seems to apply to the winning side. Yes, a beautiful restoration of one of the most important designs in WW2 history.
doktorbimmer 4 months ago
@doktorbimmer but this surprised me.....this guy was great to talk to..a good old boy.....southern accent and all...he was told the ss troops were evil and would torture him.....when his tank was torn apart..the tiger rolled right toward him....trapped as he was he couldn't get out...he started crying..thinking of his family..the crew of the tiger could clearly see him.......the tiger just turned..and drove past him.....he sat for a few min before the moaning of the dr awoke him...
1942PANTHERV 4 months ago 2
@doktorbimmer he grabbed a med kit..patched them both up good as poss..then ss infantry found them....took care of them better...cigarettes food...off to field hosp for end of war...he never believed that and ss man would be as cruel as he had been told they were...they were just people caught up in war
1942PANTHERV 4 months ago 2
@framorgalia This is utter fatuous nonsense... not a word of truth or history in it.
iowa61 5 months ago
Kruppsteel, Porscheengine, what you want more?
Adler133792 5 months ago
@Adler133792 Krupp Stahl, Maybach engine.. not Porsche. Most all panzers were powered by a V-12 Maybach. Only the Ferndinand/Elephant had a Porsche/Deutz engine
doktorbimmer 5 months ago 47
@doktorbimmer to be more exact: The Ferdinand/Elephant was built on the chassis of the Porche-Tiger prototype.Before WW2 The German government had several big companies build a prototype for the new heavy tank-type thereafter to be named "Tiger".Ferdinand Porche also entered the competition but his design was not approved after testtrials by Hitler (mainly to do with transmission problems) and they were left with several unused "would-be Tiger" chassis which were converted to Elephants.
ZerokillerOppel1 3 months ago
@ZerokillerOppel1 Yes, I am well aware of its history of the Porsche tanks and that Hg.Porsche was well liked by Hitler, but it was the Hybrid drive system that the two men disagreed on. Porsche invented Hybrid technology(not Toyota) decades befor ethe war started but never seemed to be suited to tank transmission systems (it didn't work for the American M-26 Pershing either) Germany pretty much used any tracked vehicles available that wasn't a Panther or Tiger and made a SP gun out of it
doktorbimmer 3 months ago
well you know my opinion about world war 2 if germans only fought with russians they would have won the war already todays world may have been different...but americans got in thier way..silly japanese could not do much...
Godlike0503 5 months ago
the might of the German war machine lives again!
SuperDarkSamurai1 5 months ago 2
"Grateful for the glory and struggle of the fartherland, honour and blood has earned them the iron cross."
huntersman97 5 months ago
My grandfather told me stories about ww2 he was in the army infantry during ww2. They were a bitch he said to brig down. Many lives loss too 1.
Yes German steel and engineering was great and still is.
westernpack99 5 months ago 3
how much would one of these cost you to restore or build?
ardenn234 5 months ago
feel free to ride it hard ... its not built to be driven that softly!!!
doktorlindblood 5 months ago
Is this Panther still in the foundations collection?
Odessa45 6 months ago
Dave, great to see that you guys have finished Jack's Panther!
Great work guys, nothing more to say, but keep it up!!
Without you guys these pieces of history and technology would be forgotten and lost!
MCRoadk1ll 6 months ago
Truly a thing of beauty !
TheFluffy47 6 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@WoIfenkrieger Also, Germany made very excellent cannons and learned from the Russians how good sloped armor is. A major problem with many German tanks however, is that they were over engineered and were prone to breaking down far too often. A sherman may not go well toe to toe with a Tiger per se, but the numbers and speed helped. Also if a Sherman broke down, it was much faster to get back into the fight. Like a panther driver in the 2nd SS said. You can kill 10 Shermans and 12 followed.
Cplblue 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Cplblue what;s interesting is (other than the over engineered and shoddy engine a Tiger 1 was actually faster than a Sherman, so if they'd ever worked out the kinks then the allies would of lost thank god for speedy engineering shoddy steal and allied air superiority bombing german factories
Jadefox32 6 months ago
@Jadefox32 The Sherman was only very slightly faster than a Tiger 1. Also, the Tiger had problems with its engine yes but mainly its powertrain and suspension. Also, as they widened the tracks they had to have seperate tracks just to transport it by train. Despite the allied bombing of factories, American mass production was just too powerful. 55,000 shermans to 1,350 Tigers built. Sure on 1 on 1 the Sherman was no match, but as a Panther tanker once said "Destroy 10 Shermans, 12 follow"
Cplblue 6 months ago
@Cplblue too true, still though for it's time it was a marvel of technological engineering but yes ultimately if you have say 10 on one eventually you'll get a breach in the armor no matter how thick. that was the sad part for the germans it was technological development that came too little too late for them (that and loss of morale)
Jadefox32 6 months ago
@Jadefox32 Well a tank is a tank. Even though there are efficient ways of tanking out tanks, it was merely a small part in the global war. Even if Germany had some of the better tech in the war, ultimately, fighting on several fronts with allies who generally had poorer equipment/training/experience fighting a numerically advantageous enemy they were doomed to fail. For being the "little guy" they sure put up a hell of a fight, but a tank would not have changed that.
Cplblue 5 months ago
@Cplblue indeed maybe a tank with about twenty flame throwers that could withstand the heat and not cause the crew to fry would of worked better?
Jadefox32 5 months ago
@Jadefox32 lol sure why not? :P
Cplblue 5 months ago
@Cplblue damn straight look out for those little guys in the corner, they'll do some damage
1971Chevelle502 5 months ago
@Cplblue Thats about it! Germany took on the World and was out numbered in tanks, bullets and soldiers. Production of less capable systems out paced them. Thank God Hitler was a Corporal, it showed in Russia. If the Germans were able to defeat the Russians this World may have been different.
GalaticSpaceHero 5 months ago
@WoIfenkrieger I am aware of the victories of Germany. I actually have a lot of interest in the German military of WW2. It was more of a tongue in cheek joke ;) Also the sherman wasn't initally made to battle tanks but instead, designed to support infantry much like a Stug 3 A-F Panzer 4 A-E and Panzer 3 N. We were pretty slow in adapting to combat tanks. However, the M10, M18, M36, and M26 were pretty good at fighting German armor. And T-34s were very well built too.
Cplblue 6 months ago
@Cplblue I read somewhere that at least for the M-26 Pershing that only 12 ever made it to europe (or maybe I misread the numbers) and maybe two ever saw actual combat in the european theater, but yes initially the Sherman was fitted with a short barrel that fired High Explosive Anti Personnel shell's the way the barrle was designed made it pretty much ineffective against other tanks. Once they changed over to a longer barrel that started firing 75mm shells the Allies had more success vs tanks
Jadefox32 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cplblue "the sherman wasn't initally made to battle tanks"??? "M10, M18, M36, and M26 were pretty good at fighting German armor"??? If the M4 wasn't made to battle tanks? then what did we plan to use as a main battle tank? you saying we didn't have one? M10 was considered obsolete and production stopped '43. M18 light tank w/ 1in. armour. M36 good gun, better armour but more underpowered than Tiger. M26 didn't really see any combat. the M36 & M26 did not have the reliability of the M4 either.
doktorbimmer 5 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
она у вас стоковая?)
KOPEKTNOCTb 7 months ago
American Steel. Can't even fight back. :c
hateman454 7 months ago
@hateman454 Doesn't have to, the allieds won ;D Also theres a video of a Panther being knocked out by an m26 Pershing. Pretty famous footage from WW2.
Cplblue 6 months ago
Nice paint job
Jagdtoq 7 months ago
a superb tank , even the british reme built up about ten panthers after the war from captured parts for evaluation
The1200sportster 7 months ago 3
no music needed, the sound of engine is too awesome
deldrinov 8 months ago 5
i wont one this one nice tank
madscotsman65 8 months ago
wow, what a huge tank, nice !
hellusw 8 months ago
one question. How much does the restoretion costed?
berlin128g 8 months ago
how about uploding another video, put it intop top gear and show us what it can do
Atvor 8 months ago
Thankfully mismanagement (two fronts) lost the war for Nazis. If it was only up to the superiority of their mechanics.... well. Is that an 88?
UnitedCorpOfAmerica 9 months ago
@UnitedCorpOfAmerica It's a long barreled 75mm High Velocity AT gun. It had similar armour piercing power as an 88mm but was still lower.
BrotherPrimus 9 months ago
Great work on restoring a beautiful tank.
DavidHill333 9 months ago 3
"Keep your head down"! :-D
BigAndTall666 9 months ago
i would give up my klondike bar just for a ride. i would pay hard cash to learn to drive it. my gosh, you people have saved a piece of real history!
glynamus 9 months ago