@anaplastic and I think we know the Panther still had some weight problems (at 45-46 tonnes) for the Maybach engine this could be troublesome - shown at Kursk. SInce the geras were not herringbone
My lecturer covered the difference in German and Allied production methods earlier this week, (i study military history), his argument was that Germany did not have the resources to compete with the Russian and American production rates, so therefore didn't bother to and built smaller numbers of technically superior weapons, such as the Panther. Given the overall better training of the average front line German solider this enabled them to cause disproportionate casualties among the Allies.
@AdamForExample. That's probably true. Though before he decided to roll into Russia and for some strange reason declare war on the US he wasn't being carpet bombed and assumed he would be able to capture and utilize the oil fields in Russia which he never reached. In the end it was the superior training of the German army (let alone the fanatical SS divisions) coupled with better weapons and tanks which enabled Germany to hang on as long as it did.
@lukesmith587 He was allied with Japan and they have agreed that if any of them got into war with someone else they would help each other. so germany decalred war on US because Japan did. And he didnt have to take stalingrad, that was a foolish move, he just wanted to insult Stalin by taking the city that carries his name.
@stugmann91 Please state your info for this. There are only six operational Panthers, about 18-20 restored and not running, and about six more either wrecks or being restored.
The High Command said to German tank commanders that u have to take some objective but they didn't say when to attack and that was one of the reasons of German tanks.
@legendarywar1 They didn't lose due to tactics. They lost because they Hitler tried to bite off more than he could chew. What army could ever hope to defeat the USSR, USA, and UK at the same time?
Everyone forget that Germany did not had the manpower do build more tanks in low quality like the russians did. Their only chance was to build high quality tanks to give the best available technology to ensure the best surviving chance for the valuably and rare tank crews.
""Everyone forget that Germany did not had the manpower do build more tanks in low quality like the russians did. Their only chance was to build high quality tanks to give the best available technology to ensure the best surviving chance for the valuably and rare tank crews.""
Very very true. Also, more tanks = more crews needed, more ammo needed, more petrol needed, more maintenance and other support crews needed.
@Toni112007 Aside from experiences with combating the T-34 tank the Panther also had a compromise between the Tiger I's doctrine and design; the Panther would power essentially the same Maybach engine and trade side armor and a weaker firepower (in terms of HE performance) whilst the Tiger I would have a bigger gun, thicker side armor and Tiger I tanks proved better at sniping tanks at over 2000 yards, though the PaK 42 of the Panther was still superior to the Tiger I's gun in AP.
@Toni112007 Now as for the JS-2 yes but you have to consider the two tanks had entirely different doctrines. The Soviets didn't exactly designate what tank they had to what specific task such as 'stand up tank-tank fights' - the JS-2 was not designed with the 100% motive to directly fight tanks. It was mroe of a compact revision envelope of the KV-1 tank which was proving to be problematic even with its once formidable armor - the JS-2 was to improve the KV-1's firepower, engine, armor + weight
@Toni112007 But essentially it was an improved KV series tank - and compared to the German tanks the JS-2 could be considered a 'small' tank - given it was lighter and compact than the Tiger or the Panther for the matter. The 28 rounds, poor optics, long barrel of the 122mm gun and slow ROF were also factors that were drawbacks to the JS-2, not to mention the poorer AP performance. However the JS-2 had the obvious advantage of the large 122mm HE OF-471 round which could disable vehicles
@Toni112007 And blast bunkers or static/lesser defences to pieces - the Panther's PaK 42 only had a 7kg shell, Tiger I had roughly 9-10kg whilst the JS-2 - had 25kg which could contain 3kg of HE in the OF-471 rounds - these rounds if they struck even a Tiger or Panther - they could still cause spalling due to the explosive + KE of the rounds - which could atleast injure the crew or damage optics depending on angle of incidence. And on occasions the 100-120mm of the JS-2 could withstand 88mm hits
@Toni112007 But unfortunately like you said the Panther indeed could destroy a JS-2 tank. Tests at Kubinka showed the Panther's gun could knock a JS-2 at ranges of 800-900m form an angle of 30 deg to the vertical and the Battle of Targu Frumos in May '44 - a Panther squad assisted a Tiger I squad destroying a larger force of JS-2 and T-34/85 tanks at ranges where the JS-2's 122mm gun could also knock a Panther - but General Hasso Von Mantueffel commented the JS-2's failure was mainly due to
Pretty well written, but the same could be said of the first deployment on the East of the King Tigers. Those behemoths got ambushed by T-34/85 from the sides and some few IS-2 frontally, then slaughtered. I don't know what the Germans were thinking building those things. Megalomaniacs from top to down or something thinking of XIVth century chivalry competitions.
@anaplastic Well considering this was an ambush and given its not like Tiger Ausf B's were easy to control or drive anyways; many drivers for the matter often had trouble driving it
Panther, Tiger I, II all had these and generally wear problems. I think Panther had the greatest potential, although it had a too low tolerance in manufacturing for this kind of war.
@anaplastic You ever read about the final power train or drive on the Panther? Problem was for economic logistics the Panther had to use low grade steel and double gears rather than herringbone gears
@anaplastic MAKE no mistake - it ain't just tungsten - molybdenum, copper, manganese to name a few were also top priorities in WWII for all combat nations - control of the mines were strategic assets!
All countries had some tungsten problems for shells, but it was not that important back then, an APHE could be almost as good. Maybe Germany had more problems so, but the problems with other rare metals were even worse.
@anaplastic Also HEAT - well shaped charges were more for infantry AT weapons like the RPG-43, M9A1 and the Granate 41 of the PaK 36 to name a few :) A book German soldiers of WWII stated by 1945 Germany was practically dried up of its source of rare metals and natural metals; for example in 1944 the Knabe Mine in Norway was cut off which meant Molybdenum from Molybdenite (MoS2 - I'm a study geology btw haha) was cut off and bit by bit it was harder and harder to obtain the alloys!
Lower grade steel was reducing the effective armor protection of German AFV by some 10% as compared to Soviets. Not that crucial, but anyway, a factor to reckon with.
@anaplastic Hoho - interesting I never knew this ty :) What I knew was the Soviet armor's Brinell Hardness was higher hence more brittle than the German's - particulary the Tiger I's
@anaplastic However the Germans still tried to retain their standards of Armor - given the Tiger Ausf B in the West was 'never truly penetrated in combat' - Kubinka tests were just propaganda rigged:(
@anaplastic Me262 suffered this problem - needed Nickel and Molybdenum to strengthen the fuselage but as this ran out - you can guess why the Germans used wood and Aluminium on the He162 :(
@anaplastic Panzer IV couldn't take the PaK/KwK 42 due to the turret ring reaching its weight limits by the time they fitted the KwK 40 L/48. Jagdtiger - PaK 43/4 seemed a better than the KwK 44
@anaplastic Well this was achieved to a degree in the 'Gunderian's duck' - the Jagdpanzer IV if you knwo what I mean - yes not exactly a Panzer IV tank with the PaK42/KwK 42 but its close :)
@anaplastic But yes - kinda stupid in building huge 70 tonne behemoths that suffered drive, skill and resource problems :( Compared to the StuG's, Panzer IV's and Jagdpanther :)
You mean KwK 44 of Jagdtiger? A bit too heavy and slow. 43 on Jagdpanther was probably better. Anyway, Germans should have profited much more from their superior gun tech.
@anaplastic Also the KwK 44 would have been potent against the T-54/55 depending again on angle of impact, crew skill and terrain in the battle - the huge 128mm shells were said to be capable of
@anaplastic Apparently in 1945 a Jagdtiger was sent to America; they tested it on a Pershing - the APCBC punched right through the Pershing's glacis and rear!
@anaplastic But unfrotunate - I wonder what came in Hitler's mind to mount a slow firing 128mm AT gun onto a heavy behemoth weighing 70 tonnes! Not ot mention costs and slow ROF and sighting problems
@anaplastic Well Su-100 true has the D10T which is still used today but compared to the Jagdpanther? Well its close but the Jagdpanther takes it - while the D10T has a bigger caliber and more useful HE shell the Jagdpanther's gun the potent KwK 43/PaK43/4 really takes it in range and AP as the barrel was longer.
Jagdpanther was a little better than SU-100 in most categories. In ideal conditions, Jagdpanther was maybe almost twice (on average) as effective on the battlefield as SU-100. But the conditions are never ideal. 30%+ of Jagdpanthers wouldn't participate in the battle at all, compared to some 10% SU-100. More importantly, SU-100 was 2-3 times easier to produce. Both of them could take on anything, a direct comparison only (wrongly)accentuates the superiority of the Jagdpanther.
@anaplastic No wonder the Russians called the SU-100 the 'Fuck all end to everything' given its potent gun and respectable sloped armor - though the ZVEROBOY was also effective :)
Also, the path was laid to T-54 which appeared in 1945. Had the war continued, T-54 (same D-10T gun of SU-100) in late 1945 or early 1946 would have owned everything Germans threw.
@anaplastic Don't forget our JS-3 :) - well if they fitted the JS-3 with a D10T and retaining superior armor hoho it would be freaking wicked :) Its amazing the D10T is still in service today
@anaplastic Practically the T54/55 is today's 'T34/85' in a sense - small, cheap, powerful enough to take on general roles :) Though it needs upgrades to tackle say an Abrams or Challenger :(
T-54/55 is no match anymore for >1980es tanks even as effectiveness/cost. But it's amazing that until late 60es this 1945 tank was still one of the best around as general effectiveness/cost goes. Soviets in 1945 were up to something in this respect, even having a small weakness compared to Germans in gun tech. I don't really see how Germany could have overcome this, probably simply RPG-s or something.
@anaplastic However if the Russian former MBT is cheap and can be upgraded and the D10T IF firing the 9K116 missile though and this missile whilst still no match for an Abrams or Challenger - the 9K116 however can have a chance against an 80's MBT though not likely a 90's one - the 9K116 if using tandem warheads can penetrate atleast 600mm - 750mm RHA so thats respectable though still unable to scracth an Abrams or Challenger though :(
@anaplastic And like many Russian tanks the T-54/55 is a small tank so its a 'slim target' -and certainly a danger to anything short of a modern MBT :)
Besides what I wrote, Soviets by 1945 managed very well too. Many T-34/85 in one role, some fewer IS-2 in another, then SU-100 and ISU-152, not too few, pretty well organized and adapted to the new doctrine, and the Soviet "hordes" LOL can roll. Pretty awesome to me. Then, awaiting to be deployed IS-3 and T-54, again easy to mass produce, if suddenly Germans come with some "wonder-weapons". Ok, sorry, I am maybe a bit off-topic.
Do you have an idea of losses of Pz V, VI due to tanks/guns/mines/air/broke/abandoned/other? I know only of 30% or so broken on the field + abandoned for various reasons.
@anaplastic That my WWII AFV colleauge, I will have to look up in future readings - what I do know was the Panzer IV had a better combat readiness at 80-87% compared to the Tiger I or Panther.
@anaplastic Well its abit dissapointing in films like SPR or Band of Brothers there's no Panzer IV shown :( Given it was the true 'workhorse' of the Panzer divisions in WWII :( Outta give some credit
@anaplastic Unfortunate it got its limelight taken by the Tiger I and the Panther - the Panzer IV Ausf H atleast was a respectable opponent - the 80mm hull was able to withstand a SHerman 75!
@anaplastic herringbone gears they could wear out if under constant stress + weight of the Panther. They did try to improve it and simplify this in the Ausf G and Jagdpanther though :)
@anaplastic Personally I like the Jagdpanther better than the Panther - for obvious reasons - and no its not 'better firepower' :) Still the German heavies had fine suspension which gave smooth rides.
@anaplastic And remember PaK 43 was weighty and expensive - not omentnion as earlier mentioned Tungsten shells were rare for German gunners in WWII :(
The same Tiger II gun on a much better chassis. Still, much more expensive and cumbersome than SU-100, which was only a little less protected and had just a little weaker gun.
The best choice for Germans was probably to use Pz IV as the basis for 1) A tank with Panther 75mm L/70 gun 2) a Jagd with 88mm L/71 Not sure it was doable.
@anaplastic A Jagdtiger crew was annihilated in '45 when Shermans managed to penetrate the side armor after the commander panicked and tried to retreat
@Toni112007 mainly due to 'poor experience, lack of manueverability and superior German optics/tactics' which allowed the Germans to have a first shot before the JS-2 crews could respond.
There is a GENERAL [if not field marshal !] correlation between good tactics and victory, but the correlation isn't perfect. Hitler's GRAND STRATEGY was too flawed for Germany's superior TACTICS to prevail--i.e., fighting a 2-front war and declaring war on the US for good measure
Overwhelming Allied NUMBERS (of men and weapons), not better tactics, was what won the war--even so, it took the Allies 5 times as long to retake France as it took Germany to take France
@Erlo3 Haha General Patton once stated 'A good general does more maneuvering and slaughters less to gain more ground' :) Hmm... - the Island Hopping tactics in the Pacific were also quite bloody during WWII - hence Rabaul with the 100,000 Japanese soldiers garrisoned on it was decided to 'wither' on the vine. It also seemed to take the Americans more than 2 years to gain back what the Japanese had gained during 1941-1942 in just a few months though the situation was different.
@legendarywar1 Thats not true at all. Germany revolutionised modern warfare with the schwerpunkt, auftragstaktik, overqaulified soldiers, and every man an infantryman practices: Her combined arms doctrine was phenomenal. But even that, in the end, would not be enough to prevent her defeat. She was spread too thin on too many fronts, drawn into foolish wars of choice (like america in afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc). Germanys defeat in WW2 was the fault of her strategists, not her tacticians.
@TheJamesrocket Let's also not forget that they were the first to deploy airborne infantry into combat, introduced/influenced the concept of the GP machine gun and massive widespread use of camouflage patterned uniforms.
@TheGorgeramirez What do you mean by that? Are you refering to the PaK 43 gun used in the Bengal Tiger, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Nashorn, Elefant/Ferdinand? If so the Jagdpanther is an example of a PANTHER variant that had an 88mm gun by sacrificing the turret and slighlty upsizing the Panther chassis. Whilst a longer 88mm gun would deal more damage and AP the problem would be cost, traverse and also barrell wear - the early 88mm PaK/KwK 43's suffered barrel wear problems due to a 1 piece barrel
@TheGorgeramirez They did try to mount the Panther's PaK 42 + turret on the Panzer IV but they found out it was impossible since Panzer IV chassis couldn't bear the weight of the turret or gun unfortunately. Regardless the PaK 42 continued to be a good gun during WWII due to the accuracy, flat trajectory, larger propellent charge (for a 75mm gun)
@TheGorgeramirez They did try to mount the Panther's PaK 42 + turret on the Panzer IV but they found out it was impossible since Panzer IV chassis couldn't bear the weight of the turret or gun unfortunately. Regardless the PaK 42 continued to be a good gun during WWII due to the accuracy, flat trajectory, larger propellent charge (for a 75mm gun)
I find it annoying how people continually attribute german sucess in the 2nd world war to technology, rather than tactics. Optimised for generating shock and suprise, their formations had an ability to punch far above their weight. Take, for instance, the france campaign. Germanys tank forces were outmatched in both quality and quantity, and yet they consistantly outperformed their opposite numbers. Lets hear an analysis on that.
Even there technology played a key role, the vast german communications network enabled by the befehlspanzer for instance, every german tank could communicate with each other and their commanding officier and change on the spot as the tactic demanded, the french could not.
German reports mention often that french tanks were slow to respond to new threats on the battlefield and couldn't keep up the pace with the faster responding panzers.
@Dreachon That is due to a differance in command style, rather than the frenchs lack of radio command tanks (though that certainly played a role). Mission type tactics were rapid and decisive, and they didn't rely on drawn out planning which attempts to impose a coordinated schedule into an environment as astonishlingly complex as combat, like the anglo-americans do. This fad of theirs has been no source of grief and military frustration.
Still you have to admit that without this technological feat. commandt anks and basicly every other tank equipped with the two-way radio is what enabled this astonishing coordination not only between panzer units but also with the luftwaffe which had Stuka's ready within 15min of a call for aid.
@TheJamesrocket There has been numerous analysis published about that and much else. In fact so much has been published that it fills entire sections of military and university libraries.
@TheJamesrocket Excellent comment - Not implying that the Panther or Tiger2 where useless as historians state but they where certainly underpowered - Albert Speer & Gurderian wanted designs of pz to be based on the lessons learned from these designs i.e build a medium pz around a powerful gun & engine with interchangable parts - you need more parts per pz than individual pz's & mobile workshops - to prevent cannibalising parts in the field; allows quality Mass production. Check of leiches tiger3
@infokemp Thanks, its nice to see someone else who isn't mislead by the iconoclastic, pop culture interpretation of ww2. BTW, just curious, are you a military enthusiast, or a history buff? I myself am a bit of both.
Yes, the panther did have a rather low power to weight ratio: The vehicles maneverability was spared from suffering too much by its excellent 2 to 1 length to width ratio, but still, it would have benefitted much from dropping a couple tons of weight.
@TheJamesrocket Excellent comment - I could of wrote this comment my self you have exactly the same thought process as my self on this topic - I am a former British army reservist but I have always been interested in history - I tend to look at History for solutions or memes in Western or Japanese culture that solve current problems - I am looking at the Roman era for epicurean & stoic philosophy - I am no authority but they had some really good ideas on citizenship - military.
@infokemp Oh? What are your favorite military books? I am very partial to jim storrs the human face of war, and air-mech strike. I feel that western forces are still stuck in the cold war, and aren't adapted to the new challenges of the 21st century. None of the armys camouflage or stealth routines will fool thermal imagers, acoustic sensors, or battlefield radar. Enemy FOOs will be able to call in arty barrages which are accurate on the first salvoe! This is a very dangerous predicament for us.
@TheJamesrocket I liked Heinz Guderians panzer leader & Aukinglegs Diary & Fred Franks Into the storm - about Vietnam & Gulf war 1 - I am starting to read Clauswitz & I like Tactitus - especially the Roman use of Fabian incrementalism & squorched earth to wither from without; the Carthagians by starving them by the Romans changing the course of rivers & bribing Carthagian leaders to defect.
Is Air-mech about armoured vertical envelopment? Please let me know the author.
@TheJamesrocket agree the tiger with tactics was a killer on the battle field. they never had more than 70 tigers on the eastern front running at any time. 4 "tigers" against 30 "t-34s" was not a problem. not to mention the killer instincts of the tank commander. america won the war by not killing the tank, but what supported the tank. stop the fuel and the ammo and you kill the tank. one question, why did germany still use horses in WWII?
@TheJamesrocket In the Blitzkrieg years German tanks were inferior as far as armor thikness and firepower is concerned, but they had some advantages concerning the overall design. Most German tanks had more crewmen, which made them more effective in combat and they allready had radio equipment, something that the Char B for example was missing. Those tanks were developed for the Blitzkrieg and the Panzer IV was in service until the end of the war, probably a good design.
@TheJamesrocket YES - An Illustrated History of WWII- there was a sentence in the book that stated it was really brialliant tactics - particularly radio communications that countedi n the 'Phoney War'
@TheJamesrocket Not ot mention Rommel improvised - using FlaK 36/37's to smash French tanks which on paper anyways were larger in quantity and 'quality' over the German Panzers.
@TheJamesrocket Barbarossa - while the '34/76' and the KV gave trouble to the early Panzer IV's but due to Stalin and poor Soviet tactics the Germans still took it in the bag due to radio and tactics.
A World War Two veteran German tank commander taking snapshots of the tank that he used during the war using present-day state-of-the-art digital camera ! Amazing !
the 75L70 gun on the Panther was deadly at the ranges that WWII tanks fought at. It could easily kill the top of the line Soviet, Brit or American tanks. It's mix of firepower, armor and speed made it the best tank of the war. Problem with the Panther was that it was mechanically complex and needed a lot of maintenance. Better tank than the Tiger because it was faster and had better fuel economy.
@jamessavik Yep - inspite of being only an average gun calibre the PaK 42 gun was very potent - very few guns could rival it - until the 90mm M3, BS-3 M1944, D10-T and the PaK 43 were the only guns comparable to it. The QF 17 pounder was another candidate but apparently the QF 17 pounder had installation problems, initial charge problems, huge flash bang effect and inaccurate with APDS ammo with range. Still a good gun though.
@jamessavik And then came the Jagdpanther :D - inheriting the Panther's 80mm hull chassis plus able to mount an 88 PaK 43 solved the Elefant's speed and complex transmission, gave bigger firepower than the Panther and superior protection to say a Nashorn.
@catsareflyingD8 IS-2 didn't hit the battlefield until April 1944. By then, it was pretty much over. It was rolled out for the assault on Berlin. Granted- its 122mm gun was awesome and could crack any main battle tank that any world power was using at the time. The USSR's best all around tank was the T-34/85 that arrived in numbers in early 1944. They were fast, tough and had a powerful enough main battery to crack Panthers and Tigers.
@jamessavik Ahaha! I always wondered is the Panther Ausf G superior or inferior to a T-34/85 tank? Because the Russian tank was cheaper, faster and had a BIGGER gun that could fire a bigger 1-1 HE shell BUT the Panther on the other hand had crews and superior optics- Russian tanks weren't exactly ergonomic - T-34 and IS-2 tanks were inferior in optics to the German tanks and in 1944 May - a force of these tanks were destroyed by a Panther/Tiger I squad due to tactics and superior optics
@jamessavik The IS-2 whilst pivotal to contributing to the WWII victory and later the IS-3 series tanks had some faults. Although the 121.92mm D25T gun was very powerful and could smash soft targets the ROF was slow, only 28 rounds and the long barrel made it tough to maneuver through urban areas. Also the IS-2 early models had freak shot traps - the armor quality was still inferior to the Germans - that being cast armor - it wasn't till after WWII did the IS-3 have ROLLED armor - :)
@jamessavik The 121.92mm D25T was tested with the BS-3 100mm gun - the 121.92mm gun was chosen due to better all rounder performance. In reality the German 88mm and the PaK 42 75mm guns were still more accurate and had better AP/ROF than the D25T of the IS-2 BUT in HE its undeniable the IS-2 could smash soft targets and fortifications without trouble. And the 121.92mm gun STILL could smash a Tiger I if the crews shot first and got it right. Just some food for thought :)
@jamessavik Actually IS-2 M1943 models were tested in the Battle of Korsun Shekenshovsky - General Kotin observed the pros and cons of the IS-2 tank. Whilst the IS-2 still had its faults one interesting thing I learnt was that it was crewed by fortunate T-34 tankers who survived and usually IS-2 tanks were crewed by officers of the Red Army - weapon sergeants for the matter and IS-2's indeed were better formations of the Red Army tank corps than the T-34/85 tank.
@jamessavik Also the IS-3 tank had some armor phillosophy based around that of the T-34/85 tank and the IS-2 tank - which was why it had sharply sloped armor but with the famoust 'soup-bowl' turret :) Impressive tank it was though it had similar vices to the IS-2 tanks though
@HeirofGojira91 Interior-wise, it also set the beginning of making Soviet tanks rather uncomfortable inside. Apparently the Soviets only allowed short recruits to be part of the armored forces as a result of that.
@SuperBomber01 Hmm - some T-54/T-55 users nicknamed thier tanker recuits or tankers the 4 left handed midgets - given Soviet tanks are relatively small and low in profile compared to both WWII Allied tanks and modern Western tanks... the IS-2 for the matter was bigger than the T-34/85 but yet surprisngly smaller than the Tiger I and Panther in terms of overall dimensions resulting in a compact but cramped and very poor in ergonomics design :(
@HeirofGojira91 Quite coincides with the WW2 Soviet doctrine of mass firepower and numbers over quality. I'll also note that the IS-2s could only carry 28 rounds - hardly enough for a sustained firefight - and the gun itself was rather disproportionate with the rest of the tank.
@SuperBomber01 Correct! You know your history and readings well :) The length of the A19 121.92mm gun was a problem to the JS-2 in maneuvering in city areas or tight areas - and the weight was rather unbalanced at the front - due to the armor being heavier at the front as well - compared to the KV-series tanks. However it is interesting that JS-2 tanks were usually better crewed in the Soviet tank formations - no doubt it required some more traiing than a T-34/85 - and crews were officer-class
@SuperBomber01 THe ISU-122 fared not much better - only 30 rounds in a JS-based TD chassis which had limited traverse and accuracy as the 122mm gun wasn't exactly perfect - but again we know what the 122mm gun was famous for - its hitting power and HE - the OF-471 was usually powerful enough to disable a tank or even smash forts to pieces - and the 122mm gun had a high velocity and range strictly in terms of artillery/howitzer support during WWII - at 806m/s
@SuperBomber01 IDF jokingly referred to T54/T55 tankers as '4 left handed midgets' which wasn't very funny and I've seen a picture of a PT-76 in Laos during 'Nam - the crew were really small-statured!
the panthers greates superioty is the sloped armor it can easily deflect almost any round from the americans also the weakness is the weak 2 in side armor easily penatrated by the shermans main gun
@Halomaster261 almost all american tanks, the sherman included, were built for speed rather than armor or firepower. the panther could deflect american tank rounds because the american cannons weren't built to be very powerful.
@legendarywar1 It is somewhat controversial General Mcnair opted for 75mm Shermans in the masses and he was very hesitant for the 90mm M3 armed M26 Pershing. For the Americans more or less only 76mm Shermans or 90mm M36 Jacksons - had a better chance than a 75 Sherman in defeating a Panther or Tiger - could still be vulnerable to return shots. As for American cannons - yes - the 57mm M1 and the M5 3inch AT guns were looked down on compared to the M36 Jacksons, M10 Wolverines or M18 Hellcats.
@legendarywar1 Apparently in Battle of the Bulge many casualties in AT-groups were heavily due to towed AT-guns compared to the self-propelled Motor Gun Carriages of the American Army. It was said even the M5 despite being the heaviest towed pure AT-gun of the Americans in WWII it had problems with its ammunition and it was obviuously too heavy to tow about. It was said American AT-gunners only panicked when thier rounds simply bounced off the Bengal Tiger's otherwise formidable 150mm armour :(
@HeirofGojira91 very true. but in spite of all that, the american forces still managed to hold off the german offensive, which is rather impressive given the circumstances.
@legendarywar1 Ah the beloved General McAuliffe - "NUTS!' :D And stubborn determination of the 101st at Bastogne :D.
But what about the 90mm M3 gun? The M36 amounting this could have a chance at Tigers and Panthers if using correct HVAP and tactics. YET I hear reviews on the gun showed that the 90mm M3 still had problems against the Panther's glacis plate - it must have been pretty darn durable and well sloped in order to have superior protection eh? No wonder the Jagdpanther inherited this
@legendarywar1 Speaking of Panthers - what do you think of the Jagdpanther? When I first read about it myself in 2004 I thought it was a joke - no such Panther variant could mount such a huge gun of the PaK 43 and have thick 80mm worth of armour plus a 100mm mantlet - yet it proved to be effective despite the small numers - it did solve the Nashorn's poor armour and high profile whilst faster and not as complex as the Elefant :D
@Tralgit the tactic of using sloped armor was used long before world war 2 and the russians. american steam boats during the american civil war had sloped armor to deflect cannon balls, and that was in the 1800's.
@legendarywar1 Are you referring to the battle between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia? Apparently I read Union Gunners were shocked and frustrated to find out the CSS Virginia's armour could withstand hits from thier cannons.
@PvtMarx45 75mm isnt a name its the size of the gun. the panther had 75mm. french did make the first since christie's ideas were never approved. so he sold it to the russians to work on his flying tank.
@MrCSXboy98 What about the T-46 II prototype tank? It had sloped 'shell-proof' armour but it wasn't chosen for productin due to difficulties. The proposed Panther II considered an 88mm gun but it wasn't officially entering production. The Jagdpanther I suppose is the only candidate for a 'Panther with an 88mm' gun even if it wasn't strictly a tank as it did have good performance as a TD and it was difficult to destroy.
@Tralgit the Tiger had the deadly 88mm, the Panther had an highvelocity 75mm ( long barreled, and had more gunpowder, so it had better penetration point).
@MrSpy3000 The Tiger I could inflict a bigger HE content though if it did penetrate armour of similar thickness though the PaK 42 had a better trajectory and velocity. Practically the only thing the Tiger really has is thicker side armour and it took the spots from the Panzer IV slightly earlier than the Panther which came in Kursk. Funny thing because the Tiger I is really a Panzer IV but with a bigger engine, thicker armour and a bigger gun.
@MrSpy3000 Interestingly I like the Tiger I slightly better because it was designed to 'absorb' direct hits from almost any guns whilst the Panther was designed to deflect.
@Halomaster261 Indeed - Panther commanders realized this tactical weakness hence it was necessary to keep the PaK 42 and glacis facing enemies at all times.
@anaplastic and I think we know the Panther still had some weight problems (at 45-46 tonnes) for the Maybach engine this could be troublesome - shown at Kursk. SInce the geras were not herringbone
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
My lecturer covered the difference in German and Allied production methods earlier this week, (i study military history), his argument was that Germany did not have the resources to compete with the Russian and American production rates, so therefore didn't bother to and built smaller numbers of technically superior weapons, such as the Panther. Given the overall better training of the average front line German solider this enabled them to cause disproportionate casualties among the Allies.
lukesmith587 1 month ago
@lukesmith587 No hitler said himself he wanted quality before quantity before he was at war with russia and USA
AdamForExample 1 month ago
@AdamForExample that's basically what he was saying...
legendarywar1 1 month ago
@AdamForExample. That's probably true. Though before he decided to roll into Russia and for some strange reason declare war on the US he wasn't being carpet bombed and assumed he would be able to capture and utilize the oil fields in Russia which he never reached. In the end it was the superior training of the German army (let alone the fanatical SS divisions) coupled with better weapons and tanks which enabled Germany to hang on as long as it did.
lukesmith587 1 month ago
@lukesmith587 He was allied with Japan and they have agreed that if any of them got into war with someone else they would help each other. so germany decalred war on US because Japan did. And he didnt have to take stalingrad, that was a foolish move, he just wanted to insult Stalin by taking the city that carries his name.
AdamForExample 1 month ago
i find that not true, today we have over 300 fully restored and fully opped panther tanks.
stugmann91 1 month ago
@stugmann91 Please state your info for this. There are only six operational Panthers, about 18-20 restored and not running, and about six more either wrecks or being restored.
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
@stugmann91 i'm pretty sure that's not true.
legendarywar1 1 month ago
@stugmann91 its not the last panther there are 5 or 6 working today and not 300 idiot
FNFALhunter 1 month ago
@stugmann91 Dude there is 3 operational and maybe 50-100 as pieces in museums.
OMGWTFMUFFINS 1 week ago
@stugmann91 Replicas,off course.
jaredlee283 3 days ago
Battle of Kursk was the biggest tank battle in all of history. Hopefully we wont see anything like it again.
Hatinonthehaters 1 month ago
@Hatinonthehaters
Kursk was not the largest tank battle as Kursk was not a single combat.
Dreachon 1 month ago
WE MEET AGAIN 240p
leekimlanuza 1 month ago
How the f*ck did the Panther end up behind the T-72?
LSchroll 1 month ago
The High Command said to German tank commanders that u have to take some objective but they didn't say when to attack and that was one of the reasons of German tanks.
TheSupersoldier1234 2 months ago
@legendarywar1 They didn't lose due to tactics. They lost because they Hitler tried to bite off more than he could chew. What army could ever hope to defeat the USSR, USA, and UK at the same time?
jackzero99 2 months ago
@legendarywar1 Numbers...its numbers! ;)
Cougar545x39 2 months ago
Everyone forget that Germany did not had the manpower do build more tanks in low quality like the russians did. Their only chance was to build high quality tanks to give the best available technology to ensure the best surviving chance for the valuably and rare tank crews.
wuestenfuchsxy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wuestenfuchsxy
""Everyone forget that Germany did not had the manpower do build more tanks in low quality like the russians did. Their only chance was to build high quality tanks to give the best available technology to ensure the best surviving chance for the valuably and rare tank crews.""
Very very true. Also, more tanks = more crews needed, more ammo needed, more petrol needed, more maintenance and other support crews needed.
Too many people don't consider this fact.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
Comment removed
Cougar545x39 2 months ago
Panther tank is better than Tiger I
Panther tank could take out even JS 2
Toni112007 2 months ago
@Toni112007 Aside from experiences with combating the T-34 tank the Panther also had a compromise between the Tiger I's doctrine and design; the Panther would power essentially the same Maybach engine and trade side armor and a weaker firepower (in terms of HE performance) whilst the Tiger I would have a bigger gun, thicker side armor and Tiger I tanks proved better at sniping tanks at over 2000 yards, though the PaK 42 of the Panther was still superior to the Tiger I's gun in AP.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@Toni112007 Now as for the JS-2 yes but you have to consider the two tanks had entirely different doctrines. The Soviets didn't exactly designate what tank they had to what specific task such as 'stand up tank-tank fights' - the JS-2 was not designed with the 100% motive to directly fight tanks. It was mroe of a compact revision envelope of the KV-1 tank which was proving to be problematic even with its once formidable armor - the JS-2 was to improve the KV-1's firepower, engine, armor + weight
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@Toni112007 But essentially it was an improved KV series tank - and compared to the German tanks the JS-2 could be considered a 'small' tank - given it was lighter and compact than the Tiger or the Panther for the matter. The 28 rounds, poor optics, long barrel of the 122mm gun and slow ROF were also factors that were drawbacks to the JS-2, not to mention the poorer AP performance. However the JS-2 had the obvious advantage of the large 122mm HE OF-471 round which could disable vehicles
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@Toni112007 And blast bunkers or static/lesser defences to pieces - the Panther's PaK 42 only had a 7kg shell, Tiger I had roughly 9-10kg whilst the JS-2 - had 25kg which could contain 3kg of HE in the OF-471 rounds - these rounds if they struck even a Tiger or Panther - they could still cause spalling due to the explosive + KE of the rounds - which could atleast injure the crew or damage optics depending on angle of incidence. And on occasions the 100-120mm of the JS-2 could withstand 88mm hits
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@Toni112007 But unfortunately like you said the Panther indeed could destroy a JS-2 tank. Tests at Kubinka showed the Panther's gun could knock a JS-2 at ranges of 800-900m form an angle of 30 deg to the vertical and the Battle of Targu Frumos in May '44 - a Panther squad assisted a Tiger I squad destroying a larger force of JS-2 and T-34/85 tanks at ranges where the JS-2's 122mm gun could also knock a Panther - but General Hasso Von Mantueffel commented the JS-2's failure was mainly due to
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Pretty well written, but the same could be said of the first deployment on the East of the King Tigers. Those behemoths got ambushed by T-34/85 from the sides and some few IS-2 frontally, then slaughtered. I don't know what the Germans were thinking building those things. Megalomaniacs from top to down or something thinking of XIVth century chivalry competitions.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Well considering this was an ambush and given its not like Tiger Ausf B's were easy to control or drive anyways; many drivers for the matter often had trouble driving it
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Panther, Tiger I, II all had these and generally wear problems. I think Panther had the greatest potential, although it had a too low tolerance in manufacturing for this kind of war.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic You ever read about the final power train or drive on the Panther? Problem was for economic logistics the Panther had to use low grade steel and double gears rather than herringbone gears
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yes, good about the gears. Low grade steel was a problem even in armor for Germans. All Allies had the resources of rare metals.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic MAKE no mistake - it ain't just tungsten - molybdenum, copper, manganese to name a few were also top priorities in WWII for all combat nations - control of the mines were strategic assets!
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
All countries had some tungsten problems for shells, but it was not that important back then, an APHE could be almost as good. Maybe Germany had more problems so, but the problems with other rare metals were even worse.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Also HEAT - well shaped charges were more for infantry AT weapons like the RPG-43, M9A1 and the Granate 41 of the PaK 36 to name a few :) A book German soldiers of WWII stated by 1945 Germany was practically dried up of its source of rare metals and natural metals; for example in 1944 the Knabe Mine in Norway was cut off which meant Molybdenum from Molybdenite (MoS2 - I'm a study geology btw haha) was cut off and bit by bit it was harder and harder to obtain the alloys!
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Lower grade steel was reducing the effective armor protection of German AFV by some 10% as compared to Soviets. Not that crucial, but anyway, a factor to reckon with.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Hoho - interesting I never knew this ty :) What I knew was the Soviet armor's Brinell Hardness was higher hence more brittle than the German's - particulary the Tiger I's
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Jagdtiger Porsche suffered 10% more wear than the Henschel one - speaking of wearing down and grade steel.
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic However the Germans still tried to retain their standards of Armor - given the Tiger Ausf B in the West was 'never truly penetrated in combat' - Kubinka tests were just propaganda rigged:(
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Me262 suffered this problem - needed Nickel and Molybdenum to strengthen the fuselage but as this ran out - you can guess why the Germans used wood and Aluminium on the He162 :(
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Panzer IV couldn't take the PaK/KwK 42 due to the turret ring reaching its weight limits by the time they fitted the KwK 40 L/48. Jagdtiger - PaK 43/4 seemed a better than the KwK 44
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
I think they tried to put 75 L/70 on Pz IV, they should have persevered in this rather than in some half-broken behemoths.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Well this was achieved to a degree in the 'Gunderian's duck' - the Jagdpanzer IV if you knwo what I mean - yes not exactly a Panzer IV tank with the PaK42/KwK 42 but its close :)
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic But yes - kinda stupid in building huge 70 tonne behemoths that suffered drive, skill and resource problems :( Compared to the StuG's, Panzer IV's and Jagdpanther :)
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
You mean KwK 44 of Jagdtiger? A bit too heavy and slow. 43 on Jagdpanther was probably better. Anyway, Germans should have profited much more from their superior gun tech.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Also the KwK 44 would have been potent against the T-54/55 depending again on angle of impact, crew skill and terrain in the battle - the huge 128mm shells were said to be capable of
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Apparently in 1945 a Jagdtiger was sent to America; they tested it on a Pershing - the APCBC punched right through the Pershing's glacis and rear!
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic But unfrotunate - I wonder what came in Hitler's mind to mount a slow firing 128mm AT gun onto a heavy behemoth weighing 70 tonnes! Not ot mention costs and slow ROF and sighting problems
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
At the end, overall, the Soviet SU-100 comes to mind as the way to go.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Well Su-100 true has the D10T which is still used today but compared to the Jagdpanther? Well its close but the Jagdpanther takes it - while the D10T has a bigger caliber and more useful HE shell the Jagdpanther's gun the potent KwK 43/PaK43/4 really takes it in range and AP as the barrel was longer.
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Jagdpanther was a little better than SU-100 in most categories. In ideal conditions, Jagdpanther was maybe almost twice (on average) as effective on the battlefield as SU-100. But the conditions are never ideal. 30%+ of Jagdpanthers wouldn't participate in the battle at all, compared to some 10% SU-100. More importantly, SU-100 was 2-3 times easier to produce. Both of them could take on anything, a direct comparison only (wrongly)accentuates the superiority of the Jagdpanther.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic No wonder the Russians called the SU-100 the 'Fuck all end to everything' given its potent gun and respectable sloped armor - though the ZVEROBOY was also effective :)
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Also, the path was laid to T-54 which appeared in 1945. Had the war continued, T-54 (same D-10T gun of SU-100) in late 1945 or early 1946 would have owned everything Germans threw.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Don't forget our JS-3 :) - well if they fitted the JS-3 with a D10T and retaining superior armor hoho it would be freaking wicked :) Its amazing the D10T is still in service today
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Practically the T54/55 is today's 'T34/85' in a sense - small, cheap, powerful enough to take on general roles :) Though it needs upgrades to tackle say an Abrams or Challenger :(
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
T-54/55 is no match anymore for >1980es tanks even as effectiveness/cost. But it's amazing that until late 60es this 1945 tank was still one of the best around as general effectiveness/cost goes. Soviets in 1945 were up to something in this respect, even having a small weakness compared to Germans in gun tech. I don't really see how Germany could have overcome this, probably simply RPG-s or something.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic However if the Russian former MBT is cheap and can be upgraded and the D10T IF firing the 9K116 missile though and this missile whilst still no match for an Abrams or Challenger - the 9K116 however can have a chance against an 80's MBT though not likely a 90's one - the 9K116 if using tandem warheads can penetrate atleast 600mm - 750mm RHA so thats respectable though still unable to scracth an Abrams or Challenger though :(
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic And like many Russian tanks the T-54/55 is a small tank so its a 'slim target' -and certainly a danger to anything short of a modern MBT :)
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeirofGojira91
I wrote on my wall a bit.
Besides what I wrote, Soviets by 1945 managed very well too. Many T-34/85 in one role, some fewer IS-2 in another, then SU-100 and ISU-152, not too few, pretty well organized and adapted to the new doctrine, and the Soviet "hordes" LOL can roll. Pretty awesome to me. Then, awaiting to be deployed IS-3 and T-54, again easy to mass produce, if suddenly Germans come with some "wonder-weapons". Ok, sorry, I am maybe a bit off-topic.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Do you have an idea of losses of Pz V, VI due to tanks/guns/mines/air/broke/abandoned/other? I know only of 30% or so broken on the field + abandoned for various reasons.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic That my WWII AFV colleauge, I will have to look up in future readings - what I do know was the Panzer IV had a better combat readiness at 80-87% compared to the Tiger I or Panther.
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yes, Pz IV had a combat readiness of >80%. Pz V,VI not even 60%.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Well its abit dissapointing in films like SPR or Band of Brothers there's no Panzer IV shown :( Given it was the true 'workhorse' of the Panzer divisions in WWII :( Outta give some credit
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
Hell true, Pz IV was THE workhorse of German armored forces, as a tank and even as a jagd.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Unfortunate it got its limelight taken by the Tiger I and the Panther - the Panzer IV Ausf H atleast was a respectable opponent - the 80mm hull was able to withstand a SHerman 75!
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic herringbone gears they could wear out if under constant stress + weight of the Panther. They did try to improve it and simplify this in the Ausf G and Jagdpanther though :)
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic Personally I like the Jagdpanther better than the Panther - for obvious reasons - and no its not 'better firepower' :) Still the German heavies had fine suspension which gave smooth rides.
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
It's not firepower? Jadgpanther with its 88mm L/71 gun could have taken out most of the moving things from 1,000+ meters.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic And remember PaK 43 was weighty and expensive - not omentnion as earlier mentioned Tungsten shells were rare for German gunners in WWII :(
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic
The same Tiger II gun on a much better chassis. Still, much more expensive and cumbersome than SU-100, which was only a little less protected and had just a little weaker gun.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91
The best choice for Germans was probably to use Pz IV as the basis for 1) A tank with Panther 75mm L/70 gun 2) a Jagd with 88mm L/71 Not sure it was doable.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@anaplastic A Jagdtiger crew was annihilated in '45 when Shermans managed to penetrate the side armor after the commander panicked and tried to retreat
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@Toni112007 mainly due to 'poor experience, lack of manueverability and superior German optics/tactics' which allowed the Germans to have a first shot before the JS-2 crews could respond.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago 2
@legendarywar1
There is a GENERAL [if not field marshal !] correlation between good tactics and victory, but the correlation isn't perfect. Hitler's GRAND STRATEGY was too flawed for Germany's superior TACTICS to prevail--i.e., fighting a 2-front war and declaring war on the US for good measure
Overwhelming Allied NUMBERS (of men and weapons), not better tactics, was what won the war--even so, it took the Allies 5 times as long to retake France as it took Germany to take France
Erlo3 2 months ago
@Erlo3 Haha General Patton once stated 'A good general does more maneuvering and slaughters less to gain more ground' :) Hmm... - the Island Hopping tactics in the Pacific were also quite bloody during WWII - hence Rabaul with the 100,000 Japanese soldiers garrisoned on it was decided to 'wither' on the vine. It also seemed to take the Americans more than 2 years to gain back what the Japanese had gained during 1941-1942 in just a few months though the situation was different.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@legendarywar1 Thats not true at all. Germany revolutionised modern warfare with the schwerpunkt, auftragstaktik, overqaulified soldiers, and every man an infantryman practices: Her combined arms doctrine was phenomenal. But even that, in the end, would not be enough to prevent her defeat. She was spread too thin on too many fronts, drawn into foolish wars of choice (like america in afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc). Germanys defeat in WW2 was the fault of her strategists, not her tacticians.
TheJamesrocket 2 months ago
@TheJamesrocket Let's also not forget that they were the first to deploy airborne infantry into combat, introduced/influenced the concept of the GP machine gun and massive widespread use of camouflage patterned uniforms.
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
what about a larger powder charge and long barrel with a 88mm?
TheGorgeramirez 4 months ago
@TheGorgeramirez What do you mean by that? Are you refering to the PaK 43 gun used in the Bengal Tiger, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Nashorn, Elefant/Ferdinand? If so the Jagdpanther is an example of a PANTHER variant that had an 88mm gun by sacrificing the turret and slighlty upsizing the Panther chassis. Whilst a longer 88mm gun would deal more damage and AP the problem would be cost, traverse and also barrell wear - the early 88mm PaK/KwK 43's suffered barrel wear problems due to a 1 piece barrel
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 ohhhh
TheGorgeramirez 3 months ago
@TheGorgeramirez They did try to mount the Panther's PaK 42 + turret on the Panzer IV but they found out it was impossible since Panzer IV chassis couldn't bear the weight of the turret or gun unfortunately. Regardless the PaK 42 continued to be a good gun during WWII due to the accuracy, flat trajectory, larger propellent charge (for a 75mm gun)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGorgeramirez They did try to mount the Panther's PaK 42 + turret on the Panzer IV but they found out it was impossible since Panzer IV chassis couldn't bear the weight of the turret or gun unfortunately. Regardless the PaK 42 continued to be a good gun during WWII due to the accuracy, flat trajectory, larger propellent charge (for a 75mm gun)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
That spry old former Panzer commander seems very likeable. I hope I can live that long and still keep all my marbles intact as well as he has
xxxxWaffleSSxxxx 4 months ago
Les than 3,000 Panther tanks were did against more than Soviet 36,000 T-34 tanks.
daltonagre 4 months ago
I find it annoying how people continually attribute german sucess in the 2nd world war to technology, rather than tactics. Optimised for generating shock and suprise, their formations had an ability to punch far above their weight. Take, for instance, the france campaign. Germanys tank forces were outmatched in both quality and quantity, and yet they consistantly outperformed their opposite numbers. Lets hear an analysis on that.
TheJamesrocket 4 months ago 24
@TheJamesrocket
Even there technology played a key role, the vast german communications network enabled by the befehlspanzer for instance, every german tank could communicate with each other and their commanding officier and change on the spot as the tactic demanded, the french could not.
German reports mention often that french tanks were slow to respond to new threats on the battlefield and couldn't keep up the pace with the faster responding panzers.
Dreachon 4 months ago
@Dreachon That is due to a differance in command style, rather than the frenchs lack of radio command tanks (though that certainly played a role). Mission type tactics were rapid and decisive, and they didn't rely on drawn out planning which attempts to impose a coordinated schedule into an environment as astonishlingly complex as combat, like the anglo-americans do. This fad of theirs has been no source of grief and military frustration.
TheJamesrocket 4 months ago
@TheJamesrocket
Still you have to admit that without this technological feat. commandt anks and basicly every other tank equipped with the two-way radio is what enabled this astonishing coordination not only between panzer units but also with the luftwaffe which had Stuka's ready within 15min of a call for aid.
Dreachon 4 months ago
@TheJamesrocket There has been numerous analysis published about that and much else. In fact so much has been published that it fills entire sections of military and university libraries.
PalleRasmussen 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket Excellent comment - Not implying that the Panther or Tiger2 where useless as historians state but they where certainly underpowered - Albert Speer & Gurderian wanted designs of pz to be based on the lessons learned from these designs i.e build a medium pz around a powerful gun & engine with interchangable parts - you need more parts per pz than individual pz's & mobile workshops - to prevent cannibalising parts in the field; allows quality Mass production. Check of leiches tiger3
infokemp 1 month ago
@infokemp Thanks, its nice to see someone else who isn't mislead by the iconoclastic, pop culture interpretation of ww2. BTW, just curious, are you a military enthusiast, or a history buff? I myself am a bit of both.
Yes, the panther did have a rather low power to weight ratio: The vehicles maneverability was spared from suffering too much by its excellent 2 to 1 length to width ratio, but still, it would have benefitted much from dropping a couple tons of weight.
TheJamesrocket 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket Excellent comment - I could of wrote this comment my self you have exactly the same thought process as my self on this topic - I am a former British army reservist but I have always been interested in history - I tend to look at History for solutions or memes in Western or Japanese culture that solve current problems - I am looking at the Roman era for epicurean & stoic philosophy - I am no authority but they had some really good ideas on citizenship - military.
infokemp 1 month ago
@infokemp Oh? What are your favorite military books? I am very partial to jim storrs the human face of war, and air-mech strike. I feel that western forces are still stuck in the cold war, and aren't adapted to the new challenges of the 21st century. None of the armys camouflage or stealth routines will fool thermal imagers, acoustic sensors, or battlefield radar. Enemy FOOs will be able to call in arty barrages which are accurate on the first salvoe! This is a very dangerous predicament for us.
TheJamesrocket 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket I liked Heinz Guderians panzer leader & Aukinglegs Diary & Fred Franks Into the storm - about Vietnam & Gulf war 1 - I am starting to read Clauswitz & I like Tactitus - especially the Roman use of Fabian incrementalism & squorched earth to wither from without; the Carthagians by starving them by the Romans changing the course of rivers & bribing Carthagian leaders to defect.
Is Air-mech about armoured vertical envelopment? Please let me know the author.
infokemp 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket agree the tiger with tactics was a killer on the battle field. they never had more than 70 tigers on the eastern front running at any time. 4 "tigers" against 30 "t-34s" was not a problem. not to mention the killer instincts of the tank commander. america won the war by not killing the tank, but what supported the tank. stop the fuel and the ammo and you kill the tank. one question, why did germany still use horses in WWII?
drod103164 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket So you mean the French tanks was better than the Germans? Hah! Read history, German sucess was both by quality and tactics!
Morran09 1 month ago
@Morran09
Nominally many French tanks were a bit better in 1940. It's about how to use them.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Morran09
Nominally many French tanks were a bit better in 1940. It's about how to use them.
anaplastic 3 weeks ago
@TheJamesrocket In the Blitzkrieg years German tanks were inferior as far as armor thikness and firepower is concerned, but they had some advantages concerning the overall design. Most German tanks had more crewmen, which made them more effective in combat and they allready had radio equipment, something that the Char B for example was missing. Those tanks were developed for the Blitzkrieg and the Panzer IV was in service until the end of the war, probably a good design.
Mertensify 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket YES - An Illustrated History of WWII- there was a sentence in the book that stated it was really brialliant tactics - particularly radio communications that countedi n the 'Phoney War'
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@TheJamesrocket Not ot mention Rommel improvised - using FlaK 36/37's to smash French tanks which on paper anyways were larger in quantity and 'quality' over the German Panzers.
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@TheJamesrocket Barbarossa - while the '34/76' and the KV gave trouble to the early Panzer IV's but due to Stalin and poor Soviet tactics the Germans still took it in the bag due to radio and tactics.
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@TheJamesrocket As for technology well its complex but I see your point and comment. Hope what i mentioned made some sense :(
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
A World War Two veteran German tank commander taking snapshots of the tank that he used during the war using present-day state-of-the-art digital camera ! Amazing !
MrHelmyabdullah 4 months ago
@MrHelmyabdullah And of couse he'd know his tank inside out, outside in - he seems to like this Ausf G quite well with a passion!
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
the 75L70 gun on the Panther was deadly at the ranges that WWII tanks fought at. It could easily kill the top of the line Soviet, Brit or American tanks. It's mix of firepower, armor and speed made it the best tank of the war. Problem with the Panther was that it was mechanically complex and needed a lot of maintenance. Better tank than the Tiger because it was faster and had better fuel economy.
jamessavik 5 months ago
@jamessavik Yep - inspite of being only an average gun calibre the PaK 42 gun was very potent - very few guns could rival it - until the 90mm M3, BS-3 M1944, D10-T and the PaK 43 were the only guns comparable to it. The QF 17 pounder was another candidate but apparently the QF 17 pounder had installation problems, initial charge problems, huge flash bang effect and inaccurate with APDS ammo with range. Still a good gun though.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@jamessavik And then came the Jagdpanther :D - inheriting the Panther's 80mm hull chassis plus able to mount an 88 PaK 43 solved the Elefant's speed and complex transmission, gave bigger firepower than the Panther and superior protection to say a Nashorn.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@jamessavik
IS2 could withstand panther shells from 800m or more,
catsareflyingD8 3 months ago
@catsareflyingD8 IS-2 didn't hit the battlefield until April 1944. By then, it was pretty much over. It was rolled out for the assault on Berlin. Granted- its 122mm gun was awesome and could crack any main battle tank that any world power was using at the time. The USSR's best all around tank was the T-34/85 that arrived in numbers in early 1944. They were fast, tough and had a powerful enough main battery to crack Panthers and Tigers.
jamessavik 3 months ago
@jamessavik Ahaha! I always wondered is the Panther Ausf G superior or inferior to a T-34/85 tank? Because the Russian tank was cheaper, faster and had a BIGGER gun that could fire a bigger 1-1 HE shell BUT the Panther on the other hand had crews and superior optics- Russian tanks weren't exactly ergonomic - T-34 and IS-2 tanks were inferior in optics to the German tanks and in 1944 May - a force of these tanks were destroyed by a Panther/Tiger I squad due to tactics and superior optics
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@jamessavik The IS-2 whilst pivotal to contributing to the WWII victory and later the IS-3 series tanks had some faults. Although the 121.92mm D25T gun was very powerful and could smash soft targets the ROF was slow, only 28 rounds and the long barrel made it tough to maneuver through urban areas. Also the IS-2 early models had freak shot traps - the armor quality was still inferior to the Germans - that being cast armor - it wasn't till after WWII did the IS-3 have ROLLED armor - :)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@jamessavik The 121.92mm D25T was tested with the BS-3 100mm gun - the 121.92mm gun was chosen due to better all rounder performance. In reality the German 88mm and the PaK 42 75mm guns were still more accurate and had better AP/ROF than the D25T of the IS-2 BUT in HE its undeniable the IS-2 could smash soft targets and fortifications without trouble. And the 121.92mm gun STILL could smash a Tiger I if the crews shot first and got it right. Just some food for thought :)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@jamessavik Actually IS-2 M1943 models were tested in the Battle of Korsun Shekenshovsky - General Kotin observed the pros and cons of the IS-2 tank. Whilst the IS-2 still had its faults one interesting thing I learnt was that it was crewed by fortunate T-34 tankers who survived and usually IS-2 tanks were crewed by officers of the Red Army - weapon sergeants for the matter and IS-2's indeed were better formations of the Red Army tank corps than the T-34/85 tank.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@jamessavik Also the IS-3 tank had some armor phillosophy based around that of the T-34/85 tank and the IS-2 tank - which was why it had sharply sloped armor but with the famoust 'soup-bowl' turret :) Impressive tank it was though it had similar vices to the IS-2 tanks though
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 Interior-wise, it also set the beginning of making Soviet tanks rather uncomfortable inside. Apparently the Soviets only allowed short recruits to be part of the armored forces as a result of that.
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
@SuperBomber01 Hmm - some T-54/T-55 users nicknamed thier tanker recuits or tankers the 4 left handed midgets - given Soviet tanks are relatively small and low in profile compared to both WWII Allied tanks and modern Western tanks... the IS-2 for the matter was bigger than the T-34/85 but yet surprisngly smaller than the Tiger I and Panther in terms of overall dimensions resulting in a compact but cramped and very poor in ergonomics design :(
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 Quite coincides with the WW2 Soviet doctrine of mass firepower and numbers over quality. I'll also note that the IS-2s could only carry 28 rounds - hardly enough for a sustained firefight - and the gun itself was rather disproportionate with the rest of the tank.
SuperBomber01 2 months ago
@SuperBomber01 Correct! You know your history and readings well :) The length of the A19 121.92mm gun was a problem to the JS-2 in maneuvering in city areas or tight areas - and the weight was rather unbalanced at the front - due to the armor being heavier at the front as well - compared to the KV-series tanks. However it is interesting that JS-2 tanks were usually better crewed in the Soviet tank formations - no doubt it required some more traiing than a T-34/85 - and crews were officer-class
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@SuperBomber01 THe ISU-122 fared not much better - only 30 rounds in a JS-based TD chassis which had limited traverse and accuracy as the 122mm gun wasn't exactly perfect - but again we know what the 122mm gun was famous for - its hitting power and HE - the OF-471 was usually powerful enough to disable a tank or even smash forts to pieces - and the 122mm gun had a high velocity and range strictly in terms of artillery/howitzer support during WWII - at 806m/s
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@SuperBomber01 I've seen a doc on the JS-3 - its really cramped on the inside - how the hell could the Soviet tankers work in such conditions?!
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
@SuperBomber01 IDF jokingly referred to T54/T55 tankers as '4 left handed midgets' which wasn't very funny and I've seen a picture of a PT-76 in Laos during 'Nam - the crew were really small-statured!
HeirofGojira91 3 weeks ago
I hate how Wargaming nerfed all the German tanks in World of Tanks but then again they are pseudo Russians and thus hate German tanks.
HachiZenki 5 months ago
This tank rightly deserves its ranking of number 1! Not 8! Dont be ridicilious!
Flueeeee 5 months ago
Wow ! An actual WW2 German Tank Commander himself , briefing the very tank that he commanded in WW2 ! With a digital camera in his hand !
MrHelmyabdullah 6 months ago
if you liked this video, tell me what other kinds of things you'd like to see military wise.
legendarywar1 7 months ago
@legendarywar1 Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, IS-2 tank haha - that is if you asked such a question honestly haha :)
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@legendarywar1 f117 nighthawk
wadhwank 4 months ago
@legendarywar1 M 18 Hellcat, M 36 Jackson, M 10 Tank Dstroyer including post WWII use, just as long as you're asking.
ArmyGold 3 months ago
Wow q emoción me gustaría dar una vuelta en la torreta de un panter amo los panzer
TheKonistiger 8 months ago
The best tank ever is the Leopard 2A7+...tzzz
PIMP89ii 8 months ago
Can anybody tell me what is inside the tube on the side of the Panther. (right side, when standin in front of it).
ItsMisterToYou 10 months ago
the panthers greates superioty is the sloped armor it can easily deflect almost any round from the americans also the weakness is the weak 2 in side armor easily penatrated by the shermans main gun
Halomaster261 11 months ago
@Halomaster261 almost all american tanks, the sherman included, were built for speed rather than armor or firepower. the panther could deflect american tank rounds because the american cannons weren't built to be very powerful.
legendarywar1 11 months ago
@legendarywar1 It is somewhat controversial General Mcnair opted for 75mm Shermans in the masses and he was very hesitant for the 90mm M3 armed M26 Pershing. For the Americans more or less only 76mm Shermans or 90mm M36 Jacksons - had a better chance than a 75 Sherman in defeating a Panther or Tiger - could still be vulnerable to return shots. As for American cannons - yes - the 57mm M1 and the M5 3inch AT guns were looked down on compared to the M36 Jacksons, M10 Wolverines or M18 Hellcats.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@legendarywar1 Apparently in Battle of the Bulge many casualties in AT-groups were heavily due to towed AT-guns compared to the self-propelled Motor Gun Carriages of the American Army. It was said even the M5 despite being the heaviest towed pure AT-gun of the Americans in WWII it had problems with its ammunition and it was obviuously too heavy to tow about. It was said American AT-gunners only panicked when thier rounds simply bounced off the Bengal Tiger's otherwise formidable 150mm armour :(
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 very true. but in spite of all that, the american forces still managed to hold off the german offensive, which is rather impressive given the circumstances.
legendarywar1 4 months ago
@legendarywar1 Ah the beloved General McAuliffe - "NUTS!' :D And stubborn determination of the 101st at Bastogne :D.
But what about the 90mm M3 gun? The M36 amounting this could have a chance at Tigers and Panthers if using correct HVAP and tactics. YET I hear reviews on the gun showed that the 90mm M3 still had problems against the Panther's glacis plate - it must have been pretty darn durable and well sloped in order to have superior protection eh? No wonder the Jagdpanther inherited this
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@legendarywar1 Speaking of Panthers - what do you think of the Jagdpanther? When I first read about it myself in 2004 I thought it was a joke - no such Panther variant could mount such a huge gun of the PaK 43 and have thick 80mm worth of armour plus a 100mm mantlet - yet it proved to be effective despite the small numers - it did solve the Nashorn's poor armour and high profile whilst faster and not as complex as the Elefant :D
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
Comment removed
Tralgit 10 months ago
@Tralgit the tactic of using sloped armor was used long before world war 2 and the russians. american steam boats during the american civil war had sloped armor to deflect cannon balls, and that was in the 1800's.
legendarywar1 10 months ago
@legendarywar1 Well they didn't apply it to tanks, look it up, T72 is legendary for that.
Tralgit 10 months ago
@Tralgit that's because they didn't have tanks.
legendarywar1 10 months ago
@legendarywar1 I know that, tanks only came in the 1916.
Tralgit 10 months ago
@legendarywar1 Are you referring to the battle between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia? Apparently I read Union Gunners were shocked and frustrated to find out the CSS Virginia's armour could withstand hits from thier cannons.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@Tralgit
the panther had a 75 mm gun
Molletovcocktail 10 months ago
@Tralgit Panthers had 75mm guns. not 88.
The french had some of the first sloped armor tanks.
the t-34 was based off the a-20, which was based off the bt-5, which was based off the christie tanks (US)
MrCSXboy98 9 months ago
Comment removed
PvtMarx45 7 months ago
@PvtMarx45 75mm isnt a name its the size of the gun. the panther had 75mm. french did make the first since christie's ideas were never approved. so he sold it to the russians to work on his flying tank.
MrCSXboy98 7 months ago
@MrCSXboy98 i think , i'm not sure , but i think they upgraded some panthers with the 88.
sander4211 5 months ago
@sander4211
Never happened.
Dreachon 5 months ago
@sander4211 Jagdpanther exactly.
shinyday 5 months ago
@MrCSXboy98 What about the T-46 II prototype tank? It had sloped 'shell-proof' armour but it wasn't chosen for productin due to difficulties. The proposed Panther II considered an 88mm gun but it wasn't officially entering production. The Jagdpanther I suppose is the only candidate for a 'Panther with an 88mm' gun even if it wasn't strictly a tank as it did have good performance as a TD and it was difficult to destroy.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@Tralgit the Tiger had the deadly 88mm, the Panther had an highvelocity 75mm ( long barreled, and had more gunpowder, so it had better penetration point).
MrSpy3000 7 months ago
@MrSpy3000 The Tiger I could inflict a bigger HE content though if it did penetrate armour of similar thickness though the PaK 42 had a better trajectory and velocity. Practically the only thing the Tiger really has is thicker side armour and it took the spots from the Panzer IV slightly earlier than the Panther which came in Kursk. Funny thing because the Tiger I is really a Panzer IV but with a bigger engine, thicker armour and a bigger gun.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@MrSpy3000 Interestingly I like the Tiger I slightly better because it was designed to 'absorb' direct hits from almost any guns whilst the Panther was designed to deflect.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@Halomaster261 Indeed - Panther commanders realized this tactical weakness hence it was necessary to keep the PaK 42 and glacis facing enemies at all times.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
i apologize for bad quality :(
legendarywar1 1 year ago 7
@legendarywar1 Its fine.
BandOfBrothers25 1 year ago
@legendarywar1 nice vid
MrCSXboy98 9 months ago
@legendarywar1 YES YES dude i found another operational panther FOR SALE The numbers on its main gun are 501
PvtMarx45 7 months ago
@legendarywar1 or it might just be the same one with a paint job :/
PvtMarx45 7 months ago