There is more than one operational Panther tank in the world. They have one in Bovington and one in Koblenz, so there are at least two. Iam pretty sure there are even more, but maybe in 2008 (date the video was posted) there only was one, who knows.
what the hell. Are those people "hobby historians". The "Panther" a copy of the T34 ? Just becaues they had many similar good characteristics? Well maybe those people should remember that the T34 was a combination of many good traits. Obviously the Germans thought about those already earlier but didnt realized them yet before the Panther. They didnt copied the T34 but feelt it was a confirmation to be the right path in tank design. The VK3002 DB was the DIRECT copy of the T34. Not the Panther!
@gOtze1337 I agree, to account production numbers for its rating is very dumb. Thats like me having a glass beer mug of high quality and someone else has 10 paper dixie cups. Since they 10 crappy cups they get the higher rating. In my opinion the rating should be based on the performance and quality of the tank not its overall production. Yes i know during war more is better but were comparing quality of the tank not quantity. My opinion the panther was the best tank in ww2.
Herr Sterner mentioned the Panther's armor - true whilst sloped was 80mm - and he claimed due to the sloped design it actually was equal to 100mm - wasn't the Panther's armor theoretically and actually much thicker than that? I mean 100mm was the Tiger I but the Panther was calculated to have armor almost 140mm thick! But regardless other than that it definitely was excellent in deflecting and withstanding almost all firepower thrown at it!
Further, the T-34 'panic/scare' in the German land forces of autumn 1941 was somewhat brought about by miscommunication and misidentification.
If you read the actual report by Guderian and the commander of 4th Panzer Division after the Battle of Mtsensk (where the T-34 terror was born) it's quite clear that both Guderian and von Langermann were getting second hand information and confused both the features of the T-34 with the KV-1 and vice versa.
It's no surprise, then, that the Germans thought he T-34 was some kind of super tank when the likes of Guderian and panzer division commanders were regaling stories about the new Soviets tanks, even though they weren't quite sure which particular tank they were referring to.
Guderian, for example, described both the features of the T-34 AND the KV-1 into one tank and didn't distinguish between the two types.
I have read about those supposed armour values were they said that weapons could not penetrate the front but they could penetrate the side or rear even though all those are the same on the T-34.
Yeah, quite so. It does make a lot more sense when we realise that the Germans were confusing both the T-34 and the KV- for each other in 1941.....and even for one 'super tank'.
As I said, it's no wonder there came a "T-34 phobia" after Mtsensk. If I thought the new Soviet 'super tank' was 44 tons, had 100mm of sloped armour and was faster than a Panzer III then I'd damn well panic as well haha.
@LaughingGravy31 Well - the Russians just prior to Operation Barbarrossa had just managed to have another prototype off the drawing board; this tank was to be the KV-3 tank armed with the ZiS 6 106.7mm gun with 100-130mm worth of armor plus a speed up to 30km/hour. Sounds quite ambitious yet in reality this would have severely hindered the KV-3's techinical speed in the field and production was interrupted by Operation Barbarrosa. Then again the KV-1 would culumate into the JS-series tanks :)
@CrniWuk O.O - speaking of the KV-3 have you heard about its armament? The proposed ZiS 6 107mm gun had developmental origins to the M60 107mm gun; No. 92 Plant also worked on a 107 mm gun. A ZiS-24 prototype with 73.5 caliber barrel (so if you do the maths thats about 7.8645 metres LONG - VERY POWERFUL); but the gun was also very heavy and expensive - and it was cancelled more or less aroudn the time of Barbarrossa...
@CrniWuk It was stated the Russians didn't specify models of the KV-1 tanks in general; these only occured in study documents and books after the war. "These designations however are not strict and describe leading changes, while other changes might be adapted earlier or later in specific production batches." (via wiki - not sure if its true or not) and what they did do though was implement all these wild KV-projects - some too heavy, some not accepted and some that lead to the JS tanks...
@CrniWuk In any case though the JS-1 and JS-2 (from the 1943 model which did rather badly at Targu Frumos to the 1944m/1945 mode3ls) were the successors to the KV-tanks - did you know the JS-2 tank originally was proposed to have a T-shaped like muzzle brake but apparently it blew up and nearly killed Kliment Voroshilova when he was inspecting it! And the Soviet design factory wanted to upgrade the JS-2's armor up to 130mm but due to weight issues they didn't do so...
@CrniWuk Afterall in the end the JS-series tanks proved slightly lighter, fast, better armed (well thats debatable as the 107.6mm gun would have packed a punch but the 122mm gun's HE work is undeniable for a tank gun in WWII) and most importantly superior armor layout (it was said Konin and Grabin both used simple cast technology but at the same time the engineering of the turret meant it was lighter, simpler yet more compact than the KV-turrets) - and the JS-2 overall had armor
@CrniWuk had armor (1943 models had 120mm at 72 deg to the horizontal so thats about 126mm) at 100-120mm for the 1944m JS-2's at 60 deg so thats either 200mm to the vertical if using Cosine calculations but if to the horizontal that would be about 138.5mm frontal armor using Sine calculations - which at 2000 yards or so the JS-2 could withstand a strike from a Tiger I's gun as shown in Targu Frumos
Yes the T-34 was built in large numbers and the Soviets had plenty of them, but they needed to.
Nearly 50,000 were destroyed in WW2 and the T34/85 was really not much safer than the T-34/76.
For all it's speed and so called reliability, I wouldnt have wanted to come up against German tanks, PAKs and hand held weapons, even in a T-34/85 during 1944/45.
No thanks.
As we all know, the T-34 'won' due to numbers. The KV is ignored today because 'only' around 5,000 were built.
Thus, an overmatched plate will be forced to rely on tensile stresses within the displaced disc, and will tend to break out in front of the attacking projectile, regardless of whether the edges cling to the parent material or not. Plate obliquity works in defeating projectiles partly because it turns and deflects the projectile before it begins digging in.
Number 8?! The Panther should be at least 6. 9 for striking fear, 7 for its still considerably powerful 76mm, 8 for its thick, sloped armor, and 10 for looking awesome...
I think that the Panther deserves a number 2 and not 8.. Maybe even a number 1. Because it could stand up against everything its time brought. And that didn't counted for the T-34.
They would need to flank it. The Panther would destroy the Sherman 2000 meters away in open country. In a built up area like Normandy villages the Sherman could maybe pull it off but for wide open country forget about it.
@Dreachon But that was compensated for by its realiabilty problems,the alied forces even made jokes about it being so inrealiable here's one: How many panther tanks does it take to take out a sherman? 4 the other three broke down.
That was not the fault of the Panther but it's rushed devellopment, like the Tiger II the Panther was never given a chance to properly work out the kinks in the design unlike the sherman,
Nor did it have the joy of sitting quietly in the back while maintenance take their time checking everything before sending it back to the front unlike the sherman.
@Blueatchley12 Whilst Allied tanks and AT weapons could certainly destroy a Panther from the side shot - Panther tank commanders were trained to operate at long range at over 1-2000 yards and they kept to the doctrine of keeping thier frontal armor and PaK 42 always facing the enemy masses at range if possible - the Panther was excellent at frontal long range 'sniping' of Allied tanks but in close range combat was more vulnerable - though it was pivot turning compared to the Shermans...
@Blueatchley12 Another interesting weakness of the Panther in addition to the wheels and engineering complexity was the long barrel of the PaK 42 - this gun was longer barreled than most 75mm guns of WWII - and if maneuvering through closed up areas or urban areas on occasion unlike the smaller Panzer IV this could result in diffuculties maneuvering as result. Regardless the PaK 42 was still a powerful gun in WWII :)
@Trashcansam123 Good luck with that, before you could maneuver to take a shot on the Panther's side plates, it could pivot on the spot and face you frontally, and blow you up. The U.S. army was shocked that a Panther tank could pivot on the spot in it's own space and face you frontally, because the Sherman could not do this, it need a half a field to turn around and face it's enemy frontally. What this means is the Shermans speed mobility is negated, it could not out-maneuver a Panther Tank!!
@hailherrosner sure but why pivot when you have a turret. Besides, in Normandy the panthers were always facing the wrong way, according to the veterans. And it's been noted that 90% of Panthers were actaully taken out by blowing off their treads and immobilizing them.
@Trashcansam123 because pivoting the Panther tank was much faster than turning the turret only, good tankers in the German army pivot and turn their turret at the same time, which means a much faster reaction time to your enemy. Michael Wittman would pivot his Tiger tank in combination with turning the turret, that's why he killed over 138 tanks in WW2. There were many instances in WW2 where Panther would stand in the open and dare allied tanks to attack frontally, after 4-5kills they withdrew
@Trashcansam123 I don't know where you get your information from that in Normandy, Panthers were always facing the wrong way, nor that 90% of them were destroyed by blowing their tracks off, where is your source? Trust me when I tell you the German army was not stupid, their tanks always faced the enemy, in neutral steer, they would pivot frontally, where the thickest armour is 80mm on front glacis plate and 120mm on front gun mantlet, Sherman had no chance,Panther could take it out at 2-3km.
I agree with you. The Tiger 1 was a beast but was too heavy for bridges and was maintenance prone. I think the tracks had to be removed to transport them by rail and as you said it had clutch problems. The Panther was the best
@Miratesus Well those were the tigers most common problems according to the texts i have read. OFC they can be more other problems but think bout urself when u have a tank with too much weight for engine and gear/clutch operators what happens when u go to in mud and snow where the engine might have to perform more that it can.. But anyways tiger was a beast, but like all the tanks, it had own issues. Correct me ofc if im wrong
@lucianothegreatest Tiger I was 56 tonnes and had the KwK 36 88mm gun. Panther was 45-46 tonnes and had the KwK/PaK 42 75mm gun which had better AP and muzzle velocity than the Tiger I's gun - only drawback was the weaker HE. Plus Panther tanks were cheaper and quite maneverable for a tank of its type compared to the Tiger I. Panther's trade off was weaker side armor...as a start...
The 75 mm L70 indeed had a slightlly higher armour penetration capability than the 88mm L56 of the Tiger ....but only up to 1500-1800m . Beyond that the 88mm L56 was better due to the larger caliber and higher weight of the shell . The Panther was indeed a very manuvrable tank ...slightlly more than the Tiger1, but which consumed less fuel for example cross-country ! . Besides the 2 tanks had different roles in the german tank operational doctrine.
@Cosmin1511 What about against say the T-34/85's ZiS-53? The Russian tank had a bigger caliber gun which should theoretically have a BIGGER HE in a 1-1 shot - but given the Panther had superior optics and a flatter trajectory PaK 42 - it should have better AP than the T-34/85 - as the Russian tank was faster, cheaper and it had armor 90mm thick compared to 60mm on the T-34/76...
Mate , the Zis 53 85mm , despite its caliber was a very weak gun for its size . As a comparison the Zis 53 had lower armour penetration capability than even the 75mm L43 of the early Panzer 4 Ausf F2 . Between the Zis 53 and the 75mm L70 cant be any comparison , the L70 was significantlly more powerfull . The T34/85 had 90mm only in the gun mantlet mate. Other than that was the same as the /76 version , so it wasnt much of a improvement .
@Cosmin1511 Then I presume the claim the Russians made that the ZiS 53 could knock 100mm of armor at 1000m is exaggerated? Well its obvious if the 88mm Kwk 36 > ZiS 53 and the PaK 42 > KwK 36 in AP I was only refering to the High Explosive comparison and a 1-1 shot - was the T-34/85's ZiS 53 more powerful than the PaK 42 in terms of 1-1 High Explosive damage not AP performance. So the Panther essentially retains superiority to the T-34/85 eh? Makes sense now :P
The only real contender to the 75mm L70 , in the russian arsenal was the A19 122mm gun of the JS 2 . They were more or less on par as AP is concerned , but with a significant plus to the A19 as HE capability is concerned . However in the case of the A19 122mm gun , the shell and the proppelent had to be loaded separatelly , which gave it a VERY low fire rate , almost 4 times slower than the L70 , which had a much better acuracy and was coupled with outstanding optics.
@Cosmin1511 What about the M1944 BS-3 100mm AT gun? Also the 100 mm D10T gun on the SU-100 was another good contender - though probably not as accurate as the PaK 42. Also we have the very potent ZVEROBOY's ML-20 gun - whilst short ranged and not so accurate the huge HE (which was bigger than the A19's) was the main asset - though the PaK 42 no doubt would get more shots in before the ML-20 could even fire back.
The SU 100 was the undoubtedlly the best TD the russians had in ww2 , and the D10 was the best AT gun for the russians. However it came late in the war. The SU 152 was not a tank destroyer ....however due to the huge caliber of the ML20 it was about the only SPG that could tackle the german heavy cats at combat ranges in 1943 , specially at Kursk . That ofc till the SU 100 , or the ISU 122 came along later on.
@Cosmin1511 Say SU-100 vs Jagdpanther? It seems to be a compromise; the KwK 43/2 had better AP than the 100mm D10T BUT the D10T had a bigger caliber so it had a more useful HE shell....though the Jagdpanther seems to be slightly better armored not that its much of an issue. Yes I know the ZVEROBOY was not a dedicated TD BUT if needed it would be capable of dealing with German heavy vehicles - and Kursk showed it - prior to the SU-100 or ISU-122...
Id say theres no contest between the JDPanther and the SU 100. The were both dedicated Tank destroyers ... so the HE capability is rather irellevant , as it could do little against heavilly armoured tanks . The 88mm L71 of the JDPanther was without ANY DOUBT the best AT Gun of the war . Also the JdPanther was indeed better armoured and with better mobility than the SU100. Was superior in every way . The SU was a good TD , but theres no comparison with the JDPanther
@Cosmin1511 Actually HE can do spalling if the caliber is big enough and the gun has sufficient barrel caliber - the 122mm and 152mm of the Soviets - whilst not excellent AT guns - when they made thier mark on a German heavy tank the raw kinetic energy from the explosion and the blast could atleast spall the tank from the inside and cause conccusive damage. More over if you strike the rear armor or wheels that could also disable a tank but given its not always ideal - yes AT guns do the job
You are refering to the tests done at Kubinka in August 1944 on the Tiger 2,where the 152mm or the 122mm HE shells caused extensive damage to the armour and cracked it ,specially at the joints.The explanation is very simple mate.In the late part of ww2 , Germany lost all of its mollybdenium supllys, so they replaced it with vanadium in the armour alloy composition of the Tiger 2. This ment the armour became brittle and prone to cracking when hit by large caliber HE shells
@Cosmin1511 Actually I was refering more to Kursk - didn't they also use ML-20's and the A19 guns along with the SU-152 (notice I'm not refering to the ISU-152) - as when the Soviets tried testing new guns to arm the IS-series tanks they realized an 85mm gun in the KV-85/IS-1 was not appropriate - until that is the 100mm gun and 122mm were tested and we know what the outcome was in the later IS-series. But my point was prior to the 100mm BS3, D10T and the ZVEROBOY's in Kursk the ML-20 and A19
@Cosmin1511 I hear the Panther tank suffered similar problems when Molybdenum supplies were cut by 1944 - when chief mines were shut down due to bombing... for its armor plate
There has been a gradual decline in the armour quallity of german tanks in the later stages of ww2. Tiger 2 in particular suffered from that.In contrast , the Tiger 1 retained its armour quallity all thru its production run. Its armour was of the best quallity...and sure when hit by 152mm HE shells,the blast could kill the crew inside , or damage internal partsand disable the tank , but couldnt penetrate unless at small ranges , unlike in the case of the Tiger 2.
@Cosmin1511 Exactly - well we've done our readings I'm sure - that clearly howitzer guns are not exactly dedicated to AT work - especially if they have poor accuracy and don't have the high velocity of smaller caliber AT gun cannons - the ML-20 and D-1 were no exceptions to this. But again the Bengal Tiger was claimed to have never been penetrated in combat - it had armor that was 100-150mm sloped at 55 deg on the glacis plate/hull front - which would have been formindable
""There has been a gradual decline in the armour quallity of german tanks in the later stages of ww2. Tiger 2 in particular suffered from that.""
I think it's still somewhat over exaggerated though. The Soviets claimed that the Tiger 2 split it's weld seems when hit....yet the more truthful western allies do not claim this. Indeed there are pics of hits actually on the Tiger II's welds and they did not split.
Bazooka and panzerfaust hits from 100m didn't split the welds.
@Cosmin1511 Actually I found out they also used special mounts for Jagdpanther mantlets with the PaK 43 - when there were excessive stocks of the gun - just like the Panther Turrets that were used as stationary bunkers the Jagdpanther mantlet gun defences were also used against the Allied advance...
The decision to retain the 88mm for the Tiger 1,instead of the 75mm early proposal has very good reasoning behind it. In ww2 armour penetration was a function of the T/D (Thickness of armour/Diameter of the shell) coeficient. IN other words the larger the caliber of the shell that hits a smaller thickness of armour , the more chances it has to penetrate it.
Moreover , it was found that if the diameter of the shell overmatches the thickness of armour it hits , in other words if the T/D coeficient is <1 , the sloaping of the plate becomes irelevant ...and actually helps penetration . Dont get me wrong , muzzle velocity was still a very important factor , but between two guns with similar muzzle velocity , the advantage goes ofc to the gun with the larger caliber .
@Cosmin1511 It was said the ISU-152 Assault gun ZVEROBOY had 'excellent' 90mm frontal sloped armor compared to the SU-152 - that it was invulnerable to all but the heaviest German tank/AT guns - is that true? Because given the SU-152 had hte KV-1 tank chassis whereas the ISU-152 had the IS-2 tank chassis so given the IS-2 tank was meant to have better armor protection than the KV series....
@Cosmin1511 Wasn't the ISU-122 develooped due to the fact there wwere excessive 122mm gun barrel stocks but insufficient ML-20 gun barrels to be fitted to the IS-tank chassis which was the reason why the ISU-122 was also developed? It was said Soviet Red Army commanders tried not to mix ISU-122's with 152's due to differing roles - and that the ZVEROBOY was generally better in the all round assault than the 122's...
@Cosmin1511 Indeed! The 121.92mm M1931/37 A19 gun had a severe weakness in size, ROF, poor accuracy and poor traverse compared to the PaK 42 on the Panther. The only advantage the 121.92mm gun had was really prolific stocks of the gun and the stupidly good HE shell (though the OF-471 rounds may sometimes have quality control problems)
The L70 75mm of the Panther was a purposlly designed AT weapon . So naturally it had a much lower HE capabilty . The shell of the L70 weighs only about 5kg , and thats saying something as HE capability is concerned . However the 88mm L56 had a much better HE capability .
Each tank in the german order of battle had a particular role to fulfill and that greatlly influenced the design of that particular tank .
@Cosmin1511 How did the Panther's PaK 42 compare to the other 75mm guns during WWII? Despite having a weaker HE than the KwK 36 of the Tiger I it was said to still be more potent and more powerful naturally than the Panzer IV's KwK 40. Indeed the Tiger I was designed to be a mobile 'break through tank' - funny thing how the German High Command wanted a tank no more than 45 tonnes YET the Tiger I ended up being well over 50 tonnes :( Then we had the Panther - which after the T-34/76
The 75mm L70 was a powerfull AT Gun couse of its insane muzzle velocity, which gave it a more penetrateing power . That was achived by lenghtening the barrel of the gun , in this case L70 means 70 calibers lenght ( 75 x 70 ). The other 75mm of hte Pz4 for example were L43(early Panzer 4 F2) to the L48 (Pz 4 ausf G if im not mistaken) . THe L70 was superior to both gun , couse of the much higher muzzle velocity , and could penetrate more armour .
@Cosmin1511 Actually it was said the PaK 42 L/70 was essentially a reworked design of the famous PaK 40 AT-gun - which was also mounted in the StuG, Jagdpanzers and the Panzer IV tanks as KwK versions - yes you are correct there was the L43 and L48 versions which did well against Allied armor as well - but did you know the Panther has a weakness compared to the Panzer IV - the longer barrelled PaK 42 meant maneuvering in city areas/enclosed areas was more dangerous/trickier than the Panzer IV :)
The Tiger ended up at 56 tones for a very good reason . The role o the Tiger was to be a breakthrough tank ... to spearhead armour advance , be able to take imense punishment from AT gun positions and .... MOST IMPORTANTLLY , to defeat enemy armoured coutnerattacks which inherentlly came with the enemy line beeing broken .
So basiclly the TIgers JOB was to fight enemy tanks ... it was its primary and most important role .
@Cosmin1511 Well didn't Hitler also insist on mounting an upgrunned version of the 75mm gun? The original schematics called for a 45 tonne tank with 75mm+ armor and a 75mm high velocity gun cannon for breakthroughs prior to the 1940's yet once after the Phoney Wars and the whatnots Hitler insisted thicker armor and a bigger gun - where history would show the Porsche prototype losing to the Henschel prototype of the Tiger I - though its interesting Porsche's prototype became the Ferdinand/Elefant
@Cosmin1511 The Ferdinand/Elefant was interesting because it was able to mount the PaK 43 whilst also being uparmored to 200mm - which by sheer thickness is even thicker than a stnadard Panther - though the problem would be transmission adn weight problems - not ot mention the Ferdinand/Elefant was tended to the heavy TD/assault gun role. The Tiger I is interesing it was designed for direct survival and durability in terms of armor compared to the Panther
@Cosmin1511 Its also interesting the Tiger variants just got bigger and bigger - the Bengal Tiger and the Jagdtiger - behemoths that were borderline 70 tonne giants mounting powerful guns and sporting thick armor but an overworked engine and other resource shortages (fuel being one of them) - yet we have the Jagdpanther - which was roughly the same weight as a Pnather yet it retained good speed and better firepower - and did the job nicely compared to the Jagdtigers...
@Cosmin1511 You know - still many a German tank crews admired and appreciated the durabiltiy and excellent workmanship of the armor of thier tanks - particularly the Tigers and Panthers - at Normandy where the armor and firepower did well in the defensive - I've hardly seen pictures of Panthers or Tigers with damaged glacis plates - well holes that were a clean shot penetrate - that reflects in particular the Tiger I's Brinell hardness of 250+ = very durable by WWII standards :)
Tiger 1s BHN(Brinell hardness index) was around 280-290 mate . The armour was a rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate , electro-welded and interlocked . It was the best quallity armour of any tank in ww2 . It offered , compared to comparable thickness of russian armour , almost 30-40% more protection . Original designs for the Tiger dated to 1937, but it had to keep up with demands in the front ..so it ended up 10 tons heavier .
@Cosmin1511 AHA! Rolled plate - obviously more expensive than Cast armor but clearly better protection and quality - Russian tanks and Western Allied tanks tend to use cast armor - though the IS-3 was said to be of rolled plate eventually (though still somewhat faulty via inspection) - yes I've heard of what you've mentioned - the Tiger I if you tihnk about it is essentially a big Panzer IV with a bigger gun, engine and thicker armor...
@Cosmin1511 At Hitler's insistence the first Tiger I's got sent to Leningrad - and didn't do so well due to tactics being inappropriate and the ground being too soft. At Kursk the Tiger I's not only faced massess of T-34/76's but also suffered mechanical problems as they were rushed from the factories and hadn't been 100% ready tested by then...
The Tigers did VERY well at Kursk mate . There was a very low number of TIgers lost at Kursk , despite the "urban Legends" . Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 for example lost 4 Tigers in the Kursk Offensive out of 45 available . SwPzAbt 505 , which fought in the N wing of Kurks , lost 4 Tigers out fo 31 available. 9th Kmp Großdeutschland didnt lose ANY Tigers at Kursk out of 15 available .
@Cosmin1511 NO! I wasn't meaning they sucked or anything - they did well in combat no doubt and in dealing scores of T-34/76 tanks but I meant in terms of tank performance - they had some trouble in engine problems - Panthers suffered similar problems but once these faults were fixed they became fine tanks superior to many Allied tanks. Besides even the Ferdinand had a good kill ratio at Kursk despite its poor mobility and lack of machine guns. Also - one Tiger was said to have been
@Cosmin1511 One Tiger at Kursk was said to have been shot up heavily by 14.5mm guns, 76.2mm, 57mm and dozens of bullets/arty fragments yet it wasn't destroyed at all - it was eventually repaired and back on the field...
Ferdinands gun was amazeing , and destroyed a very large number of russian tanks at Kurks. The 653rd managged to distroy some 450 tanks in the whole operation ...if im not mistaken . You do know that the record for the farthest kil in ww2 is ownded by a Ferdinand , which destroyed a T34 at 4600 m . At the same range , a Nashorn killed a JS2 in 1945. The 88mm L71 gun was trully the best AT weapon that saw action in ww2.
@Cosmin1511 Don't get me wrong - I am fascinated by WWII German AFV's - and the Tiger I did well no matter what in history and today there's Bovington's Tiger 131 - the only Tiger I that still functions after almost 70 years since it last saw combat. Haha - you seem to know your German tank history (I hardly know any of the Panzer battalions and formations myself haha) - yes the Nashorn/Hornet has quite a distinction as a TD during WWII :) the PaK 43 indeed was VERY powerful in WWII
@Cosmin1511 But if you think of it - the Jagdpanther seemed the most balanced of the German TD's by popular myths and historians - it had the benefit of the Panther tank but essentially sacrificing a turret for a bigger gun and slightly uparmored front. Also unlike the Tiger variants the Jagdpanther had respectable speed, unlike the Elefant whilst having certainly better armor than the Nashorn itself or for the matter the Tiger I (front) but personally I like the Jagdpanther more than Panthers
I share ur opinion on the JagdPanther. Its my favourite as well . Im alos quite fascinated by ww2 tank history , and its good to have a interesting conversation with someone who also likes ww2 tanks and is quite knowledgable .
@Cosmin1511 I'm sure we can keep on blogging friendlyt convo's on WWII tanks - and yes Jagdpanther was outstanding indeed - I used to have misgivings on its purporse when I first read it - when I first saw it myself in a magazine article in 2004 I was going - WHAT ON EARTH?! ARE THE GERMANS CRAZY IN MOUNTING AN 88MM ON A PANTHER TANK CHASSIS? I thought it was a fake concept model but turns out Jagdpanthers were indeed used and quite powerful if one may say :) I have a Trumpeter 1/72 Jagdpanther
@Cosmin1511 Anyways - 1/72 Midproductin Jagdpanther is a nice baby of a model to build - highly recommended and price is reasonable if you know where to look. Funny thing though I still get mixed up between German panzer divisions and especially the specialist Panzer Abteilungs - I get mixed between th history of the 654 and 653rd which saw action in Eastern Front and which had the Ferdinand, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger and the Nashorn...
Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653 had the Ferdinand then the Jagdtiger.
Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654 had the Ferdinand then the Jagdpanther.
Karl Heinz Munch has written two massive books on both units. I have both of these books in the original hardback versions. They are very very expensive but well worth it. Something like 600 pages with hundreds of photos. Awesome books.
@LaughingGravy31 So! They both had the Ferdinand then progressed with vamped up TD versions of the Tiger and Panther's eh - interesting - O.O 600 pages plus photos - I might start hunting for them...
@Cosmin1511 Hello agaiN! Just visited a Hobby Store today - they had a Sherman 1c VC Mayfly with the QF17 pouder 1/72 scale - I have to admit the QF 17 pounder really gave the M4A4 Sherman its 'punch' to the German armor. Not to mention the QF 17 Pounder in its own right was one of the best and most powerful AT guns in WWII - in comparison to the D10T and the BS-3 M1944 and the experimental 90mm M3/120mm M1 guns used :) Then again the huge PaK 43 is the real winner in AT performance.
@Cosmin1511 But I think we know the obvious drawbacks of the PaK 43; long barreled = tough to manuever in city areas/tight areas, high velocity = heavy barrel wear, tungsten is really needed to achieve the 1130m/s where tungsten was short during WWII for Germany, heavy gun, difficult to traverse if in towed version and the fact it was actually very expensive for an AT gun (opposite of the PaK 36/37 known as the 'Army's Door Knocker) yet the PaK 43 was called the 'Barndoor' for good reason :)
True , the biggest drawback of the long barrel of the 88mm L71 was the barrel wear . However its shells had such a high muzzle velocity that they could deal with any enemy armour. The APCBC PzGr 39/43 had a very good muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s ...and could deal with any AFV the allies had .... also it did more dmg than the APCR Tungestein core PzGr40/43 , whcih indeed could penetrate more armour due to its solid core .
@Cosmin1511 Well that was precisely what the German AT guns were designed to fire - in addition to the PaK 43, PaK 42 and the famous little PaK 38/PaK 40 have you heard of the PaK 41 with the tappered bore round - a design using tungsten shot but also where the muzzle bore is narrower than the breach round bore - designed to fire an even higher velocity than standard AT guns - the PaK 41 could theoretically punch 150mm armor at under 1000 yards. Also have you heard of the 8H63?
@Cosmin1511 But the APCR and APCRC rounds using Tungsten carbide were pretty rare an expensive in WWII for Germany wasn't it? The Tungsten was prioritized for machine tools in Germany....but still the standard Panzer Granate 39/43 was pretty potent already - place it in some powerful armed/armored chassis like the Jagdpanther or Bengal Tiger and with a good crew you'd be having a field day with enemy tanks! Say - how thick theoretically was the Panther's 80mm glacis plate? The vet claims 100mm+
@Cosmin1511 The 100mm armor on the TIger I was pretty durable and like you said 280-290 in Brinell Hardness which made it cpaable of surviving heavy damage and even absorbing shots directly naturally - yet the Panther had 80mm sloped so it was designed to ricchochet and provide better protection - the funny thing was take the Ferdinand/Elefant its armour thickness was 200mm non-sloped which by sheer thickness would be even thicker than a Panther!
Also the 88mm L71 had trully outstainding accuracy . In fireing range tests the 88mm L71 fireing the PzGr 39/43 achieved a 85% hit ratio at 2000 m and 100% hit ratio at 1000m . The Pzgr 40/43 did even better, with a 89% hit ratio at 2000 m and 66% hit ratio at 3000 m. It is true that in battle condiitons the % were slightlly lower....but in any case...a trully formidable gun the 88mm L71 was .
@Cosmin1511 Precisely! PaK 43 is unrivalled atleast in WWII combat for its power and respectable range/damage for an anti-tank gun - the PaK 43 was still slightly better than the post war AT guns such as the Russian D44 and D48 guns - practically it even rivaled the T12 gun. Unlike say the QF 17 pounder which had a huge muzzle blast, initial HE problems and inaccuracy at longer ranges. It was said in tank versions of the Sherman Mayfly the QF 17 pounder sometimes cramped conditions...
@Cosmin1511 And the QF 17 pounder's backblast via recoil was said by gunner veterans to be like a 'slap on the chest' - a real hard slap - and the poweder charge smoke could sometimes cause 'nighttime firing blindness' - sounds almost like a literal nightmare to the tank men if it ain't Tiger or Pantherphobia :P Oh and also - you ever heard of the claim the Bengal Tiger never had its 100-180mm armor penetrated before? Because even so veteran tankers claimed getting struck by shells in a Benga
@Cosmin1511 struck by sells in a Bengal Tiger was like being trapped in a giant church bell that was being rung in all directions. Funny really how the Germans managed to invest in heavy behemoths like the Bengal Tiger and have dreams of bigger projects. I also did a small comparison analysis between a 1/72 model Bengal Tiger and my Jagdpanther, IS-3 and IS-2 - funny thing is the Russian tanks were naturally smaller than the Bengal Tiger. The Bengal Tiger also had a high profile for a heavy tank
@HeirofGojira91 Haha - now then I then realize that during WWII - the Germans for the matter made relatively 'big' and overengineered tanks being the Bengal Tiger, Panzer VIII Maus and the proposed prototype E-100 Nacht-Tiger - not to mention the Jagdtiger, Elefant and whatnots. On the other hand the Russians for the matter strictly kept weight and size to a minimum at the cost of engineering problems, crudenss and above all poor ergonomics haha - how ironic...
@Cosmin1511 Oh and I read a small book article on the JS-3 tank - it was said to have been based on the T-34/85's armor philosphy but encorporating a thicker improved armored envelope, as well as having better armament - notice how the JS-series tanks appear to be a 'lighter and revised' version of the KV-series heavy tnaks - the JS-2 in particular resembles a T-34/85 but both were different tanks for differing roles - wikipedia 'claimed' that JS-2 tanks were better armed and armored than T-34's
Yes both Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654 were at Kursk with Ferdinands. After Kursk the remaining Ferdinands were consolidated into one unit (653). The personnel of 654 were transferred to France in September 1943 and then they eventually ended up with the Jagdpanther.
Post Kursk the remaining Ferdinands with 653 gave good service in '43, and continued to give good service into 1945 after they were re-fitted into Elefants in early '44.
Also many people mistakenly think the Ferdinands were all sent to Italy after they were re-fitted into Elefants in the factory in Austria in early 1944. But in reality only 1 company was sent to Italy. The rest of the Elefants were sent back to Russia. Many were still in combat in Poland in Jan 1945 and I believe a 2 or 3 made it back to Berlin.
Some of the Ferdinands/Elefants in Russia had a very long combat life. Almost 2 years.
@LaughingGravy31 YES! :D Elefants - they were technically very flawed - I can't and I can imagine what it would be if Hitler had decided to have Dr Porsche's prototype to be converted to the Tiger I we know of today - essentially an Elefant/Ferdinand chassis but with a Tiger I's turret + some transmission mods. Indeed - I have a 1/72 Dragon Armor Ferdinand of the 653's 3rd Kompanie that served in Russia during 1944 - very nice model for display :)
@LaughingGravy31 Plus - yes at least 2 made it to Berlin to prepare for the last battle. Elefants were no doubt still very powerful in terms of armor and firepower - theoretically they would be 'tougher' than the Panther and the Tiger I in a head on assault but again the Elefant was strictly not a tank, as some gamers and laymen might coin it - and it was really too heavy to be a mobile assault gun - 66tonnes is quite heavy - not far from the Bengal and Jagdtigers :(
@LaughingGravy31 Yes - Elefants still intrigue me to this day - legacy of Porsche. Its really the armor thickness that amazed me - for most Panzerjagers you'd have light armor or armor no more than 100mm thick but the Elefant was 200mm thick! Adding that would be another 5 tonnes of armor - not sure if the Elefant had its armor being made the same way asthe Tiger I - the Tiger I's armor was welded and rolled with Nickel-Steel alloy.
I don't know what armour type the Ferdinand had. I 'guess' it had a similar type to the Tiger because both were built around the same time and both were vying for the contract. Of course this would only apply to the chassis armour because the superstructure was built later after the chassis design was rejected.
But I might be wrong here. By all accounts the Porsche chassis was very finely crafted and of high workmanship. Too highly crafted for production actually.
@LaughingGravy31 Regardless - if we think about it - the German standard of engineering was appreciated by both sides in the war as a general wasn't it? If we don't count the flawed Kubinka tests or the fact the Germans started running seriously low on Raw Materials ... and the Ferdinand had 200mm armor - which is actgually thicker even than the Panther in sheer thickness - I can see why you'd choose the Elefant in a TD during 43-44 :)
Oh yeah, the more unbiased and truthful western allies were full of praise for German engineering and quality, especially the British.
The Soviets engaged in propaganda and exaggerated things and even flat out lied.
Neither the British or Americans ever came across knocked out King Tigers that fell apart when hit or had welds splitting all over the place as the Soviets claimed.
@LaughingGravy31 YES - the British or was it Americans noted the German Tiger I's side armor was actually thicker than 80mm since it was rolled and had fine manufacturing - atleast when the Tiger I made its debacle to the Western Allies in the desert - I believe there is the famous Tiger 131? :P I would love to see it in the future up close or atleast in person :) A fellow Youtuber claimed he tapped a Panther's glacis plate - it felt like a huge steel wall - imagine the Tiger I's frontal hull :)
Yes the British noticed the Tiger Is side plate was slightly thicker than 80mm. Of course the Tiger Is armour was superior to any British, American or Soviet plate of the same thickness too.
I live in England and have been to Bovington where Tiger 131 is. I haven't seen it running yet but I have been there, seen it and touched it. It is awesome although I have to say the 'Porsche' King Tiger they also have is THE most impressive and imposing WW2 I have ever seen. It's HUGE!
Have you seen the pics of the panzerfaust and bazooka hits on the King Tiger from 100m range? The welds aren't split in the slightest even though there were direct hits on them.
The Soviets claimed the King Tiger had poor armour and fell apart when hit or that the welds split...yet the western allies do not claim the same.
American paras test fired the bazooka and panzerfaust repeatedly on the KT at close range in Jan 1945. The KT's armour stood up very well to both weapons.
@LaughingGravy31 No but I have read briefly on this test - very interesting compared to goold old Kubinka - its ironic given a study in the 50's noted the JS-3 tanks - the 'PIKE' armor despite being 110mm - they noted it was poorly worked and welding cracked with stress in the tank. And another thing on the BEngal Tiger's armor bing 'flawed' - it was said in the Battle of Bulge US AT gunners were horrified when thier standard 76mm guns failed to knock Bengal Tigers :)
@LaughingGravy31 Have you any models kits on German WWII tanks? I think I mentioned before I had a Bengal Tiger, Jagdtiger, Sturmmtiger and Elefant - all 3 are diecast premade display 1/72 Dragon Armor models. I also have a nice Jagdpanther from Trumpeter - mid production - a very nice baby to build :) Personally like some tank historians - I reckon the Jagdpanther was not only a good personal favorite but also among the 'elite' TD's of WWII - carried same firepower like the Bengal Tiger
1/35th is my scale. I have lots. Soviet armour too. Many old Tamiya and Italeri kits plus lots of newer Dragon kits plus other kits from more obscure manufacturers. I haven't done any kits for a long time now but it used to be my hobby.
The Dragon Tiger I kit from about 5 years ago was the best. It's discontinued now.
@LaughingGravy31 Ah Tamiya - I hear Academi is also quite nice. For Russian armor - I have a 1/72 Roden JS-3 and a 1/76 Hasegawa JS-2 1944m :) Both were trickier to build than the Jagdpanther from Tumpeter though - the Hasegawa was quite fragile and the Roden Kit - whilst 'good' - was abit crude on color and fitting the turret was an absolute mess :(
Oh well the Academy Tiger I kits are not as god as Dragon/Tamiya but they are still ok. I hear the AFV Club Tiger I is good.
Dragon have made excellent Panther and Panzer IV kits in the last few years. What I love about Dragon is the individual track links, metal barrels and all the other extras. Dragon are the best for German kits.
Some Dragon kits even come with moulded on zimmerit now. I haven't got one yet but I hear it is good.
I have an old ICM kit of the Soviet T-35 kit which is massive and I haven't built it yet. I also have an old unbuilt Alan kit of a Katyusha rocker launcher. I could probably sell both for lots of money on Ebay.
""I reckon the Jagdpanther was not only a good personal favorite but also among the 'elite' TD's of WWII - ""
I think the Jagdpanther was the finest pure tank destroyer of WW2 and most knowledgeable people would agree. I also think it;s the 'coolest' looking AFV ever built, especially with those hooded exhaust stacks on the rear plate.
@LaughingGravy31 :D Haha - good to speak to fellow aficnados on WWII and occasional past-time hobbying - its hard for myself to find some to speak of WWII weaponary and the whatnots - if you don't count laymen or fanatics of games (I do not play games much myself) - yes - when I look at a Jagdpanther I always note the gun barrel and the mantlet - its a quick way to tell if its an early or late series production vehicle - but the exhaust pipe/stacks are also useful to tell :)
No problem mate. Likewise. I'm not a gamer either.
Yeah the Jagdpanther is easy to tell between early version and late versions. The mantlet and exhaust stacks are the easiest identifiable features as you rightly point out. Then there are the features on the rear deck like the crew compartment heater and different number of bolts on the engine deck, but that is impossible to see unless you are looking down at it.
@LaughingGravy31 O.O Interesting - may I ask which reading did you get this from? Or was it from the combat history of the 653/654 Swehere Panzerabteilung book you mentioned? A book called 'Operation Citadel' written during was it 2002 or 2003 outlined the history of the Kursk Battle - plus - it was said to have tank schematics - particularly Tiger I and Ferdinand (well not Elefants during Kursk eh? :P) Unfortunately the Jagdpanther had some vices - least of all MAINTENANCE :(
@LaughingGravy31 It was said if it weren't for the bombing on production or naturally fuel and supplies of ammo/raw materials the Jagdpanther maintenance was still a typical nightmare for crews during WWII - the famous bogie wheel interleaved suspension was one - you naturally had to take off the outer wheels to get to the inner wheels - and they could jam in mud/snow, barrel wear on the KwK 43 (whilst powerful it was also expensive and heavy) and engine maintenance was sometimes diffucult
@LaughingGravy31 I hear Jagdpanthers also had a good radio - the FuGG series - particularly the FuGG 5 radios which allowed excellent communications in battle anyways - an excellent TD in history - and always a recommended reading/model to study/build for future enthusiasts :) Took me more than 5 years to get my Jagdpanther 1/72 Trumpeter ;) haha. And yes - I saw some basic differences between engine grilles of early/mid/late Jagdpanthers :)
@Cosmin1511 Interesting! :D I just looked up Tanks of the World and yep your figures are pretty spot on though the range of the Bengal Tiger was noted to be 110km whilst Panther was 177km. The Bengal Tiger could climb a higher trench as well - 2.5 metres vs 1.9 metres for the Panther! :D And it could ford at 1.6m vs Panthers 1.4 metres. BTW what is ground pressure? Does it relate to tbe power to weight ratio when driving/steering? And what about the myth on the turret spin of the Panther vs M4?
Ground pressure measures the distribution of the tank`s entire weight at the track level , when is in contact with the ground . It measures the tanks floatability on soft terrain , like mud , or snow etc . The lower the ground pressure , the higher floatability a tank has , and less chances for it to sink in the the soft ground , and implicitelly lose its mobility . Tiger 2 , despite its 70 tons ,was very agile on this kind of soil , on which most battles in ww2 were fought .
@Cosmin1511 Hmm - the Maybach 230 Engine P30 V12 water cooled Petrol engine must have been a pretty good engine during WWII - having done service in the Panther and Tigers...
The Tiger 2 was a trully outstainding machine . On average , at the report in May 1944 for example , the % of Panthers battle ready on the E front was of 77% , of Panzer 4s was 80% and of Tiger 2s 79% .
And to sumarize , the Tiger 2 was oustandinglly agile and mobile , even more mobile than a Sherman on rough terrain , which was half its weight .... and quite reliable if given extensive maintanance . Not to mention it was an unmatched tank killer .
Sry mate ur right , the status i wrote were intended for the Tiger 1 not Tiger 2 , and were dated 31 March 1944... guess im just tired since its passed midnight here and were the first ones that i found in a rush .
For the Tiger 2 ... report dateing 15 December 1944 : % of Pz4 operational 79% , Panthers 69% , Tiger 2 79% - on E front . 78, 71, 68 % resp on W front .
Sry i got reports mixed up and didnt think too much of it .
@Cosmin1511 btw is this true - the destruction of the Army group in France after the Caen/Normandy/Falaise pocket left Feldmarshal Model reporting to Hitler his Panzer divisions on average had no more than 5-6 tanks each due to casualties in the Normandy pocket?
@Cosmin1511 Haha - speaking of the 'Tiger I and Bengal Tiger' - most sources call the Bengal Tiger the Tiger II, King Tiger or Royal Tiger - but I had a look up of Konigstiger - it doesn't translate to King Tiger - but to Bengal Tiger - given the Bengal Tiger is one of the largest and most powerful of the Tiger species - and how beffitting they called it the Bengal Tiger if one goes technically strict on names and meanings...one book - called German Forces of WWII - named the Bengal Tiger as
@Cosmin1511 Called the Bengal Tiger the 'Royal or Konigstiger' in additon to Tiger II - there was even a statement in the book's opening on the Tiger tanks that 'whilst the Tiger I had built a fearsome reputation - the Tiger II on the other hand, was less of a legend and was plagued by mechanical problems rather than actual combat'... but given the truth was the Bengal Tiger - if used properly by experienced crews was a fine heavy tank in its own right :)
@Cosmin1511 Its interesting how the Germans - despite bombings on thier production, difficulty in obtaining raw materials, shortage of other resources - still managed to have high standards in thier tank production - compare that to say Russian tanks for the matter; during WWII and for the matter after, the Russians strictly concentrated weight but at the cost of crudeness and also poor cramped ergonomics - yet German tanks usually were fairly roomy
Many people would be surprised that both the Tiger I and King Tiger had an operational status ratio not too different to the Panzer IV and Panther.
The overall average for the Tiger I and King Tiger (combined) was 70% on the eastern front, which was higher than the Panzer IV and Panther and was 65% on the western front, which was the same as the Panther but lower than the Panzer IV.
It had a very high profile ...which defeats all the puropose of a tank destroyer , specially that by the time the JdTiger came along Germany was fighteing a defensive war . Not to mention that in the german arsenal there were trully remarcable specialized TDs , like the JdPanther or the JgPanzer 4/70 ...or even the Hetzer
@Cosmin1511 The Jagdtiger was 'ironic' for a TD - German TD's usually encompassed - a well armored/sloped profile, low profile and a powerful gun capable to inflicting good cacualties if defensive wise - but the Jagdtiger? Yes - not only a 70 tonne Behemoth that was bigger (slightly) than the Bengal Tiger but also the high profile was already a problem - least that the 128mm KwK 44 being installed was a main issue...
@LaughingGravy31 Speaking of Jagdpanther not only was it design meeting demand, not as costly as the heavier Tiger variants but also it was said to have armor that was interlocking which like the Panther - had excellent frontal protection from most AT guns. Also with the Bengal Tiger - I read that production never actually suffered - at peak the Henschel team could have 60 Bengal Tigers built anygiven time and it took only 2 weeks to complete a Bengal Tiger. Bottled gas was used for testing
@HeirofGojira91 And speaking of Soviet propaganda myth - you seen schematics of JS-2 tanks? Some cockups claim the JS-2 had armor 150-160mm thick on the frontal hull/turret and the 122mm gun could knock more than 140mm of armor - yet book sources like Tanks of the World or Weapons of WWII state the JS-2 had armor max of 100-120mm depending on models (1943 JS-2 (120mm on stepped hulls) whilst 1944m models had 100/120mm in the simple sloped glacis) - whilst the 122mm could knock up to 125mm sloped
So u see...in some aspects of mobility , the Tiger 2 was even better than the best german tank in terms of mobility - The Panther , and superior to Germanys most numberous tank - Panzer 4 . Point is the Tiger 2 was faster and more mobile than most german and allied tanks .... rumors about its poor mobility are just myths...nothing more.
@Cosmin1511 Oh I wasn't exactly implying on speed or mobility - I know the myth - the Bengal Tiger like the Tiger I was still very respectably manueverable - for a tank near 70 tonnes - but I hear sometimes training was an issue? Some drivers weren't experienced enough to steer the Bengal Tiger on occasion - and was the fuel consupmtion high or not? Given they were forced to use bottled gas in testing...
It is true that the Tiger 2 , in order to be kept battle ready needed a lot of maintanance , and needed good drivers , spcially on the acount of its drivetrain and double radius steering gear which were designed for a lighter vechicle ... and if given that ... it was quite reliable . The % of Tiger 2s operational on average on the entire lenght of the E front are equal , or even better sometimes that the Panzer 4, which was regarded as Germanys most reliable tank .
@Cosmin1511 WHat about the Jagdtiger? Given the Jagdtiger is a Bengal Tiger chassis but with no turret and a bigger gun (apologies in advance for this dumbass question) - and weight was abit more than a standard Bengal Tiger ...
There is more than one operational Panther tank in the world. They have one in Bovington and one in Koblenz, so there are at least two. Iam pretty sure there are even more, but maybe in 2008 (date the video was posted) there only was one, who knows.
Mertensify 50 minutes ago
actually it was, after some fixes following the first testings in the batlle of Kursk, the best balanced medium Tank of ww2
ThugCologne 1 week ago
what the hell. Are those people "hobby historians". The "Panther" a copy of the T34 ? Just becaues they had many similar good characteristics? Well maybe those people should remember that the T34 was a combination of many good traits. Obviously the Germans thought about those already earlier but didnt realized them yet before the Panther. They didnt copied the T34 but feelt it was a confirmation to be the right path in tank design. The VK3002 DB was the DIRECT copy of the T34. Not the Panther!
CrniWuk 1 week ago
ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE FOR GEAT JUSTICE!!!!
F3udF1st 1 week ago
best WW2 Tank! without production number´s. stupit that the production counts in this rating...
gOtze1337 1 week ago
@gOtze1337 I agree, to account production numbers for its rating is very dumb. Thats like me having a glass beer mug of high quality and someone else has 10 paper dixie cups. Since they 10 crappy cups they get the higher rating. In my opinion the rating should be based on the performance and quality of the tank not its overall production. Yes i know during war more is better but were comparing quality of the tank not quantity. My opinion the panther was the best tank in ww2.
southernprideyankee 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
Herr Sterner mentioned the Panther's armor - true whilst sloped was 80mm - and he claimed due to the sloped design it actually was equal to 100mm - wasn't the Panther's armor theoretically and actually much thicker than that? I mean 100mm was the Tiger I but the Panther was calculated to have armor almost 140mm thick! But regardless other than that it definitely was excellent in deflecting and withstanding almost all firepower thrown at it!
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
Further, the T-34 'panic/scare' in the German land forces of autumn 1941 was somewhat brought about by miscommunication and misidentification.
If you read the actual report by Guderian and the commander of 4th Panzer Division after the Battle of Mtsensk (where the T-34 terror was born) it's quite clear that both Guderian and von Langermann were getting second hand information and confused both the features of the T-34 with the KV-1 and vice versa.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
Continued...
It's no surprise, then, that the Germans thought he T-34 was some kind of super tank when the likes of Guderian and panzer division commanders were regaling stories about the new Soviets tanks, even though they weren't quite sure which particular tank they were referring to.
Guderian, for example, described both the features of the T-34 AND the KV-1 into one tank and didn't distinguish between the two types.
Thus the T-34 terror myth was born.
Odd when the T-34 didn't stop them.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31
That is some interesting info and would explain some of the errors in the explanations of these machines resistance to existing german weaponry.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon
No problem. Yes the miscommunication/misidentification by Guderian and Langermann does explain the odd discrepancies.
Guderian wrote about the new Russian heavy KV tank of 44 tons with 100mm of 'sloped' armour and said it was faster than a Panzer III. WTF?
Incredible, huh? Guderian was describing the features of the KV and T-34 in one tank.
Guderian also said the T-34 had thicker hull armour at the front than at the rear. That was the KV. T-34s rear armour was same as the front.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31
I have read about those supposed armour values were they said that weapons could not penetrate the front but they could penetrate the side or rear even though all those are the same on the T-34.
That does all make a lot more sense.
Dreachon 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon
Yeah, quite so. It does make a lot more sense when we realise that the Germans were confusing both the T-34 and the KV- for each other in 1941.....and even for one 'super tank'.
As I said, it's no wonder there came a "T-34 phobia" after Mtsensk. If I thought the new Soviet 'super tank' was 44 tons, had 100mm of sloped armour and was faster than a Panzer III then I'd damn well panic as well haha.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Well - the Russians just prior to Operation Barbarrossa had just managed to have another prototype off the drawing board; this tank was to be the KV-3 tank armed with the ZiS 6 106.7mm gun with 100-130mm worth of armor plus a speed up to 30km/hour. Sounds quite ambitious yet in reality this would have severely hindered the KV-3's techinical speed in the field and production was interrupted by Operation Barbarrosa. Then again the KV-1 would culumate into the JS-series tanks :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
there are rumors that the KV3 prototype saw action around Leningrad where it was designed before the siege. If it is true ? Who knows ...
CrniWuk 1 week ago
@CrniWuk O.O - speaking of the KV-3 have you heard about its armament? The proposed ZiS 6 107mm gun had developmental origins to the M60 107mm gun; No. 92 Plant also worked on a 107 mm gun. A ZiS-24 prototype with 73.5 caliber barrel (so if you do the maths thats about 7.8645 metres LONG - VERY POWERFUL); but the gun was also very heavy and expensive - and it was cancelled more or less aroudn the time of Barbarrossa...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@CrniWuk It was stated the Russians didn't specify models of the KV-1 tanks in general; these only occured in study documents and books after the war. "These designations however are not strict and describe leading changes, while other changes might be adapted earlier or later in specific production batches." (via wiki - not sure if its true or not) and what they did do though was implement all these wild KV-projects - some too heavy, some not accepted and some that lead to the JS tanks...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@CrniWuk In any case though the JS-1 and JS-2 (from the 1943 model which did rather badly at Targu Frumos to the 1944m/1945 mode3ls) were the successors to the KV-tanks - did you know the JS-2 tank originally was proposed to have a T-shaped like muzzle brake but apparently it blew up and nearly killed Kliment Voroshilova when he was inspecting it! And the Soviet design factory wanted to upgrade the JS-2's armor up to 130mm but due to weight issues they didn't do so...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@CrniWuk Afterall in the end the JS-series tanks proved slightly lighter, fast, better armed (well thats debatable as the 107.6mm gun would have packed a punch but the 122mm gun's HE work is undeniable for a tank gun in WWII) and most importantly superior armor layout (it was said Konin and Grabin both used simple cast technology but at the same time the engineering of the turret meant it was lighter, simpler yet more compact than the KV-turrets) - and the JS-2 overall had armor
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@CrniWuk had armor (1943 models had 120mm at 72 deg to the horizontal so thats about 126mm) at 100-120mm for the 1944m JS-2's at 60 deg so thats either 200mm to the vertical if using Cosine calculations but if to the horizontal that would be about 138.5mm frontal armor using Sine calculations - which at 2000 yards or so the JS-2 could withstand a strike from a Tiger I's gun as shown in Targu Frumos
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@CrniWuk
In a way, the chassis of it was equipped with the turret from a KV-1 and sent to a russian tank formation were it was used as the commanders vehicle.
I'll see if I can find the info about it.
Dreachon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fellas,
Yes the T-34 was built in large numbers and the Soviets had plenty of them, but they needed to.
Nearly 50,000 were destroyed in WW2 and the T34/85 was really not much safer than the T-34/76.
For all it's speed and so called reliability, I wouldnt have wanted to come up against German tanks, PAKs and hand held weapons, even in a T-34/85 during 1944/45.
No thanks.
As we all know, the T-34 'won' due to numbers. The KV is ignored today because 'only' around 5,000 were built.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
Thus, an overmatched plate will be forced to rely on tensile stresses within the displaced disc, and will tend to break out in front of the attacking projectile, regardless of whether the edges cling to the parent material or not. Plate obliquity works in defeating projectiles partly because it turns and deflects the projectile before it begins digging in.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
this is not the last operative Panther as the video said. There are 3 in germany, this one in france, 1 in russia and 1 usa
tonidmc 1 month ago
Number 8?! The Panther should be at least 6. 9 for striking fear, 7 for its still considerably powerful 76mm, 8 for its thick, sloped armor, and 10 for looking awesome...
MrVolcanoes22 1 month ago
The O'Reilly factor on Fox News.
PfhUkJiu101 1 month ago
what show is this and what channel its from
pustakaaristoteles 1 month ago
I think that the Panther deserves a number 2 and not 8.. Maybe even a number 1. Because it could stand up against everything its time brought. And that didn't counted for the T-34.
tankeriv 2 months ago
@tankeriv yeah but hermans could kill it one shot on the side
Blueatchley12 2 months ago
@Blueatchley12
They would need to flank it. The Panther would destroy the Sherman 2000 meters away in open country. In a built up area like Normandy villages the Sherman could maybe pull it off but for wide open country forget about it.
ToonandBBfan 2 months ago
@Blueatchley12
Still doesn't change the fact that a Panther could knock them out at 2000m distance at the front.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon But that was compensated for by its realiabilty problems,the alied forces even made jokes about it being so inrealiable here's one: How many panther tanks does it take to take out a sherman? 4 the other three broke down.
keegamii 2 months ago
@keegamii
That was not the fault of the Panther but it's rushed devellopment, like the Tiger II the Panther was never given a chance to properly work out the kinks in the design unlike the sherman,
Nor did it have the joy of sitting quietly in the back while maintenance take their time checking everything before sending it back to the front unlike the sherman.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Blueatchley12 Whilst Allied tanks and AT weapons could certainly destroy a Panther from the side shot - Panther tank commanders were trained to operate at long range at over 1-2000 yards and they kept to the doctrine of keeping thier frontal armor and PaK 42 always facing the enemy masses at range if possible - the Panther was excellent at frontal long range 'sniping' of Allied tanks but in close range combat was more vulnerable - though it was pivot turning compared to the Shermans...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Blueatchley12 Another interesting weakness of the Panther in addition to the wheels and engineering complexity was the long barrel of the PaK 42 - this gun was longer barreled than most 75mm guns of WWII - and if maneuvering through closed up areas or urban areas on occasion unlike the smaller Panzer IV this could result in diffuculties maneuvering as result. Regardless the PaK 42 was still a powerful gun in WWII :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tankeriv yeah but shermans could kill it one shot on the side
Blueatchley12 2 months ago
Best way to take out a panther was a shot to it's side plates.
Trashcansam123 3 months ago
@Trashcansam123 Good luck with that, before you could maneuver to take a shot on the Panther's side plates, it could pivot on the spot and face you frontally, and blow you up. The U.S. army was shocked that a Panther tank could pivot on the spot in it's own space and face you frontally, because the Sherman could not do this, it need a half a field to turn around and face it's enemy frontally. What this means is the Shermans speed mobility is negated, it could not out-maneuver a Panther Tank!!
hailherrosner 2 months ago
@hailherrosner sure but why pivot when you have a turret. Besides, in Normandy the panthers were always facing the wrong way, according to the veterans. And it's been noted that 90% of Panthers were actaully taken out by blowing off their treads and immobilizing them.
Trashcansam123 2 months ago
@Trashcansam123 because pivoting the Panther tank was much faster than turning the turret only, good tankers in the German army pivot and turn their turret at the same time, which means a much faster reaction time to your enemy. Michael Wittman would pivot his Tiger tank in combination with turning the turret, that's why he killed over 138 tanks in WW2. There were many instances in WW2 where Panther would stand in the open and dare allied tanks to attack frontally, after 4-5kills they withdrew
hailherrosner 2 months ago
@Trashcansam123
Sounds more like a number somebody made up.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Trashcansam123 I don't know where you get your information from that in Normandy, Panthers were always facing the wrong way, nor that 90% of them were destroyed by blowing their tracks off, where is your source? Trust me when I tell you the German army was not stupid, their tanks always faced the enemy, in neutral steer, they would pivot frontally, where the thickest armour is 80mm on front glacis plate and 120mm on front gun mantlet, Sherman had no chance,Panther could take it out at 2-3km.
hailherrosner 2 months ago
THe old veteren is getting orgasmes.... around and on the tank.
Biggan 3 months ago
damn....must've been scary as fuck seeing that rollin towards you while you're in a Sherman.
xCh34pShOtx 3 months ago
The greatest tank during WW2 was Tiger Tank. Panther tank was simply too heavy, too slow in battle and also too slow in production.
lucianothegreatest 4 months ago
@lucianothegreatest
That's an odd comment as it actually beat the Tiger I in all of those points.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@Dreachon oops sorry, i was mistaken panther tank with king tiger tank.
lucianothegreatest 3 months ago
@lucianothegreatest
everything you said is pure bulshit. Nothing you said is true, really nothing.
AlexThePrivate 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlexThePrivate oops sorry, i was mistaken panther tank with king tiger tank.
lucianothegreatest 3 months ago
@lucianothegreatest u mean the other way? Tiger was too heavy,had low action range,lots of cluth problems... do ur homework man,
isopahajokinen 3 months ago
@isopahajokinen
I agree with you. The Tiger 1 was a beast but was too heavy for bridges and was maintenance prone. I think the tracks had to be removed to transport them by rail and as you said it had clutch problems. The Panther was the best
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@isopahajokinen those are exaggerated problems.
Miratesus 3 months ago
@Miratesus Well those were the tigers most common problems according to the texts i have read. OFC they can be more other problems but think bout urself when u have a tank with too much weight for engine and gear/clutch operators what happens when u go to in mud and snow where the engine might have to perform more that it can.. But anyways tiger was a beast, but like all the tanks, it had own issues. Correct me ofc if im wrong
isopahajokinen 3 months ago
@lucianothegreatest Tiger I was 56 tonnes and had the KwK 36 88mm gun. Panther was 45-46 tonnes and had the KwK/PaK 42 75mm gun which had better AP and muzzle velocity than the Tiger I's gun - only drawback was the weaker HE. Plus Panther tanks were cheaper and quite maneverable for a tank of its type compared to the Tiger I. Panther's trade off was weaker side armor...as a start...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The 75 mm L70 indeed had a slightlly higher armour penetration capability than the 88mm L56 of the Tiger ....but only up to 1500-1800m . Beyond that the 88mm L56 was better due to the larger caliber and higher weight of the shell . The Panther was indeed a very manuvrable tank ...slightlly more than the Tiger1, but which consumed less fuel for example cross-country ! . Besides the 2 tanks had different roles in the german tank operational doctrine.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 What about against say the T-34/85's ZiS-53? The Russian tank had a bigger caliber gun which should theoretically have a BIGGER HE in a 1-1 shot - but given the Panther had superior optics and a flatter trajectory PaK 42 - it should have better AP than the T-34/85 - as the Russian tank was faster, cheaper and it had armor 90mm thick compared to 60mm on the T-34/76...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Mate , the Zis 53 85mm , despite its caliber was a very weak gun for its size . As a comparison the Zis 53 had lower armour penetration capability than even the 75mm L43 of the early Panzer 4 Ausf F2 . Between the Zis 53 and the 75mm L70 cant be any comparison , the L70 was significantlly more powerfull . The T34/85 had 90mm only in the gun mantlet mate. Other than that was the same as the /76 version , so it wasnt much of a improvement .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Then I presume the claim the Russians made that the ZiS 53 could knock 100mm of armor at 1000m is exaggerated? Well its obvious if the 88mm Kwk 36 > ZiS 53 and the PaK 42 > KwK 36 in AP I was only refering to the High Explosive comparison and a 1-1 shot - was the T-34/85's ZiS 53 more powerful than the PaK 42 in terms of 1-1 High Explosive damage not AP performance. So the Panther essentially retains superiority to the T-34/85 eh? Makes sense now :P
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The only real contender to the 75mm L70 , in the russian arsenal was the A19 122mm gun of the JS 2 . They were more or less on par as AP is concerned , but with a significant plus to the A19 as HE capability is concerned . However in the case of the A19 122mm gun , the shell and the proppelent had to be loaded separatelly , which gave it a VERY low fire rate , almost 4 times slower than the L70 , which had a much better acuracy and was coupled with outstanding optics.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 What about the M1944 BS-3 100mm AT gun? Also the 100 mm D10T gun on the SU-100 was another good contender - though probably not as accurate as the PaK 42. Also we have the very potent ZVEROBOY's ML-20 gun - whilst short ranged and not so accurate the huge HE (which was bigger than the A19's) was the main asset - though the PaK 42 no doubt would get more shots in before the ML-20 could even fire back.
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The SU 100 was the undoubtedlly the best TD the russians had in ww2 , and the D10 was the best AT gun for the russians. However it came late in the war. The SU 152 was not a tank destroyer ....however due to the huge caliber of the ML20 it was about the only SPG that could tackle the german heavy cats at combat ranges in 1943 , specially at Kursk . That ofc till the SU 100 , or the ISU 122 came along later on.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Say SU-100 vs Jagdpanther? It seems to be a compromise; the KwK 43/2 had better AP than the 100mm D10T BUT the D10T had a bigger caliber so it had a more useful HE shell....though the Jagdpanther seems to be slightly better armored not that its much of an issue. Yes I know the ZVEROBOY was not a dedicated TD BUT if needed it would be capable of dealing with German heavy vehicles - and Kursk showed it - prior to the SU-100 or ISU-122...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Id say theres no contest between the JDPanther and the SU 100. The were both dedicated Tank destroyers ... so the HE capability is rather irellevant , as it could do little against heavilly armoured tanks . The 88mm L71 of the JDPanther was without ANY DOUBT the best AT Gun of the war . Also the JdPanther was indeed better armoured and with better mobility than the SU100. Was superior in every way . The SU was a good TD , but theres no comparison with the JDPanther
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Actually HE can do spalling if the caliber is big enough and the gun has sufficient barrel caliber - the 122mm and 152mm of the Soviets - whilst not excellent AT guns - when they made thier mark on a German heavy tank the raw kinetic energy from the explosion and the blast could atleast spall the tank from the inside and cause conccusive damage. More over if you strike the rear armor or wheels that could also disable a tank but given its not always ideal - yes AT guns do the job
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
You are refering to the tests done at Kubinka in August 1944 on the Tiger 2,where the 152mm or the 122mm HE shells caused extensive damage to the armour and cracked it ,specially at the joints.The explanation is very simple mate.In the late part of ww2 , Germany lost all of its mollybdenium supllys, so they replaced it with vanadium in the armour alloy composition of the Tiger 2. This ment the armour became brittle and prone to cracking when hit by large caliber HE shells
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Actually I was refering more to Kursk - didn't they also use ML-20's and the A19 guns along with the SU-152 (notice I'm not refering to the ISU-152) - as when the Soviets tried testing new guns to arm the IS-series tanks they realized an 85mm gun in the KV-85/IS-1 was not appropriate - until that is the 100mm gun and 122mm were tested and we know what the outcome was in the later IS-series. But my point was prior to the 100mm BS3, D10T and the ZVEROBOY's in Kursk the ML-20 and A19
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 I hear the Panther tank suffered similar problems when Molybdenum supplies were cut by 1944 - when chief mines were shut down due to bombing... for its armor plate
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
There has been a gradual decline in the armour quallity of german tanks in the later stages of ww2. Tiger 2 in particular suffered from that.In contrast , the Tiger 1 retained its armour quallity all thru its production run. Its armour was of the best quallity...and sure when hit by 152mm HE shells,the blast could kill the crew inside , or damage internal partsand disable the tank , but couldnt penetrate unless at small ranges , unlike in the case of the Tiger 2.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Exactly - well we've done our readings I'm sure - that clearly howitzer guns are not exactly dedicated to AT work - especially if they have poor accuracy and don't have the high velocity of smaller caliber AT gun cannons - the ML-20 and D-1 were no exceptions to this. But again the Bengal Tiger was claimed to have never been penetrated in combat - it had armor that was 100-150mm sloped at 55 deg on the glacis plate/hull front - which would have been formindable
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cosmin1511
""There has been a gradual decline in the armour quallity of german tanks in the later stages of ww2. Tiger 2 in particular suffered from that.""
I think it's still somewhat over exaggerated though. The Soviets claimed that the Tiger 2 split it's weld seems when hit....yet the more truthful western allies do not claim this. Indeed there are pics of hits actually on the Tiger II's welds and they did not split.
Bazooka and panzerfaust hits from 100m didn't split the welds.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Actually I found out they also used special mounts for Jagdpanther mantlets with the PaK 43 - when there were excessive stocks of the gun - just like the Panther Turrets that were used as stationary bunkers the Jagdpanther mantlet gun defences were also used against the Allied advance...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The decision to retain the 88mm for the Tiger 1,instead of the 75mm early proposal has very good reasoning behind it. In ww2 armour penetration was a function of the T/D (Thickness of armour/Diameter of the shell) coeficient. IN other words the larger the caliber of the shell that hits a smaller thickness of armour , the more chances it has to penetrate it.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Moreover , it was found that if the diameter of the shell overmatches the thickness of armour it hits , in other words if the T/D coeficient is <1 , the sloaping of the plate becomes irelevant ...and actually helps penetration . Dont get me wrong , muzzle velocity was still a very important factor , but between two guns with similar muzzle velocity , the advantage goes ofc to the gun with the larger caliber .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 It was said the ISU-152 Assault gun ZVEROBOY had 'excellent' 90mm frontal sloped armor compared to the SU-152 - that it was invulnerable to all but the heaviest German tank/AT guns - is that true? Because given the SU-152 had hte KV-1 tank chassis whereas the ISU-152 had the IS-2 tank chassis so given the IS-2 tank was meant to have better armor protection than the KV series....
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Wasn't the ISU-122 develooped due to the fact there wwere excessive 122mm gun barrel stocks but insufficient ML-20 gun barrels to be fitted to the IS-tank chassis which was the reason why the ISU-122 was also developed? It was said Soviet Red Army commanders tried not to mix ISU-122's with 152's due to differing roles - and that the ZVEROBOY was generally better in the all round assault than the 122's...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Indeed! The 121.92mm M1931/37 A19 gun had a severe weakness in size, ROF, poor accuracy and poor traverse compared to the PaK 42 on the Panther. The only advantage the 121.92mm gun had was really prolific stocks of the gun and the stupidly good HE shell (though the OF-471 rounds may sometimes have quality control problems)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The L70 75mm of the Panther was a purposlly designed AT weapon . So naturally it had a much lower HE capabilty . The shell of the L70 weighs only about 5kg , and thats saying something as HE capability is concerned . However the 88mm L56 had a much better HE capability .
Each tank in the german order of battle had a particular role to fulfill and that greatlly influenced the design of that particular tank .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 How did the Panther's PaK 42 compare to the other 75mm guns during WWII? Despite having a weaker HE than the KwK 36 of the Tiger I it was said to still be more potent and more powerful naturally than the Panzer IV's KwK 40. Indeed the Tiger I was designed to be a mobile 'break through tank' - funny thing how the German High Command wanted a tank no more than 45 tonnes YET the Tiger I ended up being well over 50 tonnes :( Then we had the Panther - which after the T-34/76
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The 75mm L70 was a powerfull AT Gun couse of its insane muzzle velocity, which gave it a more penetrateing power . That was achived by lenghtening the barrel of the gun , in this case L70 means 70 calibers lenght ( 75 x 70 ). The other 75mm of hte Pz4 for example were L43(early Panzer 4 F2) to the L48 (Pz 4 ausf G if im not mistaken) . THe L70 was superior to both gun , couse of the much higher muzzle velocity , and could penetrate more armour .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Actually it was said the PaK 42 L/70 was essentially a reworked design of the famous PaK 40 AT-gun - which was also mounted in the StuG, Jagdpanzers and the Panzer IV tanks as KwK versions - yes you are correct there was the L43 and L48 versions which did well against Allied armor as well - but did you know the Panther has a weakness compared to the Panzer IV - the longer barrelled PaK 42 meant maneuvering in city areas/enclosed areas was more dangerous/trickier than the Panzer IV :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The Tiger ended up at 56 tones for a very good reason . The role o the Tiger was to be a breakthrough tank ... to spearhead armour advance , be able to take imense punishment from AT gun positions and .... MOST IMPORTANTLLY , to defeat enemy armoured coutnerattacks which inherentlly came with the enemy line beeing broken .
So basiclly the TIgers JOB was to fight enemy tanks ... it was its primary and most important role .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Well didn't Hitler also insist on mounting an upgrunned version of the 75mm gun? The original schematics called for a 45 tonne tank with 75mm+ armor and a 75mm high velocity gun cannon for breakthroughs prior to the 1940's yet once after the Phoney Wars and the whatnots Hitler insisted thicker armor and a bigger gun - where history would show the Porsche prototype losing to the Henschel prototype of the Tiger I - though its interesting Porsche's prototype became the Ferdinand/Elefant
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 The Ferdinand/Elefant was interesting because it was able to mount the PaK 43 whilst also being uparmored to 200mm - which by sheer thickness is even thicker than a stnadard Panther - though the problem would be transmission adn weight problems - not ot mention the Ferdinand/Elefant was tended to the heavy TD/assault gun role. The Tiger I is interesing it was designed for direct survival and durability in terms of armor compared to the Panther
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Its also interesting the Tiger variants just got bigger and bigger - the Bengal Tiger and the Jagdtiger - behemoths that were borderline 70 tonne giants mounting powerful guns and sporting thick armor but an overworked engine and other resource shortages (fuel being one of them) - yet we have the Jagdpanther - which was roughly the same weight as a Pnather yet it retained good speed and better firepower - and did the job nicely compared to the Jagdtigers...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 You know - still many a German tank crews admired and appreciated the durabiltiy and excellent workmanship of the armor of thier tanks - particularly the Tigers and Panthers - at Normandy where the armor and firepower did well in the defensive - I've hardly seen pictures of Panthers or Tigers with damaged glacis plates - well holes that were a clean shot penetrate - that reflects in particular the Tiger I's Brinell hardness of 250+ = very durable by WWII standards :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Tiger 1s BHN(Brinell hardness index) was around 280-290 mate . The armour was a rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate , electro-welded and interlocked . It was the best quallity armour of any tank in ww2 . It offered , compared to comparable thickness of russian armour , almost 30-40% more protection . Original designs for the Tiger dated to 1937, but it had to keep up with demands in the front ..so it ended up 10 tons heavier .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 AHA! Rolled plate - obviously more expensive than Cast armor but clearly better protection and quality - Russian tanks and Western Allied tanks tend to use cast armor - though the IS-3 was said to be of rolled plate eventually (though still somewhat faulty via inspection) - yes I've heard of what you've mentioned - the Tiger I if you tihnk about it is essentially a big Panzer IV with a bigger gun, engine and thicker armor...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 At Hitler's insistence the first Tiger I's got sent to Leningrad - and didn't do so well due to tactics being inappropriate and the ground being too soft. At Kursk the Tiger I's not only faced massess of T-34/76's but also suffered mechanical problems as they were rushed from the factories and hadn't been 100% ready tested by then...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The Tigers did VERY well at Kursk mate . There was a very low number of TIgers lost at Kursk , despite the "urban Legends" . Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 for example lost 4 Tigers in the Kursk Offensive out of 45 available . SwPzAbt 505 , which fought in the N wing of Kurks , lost 4 Tigers out fo 31 available. 9th Kmp Großdeutschland didnt lose ANY Tigers at Kursk out of 15 available .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 NO! I wasn't meaning they sucked or anything - they did well in combat no doubt and in dealing scores of T-34/76 tanks but I meant in terms of tank performance - they had some trouble in engine problems - Panthers suffered similar problems but once these faults were fixed they became fine tanks superior to many Allied tanks. Besides even the Ferdinand had a good kill ratio at Kursk despite its poor mobility and lack of machine guns. Also - one Tiger was said to have been
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 One Tiger at Kursk was said to have been shot up heavily by 14.5mm guns, 76.2mm, 57mm and dozens of bullets/arty fragments yet it wasn't destroyed at all - it was eventually repaired and back on the field...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Ferdinands gun was amazeing , and destroyed a very large number of russian tanks at Kurks. The 653rd managged to distroy some 450 tanks in the whole operation ...if im not mistaken . You do know that the record for the farthest kil in ww2 is ownded by a Ferdinand , which destroyed a T34 at 4600 m . At the same range , a Nashorn killed a JS2 in 1945. The 88mm L71 gun was trully the best AT weapon that saw action in ww2.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Don't get me wrong - I am fascinated by WWII German AFV's - and the Tiger I did well no matter what in history and today there's Bovington's Tiger 131 - the only Tiger I that still functions after almost 70 years since it last saw combat. Haha - you seem to know your German tank history (I hardly know any of the Panzer battalions and formations myself haha) - yes the Nashorn/Hornet has quite a distinction as a TD during WWII :) the PaK 43 indeed was VERY powerful in WWII
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 But if you think of it - the Jagdpanther seemed the most balanced of the German TD's by popular myths and historians - it had the benefit of the Panther tank but essentially sacrificing a turret for a bigger gun and slightly uparmored front. Also unlike the Tiger variants the Jagdpanther had respectable speed, unlike the Elefant whilst having certainly better armor than the Nashorn itself or for the matter the Tiger I (front) but personally I like the Jagdpanther more than Panthers
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
I share ur opinion on the JagdPanther. Its my favourite as well . Im alos quite fascinated by ww2 tank history , and its good to have a interesting conversation with someone who also likes ww2 tanks and is quite knowledgable .
Good talking to u mate. Cheers !
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 I'm sure we can keep on blogging friendlyt convo's on WWII tanks - and yes Jagdpanther was outstanding indeed - I used to have misgivings on its purporse when I first read it - when I first saw it myself in a magazine article in 2004 I was going - WHAT ON EARTH?! ARE THE GERMANS CRAZY IN MOUNTING AN 88MM ON A PANTHER TANK CHASSIS? I thought it was a fake concept model but turns out Jagdpanthers were indeed used and quite powerful if one may say :) I have a Trumpeter 1/72 Jagdpanther
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Anyways - 1/72 Midproductin Jagdpanther is a nice baby of a model to build - highly recommended and price is reasonable if you know where to look. Funny thing though I still get mixed up between German panzer divisions and especially the specialist Panzer Abteilungs - I get mixed between th history of the 654 and 653rd which saw action in Eastern Front and which had the Ferdinand, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger and the Nashorn...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653 had the Ferdinand then the Jagdtiger.
Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654 had the Ferdinand then the Jagdpanther.
Karl Heinz Munch has written two massive books on both units. I have both of these books in the original hardback versions. They are very very expensive but well worth it. Something like 600 pages with hundreds of photos. Awesome books.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31
I have the hardback for the 654 but only the softback for the 653, I agree with you that they are superb books just for the photo's alone.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 So! They both had the Ferdinand then progressed with vamped up TD versions of the Tiger and Panther's eh - interesting - O.O 600 pages plus photos - I might start hunting for them...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Hello agaiN! Just visited a Hobby Store today - they had a Sherman 1c VC Mayfly with the QF17 pouder 1/72 scale - I have to admit the QF 17 pounder really gave the M4A4 Sherman its 'punch' to the German armor. Not to mention the QF 17 Pounder in its own right was one of the best and most powerful AT guns in WWII - in comparison to the D10T and the BS-3 M1944 and the experimental 90mm M3/120mm M1 guns used :) Then again the huge PaK 43 is the real winner in AT performance.
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 But I think we know the obvious drawbacks of the PaK 43; long barreled = tough to manuever in city areas/tight areas, high velocity = heavy barrel wear, tungsten is really needed to achieve the 1130m/s where tungsten was short during WWII for Germany, heavy gun, difficult to traverse if in towed version and the fact it was actually very expensive for an AT gun (opposite of the PaK 36/37 known as the 'Army's Door Knocker) yet the PaK 43 was called the 'Barndoor' for good reason :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
True , the biggest drawback of the long barrel of the 88mm L71 was the barrel wear . However its shells had such a high muzzle velocity that they could deal with any enemy armour. The APCBC PzGr 39/43 had a very good muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s ...and could deal with any AFV the allies had .... also it did more dmg than the APCR Tungestein core PzGr40/43 , whcih indeed could penetrate more armour due to its solid core .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Well that was precisely what the German AT guns were designed to fire - in addition to the PaK 43, PaK 42 and the famous little PaK 38/PaK 40 have you heard of the PaK 41 with the tappered bore round - a design using tungsten shot but also where the muzzle bore is narrower than the breach round bore - designed to fire an even higher velocity than standard AT guns - the PaK 41 could theoretically punch 150mm armor at under 1000 yards. Also have you heard of the 8H63?
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 But the APCR and APCRC rounds using Tungsten carbide were pretty rare an expensive in WWII for Germany wasn't it? The Tungsten was prioritized for machine tools in Germany....but still the standard Panzer Granate 39/43 was pretty potent already - place it in some powerful armed/armored chassis like the Jagdpanther or Bengal Tiger and with a good crew you'd be having a field day with enemy tanks! Say - how thick theoretically was the Panther's 80mm glacis plate? The vet claims 100mm+
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 The 100mm armor on the TIger I was pretty durable and like you said 280-290 in Brinell Hardness which made it cpaable of surviving heavy damage and even absorbing shots directly naturally - yet the Panther had 80mm sloped so it was designed to ricchochet and provide better protection - the funny thing was take the Ferdinand/Elefant its armour thickness was 200mm non-sloped which by sheer thickness would be even thicker than a Panther!
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Also the 88mm L71 had trully outstainding accuracy . In fireing range tests the 88mm L71 fireing the PzGr 39/43 achieved a 85% hit ratio at 2000 m and 100% hit ratio at 1000m . The Pzgr 40/43 did even better, with a 89% hit ratio at 2000 m and 66% hit ratio at 3000 m. It is true that in battle condiitons the % were slightlly lower....but in any case...a trully formidable gun the 88mm L71 was .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Precisely! PaK 43 is unrivalled atleast in WWII combat for its power and respectable range/damage for an anti-tank gun - the PaK 43 was still slightly better than the post war AT guns such as the Russian D44 and D48 guns - practically it even rivaled the T12 gun. Unlike say the QF 17 pounder which had a huge muzzle blast, initial HE problems and inaccuracy at longer ranges. It was said in tank versions of the Sherman Mayfly the QF 17 pounder sometimes cramped conditions...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 And the QF 17 pounder's backblast via recoil was said by gunner veterans to be like a 'slap on the chest' - a real hard slap - and the poweder charge smoke could sometimes cause 'nighttime firing blindness' - sounds almost like a literal nightmare to the tank men if it ain't Tiger or Pantherphobia :P Oh and also - you ever heard of the claim the Bengal Tiger never had its 100-180mm armor penetrated before? Because even so veteran tankers claimed getting struck by shells in a Benga
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 struck by sells in a Bengal Tiger was like being trapped in a giant church bell that was being rung in all directions. Funny really how the Germans managed to invest in heavy behemoths like the Bengal Tiger and have dreams of bigger projects. I also did a small comparison analysis between a 1/72 model Bengal Tiger and my Jagdpanther, IS-3 and IS-2 - funny thing is the Russian tanks were naturally smaller than the Bengal Tiger. The Bengal Tiger also had a high profile for a heavy tank
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91 Haha - now then I then realize that during WWII - the Germans for the matter made relatively 'big' and overengineered tanks being the Bengal Tiger, Panzer VIII Maus and the proposed prototype E-100 Nacht-Tiger - not to mention the Jagdtiger, Elefant and whatnots. On the other hand the Russians for the matter strictly kept weight and size to a minimum at the cost of engineering problems, crudenss and above all poor ergonomics haha - how ironic...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Oh and I read a small book article on the JS-3 tank - it was said to have been based on the T-34/85's armor philosphy but encorporating a thicker improved armored envelope, as well as having better armament - notice how the JS-series tanks appear to be a 'lighter and revised' version of the KV-series heavy tnaks - the JS-2 in particular resembles a T-34/85 but both were different tanks for differing roles - wikipedia 'claimed' that JS-2 tanks were better armed and armored than T-34's
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeirofGojira91
Yes both Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654 were at Kursk with Ferdinands. After Kursk the remaining Ferdinands were consolidated into one unit (653). The personnel of 654 were transferred to France in September 1943 and then they eventually ended up with the Jagdpanther.
Post Kursk the remaining Ferdinands with 653 gave good service in '43, and continued to give good service into 1945 after they were re-fitted into Elefants in early '44.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31
Also many people mistakenly think the Ferdinands were all sent to Italy after they were re-fitted into Elefants in the factory in Austria in early 1944. But in reality only 1 company was sent to Italy. The rest of the Elefants were sent back to Russia. Many were still in combat in Poland in Jan 1945 and I believe a 2 or 3 made it back to Berlin.
Some of the Ferdinands/Elefants in Russia had a very long combat life. Almost 2 years.
Not bad for an AFV that is often mocked.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 YES! :D Elefants - they were technically very flawed - I can't and I can imagine what it would be if Hitler had decided to have Dr Porsche's prototype to be converted to the Tiger I we know of today - essentially an Elefant/Ferdinand chassis but with a Tiger I's turret + some transmission mods. Indeed - I have a 1/72 Dragon Armor Ferdinand of the 653's 3rd Kompanie that served in Russia during 1944 - very nice model for display :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeirofGojira91
The Ferdinand was pretty much the optimum defensive AFV of 1943/44.
No wonder it racked up a huge number of destroyed Soviet tanks out of all proportion to the numbers built.
I think I would have felt very safe to have been in a Ferdinand in the defensive fighting of 1943 post Kursk.
And that gun was just awesome for the time period.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Plus - yes at least 2 made it to Berlin to prepare for the last battle. Elefants were no doubt still very powerful in terms of armor and firepower - theoretically they would be 'tougher' than the Panther and the Tiger I in a head on assault but again the Elefant was strictly not a tank, as some gamers and laymen might coin it - and it was really too heavy to be a mobile assault gun - 66tonnes is quite heavy - not far from the Bengal and Jagdtigers :(
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Yes - Elefants still intrigue me to this day - legacy of Porsche. Its really the armor thickness that amazed me - for most Panzerjagers you'd have light armor or armor no more than 100mm thick but the Elefant was 200mm thick! Adding that would be another 5 tonnes of armor - not sure if the Elefant had its armor being made the same way asthe Tiger I - the Tiger I's armor was welded and rolled with Nickel-Steel alloy.
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
I don't know what armour type the Ferdinand had. I 'guess' it had a similar type to the Tiger because both were built around the same time and both were vying for the contract. Of course this would only apply to the chassis armour because the superstructure was built later after the chassis design was rejected.
But I might be wrong here. By all accounts the Porsche chassis was very finely crafted and of high workmanship. Too highly crafted for production actually.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Regardless - if we think about it - the German standard of engineering was appreciated by both sides in the war as a general wasn't it? If we don't count the flawed Kubinka tests or the fact the Germans started running seriously low on Raw Materials ... and the Ferdinand had 200mm armor - which is actgually thicker even than the Panther in sheer thickness - I can see why you'd choose the Elefant in a TD during 43-44 :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Oh yeah, the more unbiased and truthful western allies were full of praise for German engineering and quality, especially the British.
The Soviets engaged in propaganda and exaggerated things and even flat out lied.
Neither the British or Americans ever came across knocked out King Tigers that fell apart when hit or had welds splitting all over the place as the Soviets claimed.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 YES - the British or was it Americans noted the German Tiger I's side armor was actually thicker than 80mm since it was rolled and had fine manufacturing - atleast when the Tiger I made its debacle to the Western Allies in the desert - I believe there is the famous Tiger 131? :P I would love to see it in the future up close or atleast in person :) A fellow Youtuber claimed he tapped a Panther's glacis plate - it felt like a huge steel wall - imagine the Tiger I's frontal hull :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yes the British noticed the Tiger Is side plate was slightly thicker than 80mm. Of course the Tiger Is armour was superior to any British, American or Soviet plate of the same thickness too.
I live in England and have been to Bovington where Tiger 131 is. I haven't seen it running yet but I have been there, seen it and touched it. It is awesome although I have to say the 'Porsche' King Tiger they also have is THE most impressive and imposing WW2 I have ever seen. It's HUGE!
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Have you seen the pics of the panzerfaust and bazooka hits on the King Tiger from 100m range? The welds aren't split in the slightest even though there were direct hits on them.
The Soviets claimed the King Tiger had poor armour and fell apart when hit or that the welds split...yet the western allies do not claim the same.
American paras test fired the bazooka and panzerfaust repeatedly on the KT at close range in Jan 1945. The KT's armour stood up very well to both weapons.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 No but I have read briefly on this test - very interesting compared to goold old Kubinka - its ironic given a study in the 50's noted the JS-3 tanks - the 'PIKE' armor despite being 110mm - they noted it was poorly worked and welding cracked with stress in the tank. And another thing on the BEngal Tiger's armor bing 'flawed' - it was said in the Battle of Bulge US AT gunners were horrified when thier standard 76mm guns failed to knock Bengal Tigers :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Have you any models kits on German WWII tanks? I think I mentioned before I had a Bengal Tiger, Jagdtiger, Sturmmtiger and Elefant - all 3 are diecast premade display 1/72 Dragon Armor models. I also have a nice Jagdpanther from Trumpeter - mid production - a very nice baby to build :) Personally like some tank historians - I reckon the Jagdpanther was not only a good personal favorite but also among the 'elite' TD's of WWII - carried same firepower like the Bengal Tiger
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yes I do.
1/35th is my scale. I have lots. Soviet armour too. Many old Tamiya and Italeri kits plus lots of newer Dragon kits plus other kits from more obscure manufacturers. I haven't done any kits for a long time now but it used to be my hobby.
The Dragon Tiger I kit from about 5 years ago was the best. It's discontinued now.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Ah Tamiya - I hear Academi is also quite nice. For Russian armor - I have a 1/72 Roden JS-3 and a 1/76 Hasegawa JS-2 1944m :) Both were trickier to build than the Jagdpanther from Tumpeter though - the Hasegawa was quite fragile and the Roden Kit - whilst 'good' - was abit crude on color and fitting the turret was an absolute mess :(
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Oh well the Academy Tiger I kits are not as god as Dragon/Tamiya but they are still ok. I hear the AFV Club Tiger I is good.
Dragon have made excellent Panther and Panzer IV kits in the last few years. What I love about Dragon is the individual track links, metal barrels and all the other extras. Dragon are the best for German kits.
Some Dragon kits even come with moulded on zimmerit now. I haven't got one yet but I hear it is good.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
I have an old ICM kit of the Soviet T-35 kit which is massive and I haven't built it yet. I also have an old unbuilt Alan kit of a Katyusha rocker launcher. I could probably sell both for lots of money on Ebay.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
""I reckon the Jagdpanther was not only a good personal favorite but also among the 'elite' TD's of WWII - ""
I think the Jagdpanther was the finest pure tank destroyer of WW2 and most knowledgeable people would agree. I also think it;s the 'coolest' looking AFV ever built, especially with those hooded exhaust stacks on the rear plate.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 :D Haha - good to speak to fellow aficnados on WWII and occasional past-time hobbying - its hard for myself to find some to speak of WWII weaponary and the whatnots - if you don't count laymen or fanatics of games (I do not play games much myself) - yes - when I look at a Jagdpanther I always note the gun barrel and the mantlet - its a quick way to tell if its an early or late series production vehicle - but the exhaust pipe/stacks are also useful to tell :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
No problem mate. Likewise. I'm not a gamer either.
Yeah the Jagdpanther is easy to tell between early version and late versions. The mantlet and exhaust stacks are the easiest identifiable features as you rightly point out. Then there are the features on the rear deck like the crew compartment heater and different number of bolts on the engine deck, but that is impossible to see unless you are looking down at it.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 O.O Interesting - may I ask which reading did you get this from? Or was it from the combat history of the 653/654 Swehere Panzerabteilung book you mentioned? A book called 'Operation Citadel' written during was it 2002 or 2003 outlined the history of the Kursk Battle - plus - it was said to have tank schematics - particularly Tiger I and Ferdinand (well not Elefants during Kursk eh? :P) Unfortunately the Jagdpanther had some vices - least of all MAINTENANCE :(
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 It was said if it weren't for the bombing on production or naturally fuel and supplies of ammo/raw materials the Jagdpanther maintenance was still a typical nightmare for crews during WWII - the famous bogie wheel interleaved suspension was one - you naturally had to take off the outer wheels to get to the inner wheels - and they could jam in mud/snow, barrel wear on the KwK 43 (whilst powerful it was also expensive and heavy) and engine maintenance was sometimes diffucult
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 I hear Jagdpanthers also had a good radio - the FuGG series - particularly the FuGG 5 radios which allowed excellent communications in battle anyways - an excellent TD in history - and always a recommended reading/model to study/build for future enthusiasts :) Took me more than 5 years to get my Jagdpanther 1/72 Trumpeter ;) haha. And yes - I saw some basic differences between engine grilles of early/mid/late Jagdpanthers :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Ill give u a head to head comparison to the Panther , which was acknoledged as beeing the most mobile german tank .
Avg sustained road speed/cross country : Tiger 2 - 38km/h resp. 18km/h ! Panther - 35km/h resp 20 km/h.
Smallest turning radius : Tiger 2- 2.08m ! Panther - 4.7m
Cross country range : Tiger 2 - 120 km ! Panther 100 km .
Ground Pressure : TIger 2 - 1.03 kg/Square cm ! Panther 0.88 kg/sq cm
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Interesting! :D I just looked up Tanks of the World and yep your figures are pretty spot on though the range of the Bengal Tiger was noted to be 110km whilst Panther was 177km. The Bengal Tiger could climb a higher trench as well - 2.5 metres vs 1.9 metres for the Panther! :D And it could ford at 1.6m vs Panthers 1.4 metres. BTW what is ground pressure? Does it relate to tbe power to weight ratio when driving/steering? And what about the myth on the turret spin of the Panther vs M4?
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Ground pressure measures the distribution of the tank`s entire weight at the track level , when is in contact with the ground . It measures the tanks floatability on soft terrain , like mud , or snow etc . The lower the ground pressure , the higher floatability a tank has , and less chances for it to sink in the the soft ground , and implicitelly lose its mobility . Tiger 2 , despite its 70 tons ,was very agile on this kind of soil , on which most battles in ww2 were fought .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Hmm - the Maybach 230 Engine P30 V12 water cooled Petrol engine must have been a pretty good engine during WWII - having done service in the Panther and Tigers...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
The Tiger 2 was a trully outstainding machine . On average , at the report in May 1944 for example , the % of Panthers battle ready on the E front was of 77% , of Panzer 4s was 80% and of Tiger 2s 79% .
And to sumarize , the Tiger 2 was oustandinglly agile and mobile , even more mobile than a Sherman on rough terrain , which was half its weight .... and quite reliable if given extensive maintanance . Not to mention it was an unmatched tank killer .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Wait - May? Didn't the first Bengal Tigers see service during June/July 44???
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
Sry mate ur right , the status i wrote were intended for the Tiger 1 not Tiger 2 , and were dated 31 March 1944... guess im just tired since its passed midnight here and were the first ones that i found in a rush .
For the Tiger 2 ... report dateing 15 December 1944 : % of Pz4 operational 79% , Panthers 69% , Tiger 2 79% - on E front . 78, 71, 68 % resp on W front .
Sry i got reports mixed up and didnt think too much of it .
I can give you my source if ur interested .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 btw is this true - the destruction of the Army group in France after the Caen/Normandy/Falaise pocket left Feldmarshal Model reporting to Hitler his Panzer divisions on average had no more than 5-6 tanks each due to casualties in the Normandy pocket?
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Haha - speaking of the 'Tiger I and Bengal Tiger' - most sources call the Bengal Tiger the Tiger II, King Tiger or Royal Tiger - but I had a look up of Konigstiger - it doesn't translate to King Tiger - but to Bengal Tiger - given the Bengal Tiger is one of the largest and most powerful of the Tiger species - and how beffitting they called it the Bengal Tiger if one goes technically strict on names and meanings...one book - called German Forces of WWII - named the Bengal Tiger as
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Called the Bengal Tiger the 'Royal or Konigstiger' in additon to Tiger II - there was even a statement in the book's opening on the Tiger tanks that 'whilst the Tiger I had built a fearsome reputation - the Tiger II on the other hand, was less of a legend and was plagued by mechanical problems rather than actual combat'... but given the truth was the Bengal Tiger - if used properly by experienced crews was a fine heavy tank in its own right :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Its interesting how the Germans - despite bombings on thier production, difficulty in obtaining raw materials, shortage of other resources - still managed to have high standards in thier tank production - compare that to say Russian tanks for the matter; during WWII and for the matter after, the Russians strictly concentrated weight but at the cost of crudeness and also poor cramped ergonomics - yet German tanks usually were fairly roomy
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511
Quite so.
Many people would be surprised that both the Tiger I and King Tiger had an operational status ratio not too different to the Panzer IV and Panther.
The overall average for the Tiger I and King Tiger (combined) was 70% on the eastern front, which was higher than the Panzer IV and Panther and was 65% on the western front, which was the same as the Panther but lower than the Panzer IV.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31
It had a very high profile ...which defeats all the puropose of a tank destroyer , specially that by the time the JdTiger came along Germany was fighteing a defensive war . Not to mention that in the german arsenal there were trully remarcable specialized TDs , like the JdPanther or the JgPanzer 4/70 ...or even the Hetzer
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 The Jagdtiger was 'ironic' for a TD - German TD's usually encompassed - a well armored/sloped profile, low profile and a powerful gun capable to inflicting good cacualties if defensive wise - but the Jagdtiger? Yes - not only a 70 tonne Behemoth that was bigger (slightly) than the Bengal Tiger but also the high profile was already a problem - least that the 128mm KwK 44 being installed was a main issue...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
31st MAY 1944 for the Tiger 1 status ... Jeesus i must be really tired :)
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Ah - must be nighttime now at Britain eh? Its just past noon down under here :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 Speaking of Jagdpanther not only was it design meeting demand, not as costly as the heavier Tiger variants but also it was said to have armor that was interlocking which like the Panther - had excellent frontal protection from most AT guns. Also with the Bengal Tiger - I read that production never actually suffered - at peak the Henschel team could have 60 Bengal Tigers built anygiven time and it took only 2 weeks to complete a Bengal Tiger. Bottled gas was used for testing
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91 And speaking of Soviet propaganda myth - you seen schematics of JS-2 tanks? Some cockups claim the JS-2 had armor 150-160mm thick on the frontal hull/turret and the 122mm gun could knock more than 140mm of armor - yet book sources like Tanks of the World or Weapons of WWII state the JS-2 had armor max of 100-120mm depending on models (1943 JS-2 (120mm on stepped hulls) whilst 1944m models had 100/120mm in the simple sloped glacis) - whilst the 122mm could knock up to 125mm sloped
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
So u see...in some aspects of mobility , the Tiger 2 was even better than the best german tank in terms of mobility - The Panther , and superior to Germanys most numberous tank - Panzer 4 . Point is the Tiger 2 was faster and more mobile than most german and allied tanks .... rumors about its poor mobility are just myths...nothing more.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 Oh I wasn't exactly implying on speed or mobility - I know the myth - the Bengal Tiger like the Tiger I was still very respectably manueverable - for a tank near 70 tonnes - but I hear sometimes training was an issue? Some drivers weren't experienced enough to steer the Bengal Tiger on occasion - and was the fuel consupmtion high or not? Given they were forced to use bottled gas in testing...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
It is true that the Tiger 2 , in order to be kept battle ready needed a lot of maintanance , and needed good drivers , spcially on the acount of its drivetrain and double radius steering gear which were designed for a lighter vechicle ... and if given that ... it was quite reliable . The % of Tiger 2s operational on average on the entire lenght of the E front are equal , or even better sometimes that the Panzer 4, which was regarded as Germanys most reliable tank .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 WHat about the Jagdtiger? Given the Jagdtiger is a Bengal Tiger chassis but with no turret and a bigger gun (apologies in advance for this dumbass question) - and weight was abit more than a standard Bengal Tiger ...
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@HeirofGojira91
There is some really great footage of Jadgtigers available. It's astonishing how fast they could actually move.
Type in:
"Jagdtiger at Iserlohn 1945" here on You Tube.
It moves quite fast at the beginning and look at 1 minute 10 seconds. It almost flies along!
LaughingGravy31