Panther: The most Controversial Panzer
Time to take a look at probably the most controversial Panzer of World War 2: the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther.
When it comes to the Panther, you usually get very emotionally charged opinions. Even among experts like David Willey, Nicholas Moran, Ralf Raths, Dr. Roman Töppel and Dr. Pöhlmann. There is quite some disagreement going on. As such we look at the various strengths, weaknesses and assessments of nowadays, post-war - like the French Report - and war-time - like the Soviet assessment of the Panther.
Disclaimer Ausf. D.: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington to Tankfest 2019.
Disclaimer Ausf. A.: I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster to Stahl auf der Heide 2019.
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Moran, Nicholas “Chieftain“: Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Panther. Part 1. World of Tanks North America, 2016
• Inside the Chieftain's...
Moran, Nicholas “Chieftain“: Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Panther. Part 2. World of Tanks North America, 2016
• World of Tanks - Insid...
Moran, Nicholas “Chieftain“: Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Panther. Part 3. World of Tanks North America, 2016
• Inside the Chieftain's...
Tank Chats #16 Panther | The Tank Museum: • Tank Chats #16 Panther...
Singer, Mark: A French Assessment of the Panther Tank
worldoftanks.com/en/news/chie...
Tank Archives: Panther Trials, 2014.
tankarchives.blogspot.com/201...
Tank Archives: Noe More Frightening than the Cat, 2019
tankarchives.blogspot.com/201...
Tank & AFV News: From the Editor: Panther Reliability, 2015
tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08...
DasPanzermuseum: Geschichte(n) aus Stahl: Liebling der Massen - der Panther (S02E04)
• Geschichte(n) aus Stah...
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2016.
Töppel, Roman: Kursk 1943. The Greatest Battle of the Second World War. Helion: Warwick, UK: 2018.
Jentz, Thomas L.: Germany’s Panther Tank. The Quest for Combat Supremacy. Schiffer Military History: Atglen, PA, USA, 1995
Spielberger, Walter J.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Panzer V Panther und seine Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Gerlingen, Germany, 2010
Zaloga, Steven: Armored Champion. The top Tanks of World War II. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, US, 2015.
Doyle, Hilary; Jentz, Tom: Panther Variants 1942-1945. Osprey: London, UK, 1997.
#Panther #PanzerV #MostControversialPanzer
The best tank destroyers are my two sons while they were growing up. They destroyed my nice 1/35 scale Panther tank and Stug III assault gun.
*makes another note into the "why I don't want children" list*
My son destroyed 3 flat screen TV. He's worth more than Gold. I think about how much I love him every day.
@@scottjoseph9578 it was a joke. Good to hear that you love your son so much. That's a sign of a good father
@@scottjoseph9578 Bless you and your son, sir. I have a 19 years old grandson now with the USAF.
@@fuckinantipope5511 I upvoted you. I mangled a lamp as a boy. Happens.
"A fat, high maintenance cat, like Garfield?" *- Military History Visualized, 2020*
Yeah thats pure gold.
A good call, and probably a good idea for a slogan for a T-shirt design.
"I eat, Jon. It's what I do!" 🐈 🍕
Let's ask enemies and panther crews and not the biassed 2000+/- x 20 years judgers in hindsight. Moran has never found any strong german military piece of equipment except , maybe Goering's poison pill (worked) or the german belt buckle, but that must have been a design copied from the british. Maybe someone should explain him that his current "tank" better known as Audi A4 is grown out of the old Porsche's genius cause he developed VW's beetle that let them grow out of ashes to later save Audi. That Ferdinand Porsche developed the first electrical car or bev presented in 1900 and the first electrical tank power train too, Just 100+x years earlier than Musk. Ask tank Museum curators and auctions if any british or american tank of WW2 has a higher demand than Panther + Tiger - except a few exotics like Hubbard funnies ! Over the last 75 years the german industry has grown at least faster than that of the british and american ... and the world must love them cause they buy it even if they are expensive ... Even Bill Gates preferred a Porsche Taycan over any american built Tesla. STUG and Tiger alone won't work. And at the end of war the production with all it shortages of supply and raw materials the Panther had grown a lot. NEVER FORGET: become a german engineer in 1943 who better makes no mistakes (otherwise military duty on the east front was offered) and fullfill all requirements of the design but DONT FORGET don't use raw materials the country does not have and waste nothing, but check all competitive designs of Beutepanzer. Pretty difficult task cause that will be the reason why some tanks were underpowered or why their engines performance did not further improve ... as in planes too.
That made me chuckle :-)
German tank crews: "But this is medium tank, what`s the problem?!" Wooden bridge: "Nope."
German Heavy Tank: >exists< Pretty much any bridge in existance: "Nope!"
Jim Taylor **Laughs in Maus, The German 180 Ton Tank**
@@noelblack8159 thanks man i was thinking about the 15 ton maus and i didnt get the joke
PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV could be converted for deep wading. As long as the water is only 15 meters deep, who needs bridges? Anyway, the Panther was able to wade only though a 1.90m depth and I am not aware of any Tauchpanzer conversion, even though that might have been possible. - Tauchpanzer III and Tauchpanzer IV had been planned to be dropped from ships into the North Sea (so they could drive to England, possibly an interesting plan - I don't know what the actual plans were, but at least I guess very few people would expect German tanks to sneakily drive inside the Thames to London). However, this plan was scrapped and 80 Tauchpanzer were used on the eastern front (where they successfully crossed the river Bug).
@@noelblack8159 What about the P-1000 "Ratte"? At 1000 tons, bridges would not have been an option. On the other hand, a tank 11 meters high would regard most rivers as a slightly moist bump in the road. Well, if the fuel lasts long enough to get it anywhere in the first place...
"Neither perfect or imperfect" So, a Schrödinger's cat then? I N T E R E S T I N G
Schrodingers Panther is a tank that is perfect and terrible at the same time.
alper akyuz True dat
Shrödinger's *panzer*
@@vozhdenko932 Schrödinger's Panzer meets the Heizenburg Uncertainty Principal... No wonder they lost the war. Good.
Schrödinger's Garfield.
Panzerkampfwagen VIII "Garfield"
this comment gonna explode like german transmissions
@@pm6214 As a joke, it was good like the german transmissions. ;)
"I eat, Jon. It's what I do!" 🐈
@@rolandhunter come on the m6 had Transmission Problems too 🥺
@@meddlus2098 Thats why they built 6,000 of them right? oh it was 80 and change and left at home for driver training? That said, I'm a little sad they were always just a bit too late on the heavy tank development. M6 was great, but M4 arrived just in time to carry the same gun with much less cost. T29 is a sweet looking heavy tank arriving to its trials being obsolete. Wonder how different the hedgerows would have gone with some M6 using 90mm and "jumbo" style frontal armor upgrade.
Guderian: ”heavier armament, better maneuverability and improved armor protection” He literally said ”the future tanks should be better in every way possible than the current one”. Thanks, Guderian.
In defence of Guderian, he's not wrong. It's not exactly some grand cosmic secret. If I wanted to a bit further, I'd need to break out my copy of Achtung Panzer again. Been a while since I read it, but I'd suggest considering how much he talked about the importance of radio, I'd expect some sort of electronic warfare capability, tactical communication and interservice communication.
I think it's more about importance. Better gun, then better rest, if able.,
actually, it's the priority order. it isn't like they needed to do them all at the same time. armanent first, manueverability second, armor last.
its simple prioritization of firepower over protection... same happened with German and French tank development after war, when Germans developed Leopard and French AMX-30.. both very capable tanks for their time, with guns capable killing heavy Soviet tanks of the era (1960 T-10) but with relatively weak armor... they did not intend to fight Soviets head to head, but by outmaneuvering them in the field and hitting them from sides while using ambush positions.. practically using US WW2 Tank Destroyer doctrine...
@@JaM-R2TR4 funnily enough, the USA has stayed with tanks like M46/47/48 and M60 for a long time
Guderian's suggestions on how to improve German tanks: "Give them more powerful guns, better armor, and make them more maneuverable." German engineers, with heavy sarcasm: "It's so simple! Why didn't we think of that!"
Guderian said : bigger gun, better mobility and then better armor in that order of priority. But then Herr Hitler intervened and insisted on more armor. This resulted in a 35 t design ballooning into a 45t obese cat running on the same engine and transmission.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Nope, Hitler wanted a 35 ton tank based on a loose copy of the T-34 that Daimler Benz had developed. It was the HWA (German Army Ordinance) that rejected Hitlers preference and chose the MAN designed 42 ton Panzer V Panther. Not Hitlers fault. He actually usually made sensible decisions regarding weapons. He did push for the up gunning and up armoring of the Panzer III and IV. His biggest mistake was probably blocking the StG 44 assault rifle which could have been in service in 1942. Even that was in part caused by internal German arguments and squabbling.
@@nkristianschmidt If you quote Bayerlein, than use the whole statement, not just the part which fits your agenda. Bayerlein discribed it's problems in Normandie, which is very special terrain for tank warfare. Bayerlein still appreciated the Panther's virtues when used in the right conditions, writing "An ideal vehicle for tank battles and infantry support. The best tank in existence for its weight" Every tank in the hedgerows of normandy sucked. That's not an environment where tanks should be operated, just like forests or Urban areas. Just because the sherman was very odd in some dimension, being very narrow and tall, with a short and stubby gun, doesn't makes it automically a better tank. The western allies were very lucky that they never met panthers significant numbers in tank country, which actually allowed big coordinated tank warfare just like on the eastern front. The one time they did it was during Operation Goodwood east of Cean which was open terrain, with large fields. They had 500 operational tank losses in less than 48 hours against a much smaller german force made out of 50% Panthers and Panzer IV and Tigers. Furthermore the Panther was not front heavy, it could climb over much larger anti tank ditches than most tanks, this it not the reasons for it's final drive issues. Having problems with the final drives was a production issue not a designe issue. But Bayerlein is qouted regularly and without the propper context, but positive reports are not very famous. Just like Bernhardt said, for every negativ report you will find a good one. There are reports were Panthers managed to operate for few thousand kilometers without any issues. But this reports doesn't get quoted. Probably because of t34 and sherman fanboys, who aren't interested in the full picture. Panthers suffered from bad metal alloys, bad oil and untrained crews. But you are blaming the designers, which designed a state of the art tank, which could be mass produced. Even Panzer IV suffered from final drive issues, bad fuel and oil. On average the combat ready rates between Panthesr and Panzer IV were actually the same throughout 1944. Panzer IVs have the reputation for being reliable. Your assessment doesnt reflect the full story.
@@williamzk9083 Every time the Daimler Benz designe competed against the Panther it lost or could not take part because of technical issues. The Waffenamt had no choice, based on the test results, they had to pick the MAN designe.
@@nkristianschmidt The Panther went from drawing board to the first mass production copies in 14 months. Only excellent engineers could do that. Such a hectic pace suggests that trials and tests were abbreviated and issues over looked. I don't know where you get your information from but it misrepresents the Panthers problems. First of all the Early Ausf D Panthers had cooling problems caused by placing the engine in a water proof aquarium to allow deep river crossings these didn't show up in the winter when testing took place. The cooling problems were initially solved with a second coolant pump and latter with better cooling system. The use of substandard materials in the fuel line hoses caused fuel leaks in the 'aquarium' that along with the over heating caused fires. -These problems were fully solved by various means and did not effect latter Ausf D, Ausf A or Ausf G Panthers. -The only gear box problem in the Panther was the TWO final drives. These are the two gearboxes that drive the track sprockets. On the Panther they were meant to be planetary gears like in the Tiger (and T34) but a shortage of gear cutting tools meant straight cut gears were used. The Sherman had double herringbone gears to engage multiple teeth at once. -The gearbox was improved with a stronger case and better lubrication but really need a planetary gearbox. -Finally we have this misinformation proably from a poor non engineer historian who can't read dates on his documents.: "Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible." -The Panther, like all German tanks, had a commanders viewing cupola. On Panzer III and IV this was a tube with twin hatches and vision slits cut into the tube. On Panther and Tiger it was the same except with 8 periscopes so that the Commander did not have to have his head in the Coppola keeping him safe in case of penetration.
When I watch so much "Military History Visualized" that when I think I hear my own voice in a German accent... LOL
His accent is Austrian.
Eidechsentyp 123 Still started the war
@@eidechsentyp1236 Austria is basically the 17th state. Even though the austrians dont see it that way. ;)
@@randomuser5443: You seem to have suffered a concussion, Mr. Fawlty.
Heinrich mir grauts vor dir constitutionally no.
I love how Guderian notes the morale effect of bigger guns, I think this is very underrated
But not their weight. The PAK 36 was popular
That was a big problem after the invasion of the Soviet Union was the feeling that the panzers were inferior to the Russian tanks especially after 1941, that’s why the whole point in guderians text was for the troops to regain a feeling of weapon superiority over the Russians
At the same time the point of the guns was not simply that they were bigger, but that they were able to stop Soviet heavy armor.
And there's nothing Freudian about it at all...
@@horusfalcon that's what I was thinking
"Cats don't conform to your wishes." -MHV 2020
mine certainly dont. u have the little black cat with shiny yellow eyes. she thinks she can take on the world and win, the other, a calico one, shes super chill. i just hope if the cats got as big as they think they are, i dont need to be in that panzer war (fucking tiger zs leopard)
@@Max-hw7xl so yours won't let you frick him? Oof
Laughs in Sturmgeschutze
Da StuH42 is quite vicious
Imagine a Stug III with a Long 75? lol
Littlefield remarked on the steel quality of the his Panther final drives that it was as good as today's. This however does not rule out the possibility of great variation in steel quality, as steel and gears are made in batches. It is also remarked that Panther final drive system was made for lighter vehicle and physical size restrictions prevented the enlargement of spur gears. It _seems_ that Panther's final drive was very prone to the quality variations in steel, something the designers might not have taken into account. In other words: if the safety factor of the spur gears was initially say 2.5, to take into account the fatigue, which then lowered in the final design to 1.5. This was still safety factor over 1, so acceptable, but it also left smaller margin of error for material quality variations and for unexpectedly heavy use, aka Russian mud (These numbers are totally made up but demonstrate the point). It is said that epicyclic gear was researched and tested but the capacity of German industry and lack of tooling couldn't make the transition to the new final drive. So, they were stuck with what they had. Secondly, if we assess Panther on the basis of tactical, operational and strategical levels, Panther and German heavy cats in general clearly tried to min-max the tactical level capabilities, with a little thought on other levels. Whereas Tigers could be seen as designs put into use they were not intended for (they were designed as breakthrough tanks, not as general heavy tanks), Panther _should_ have taken more balanced approach, if meant for general medium tank and not for TD use similar to Sherman Firefly. Panther demonstrates the fallibility of rushed development, min-maxing, change of aims (from medium to heavy tank) and the customer wanting capabilities and never using them (fording capability, never used but sealing of engine compartment caused fire hazard).
A very good and interesting comment! I wish it was higher up so more people might see it.
Speer mentioned that this drive problem reached the highest level of the Nazi government. They lost something like 35 Panthers in one morning as they rolled out to meet Patton. The result -- the war expedient that is not in the books// histories -- was to SLOW DOWN the crews. They were soon instructed to accelerate slowly -- to baby their transmissions. This resulted in a vast improvement in field results -- zipping around might be fun for the drivers -- but it had no military utility. Consequently any war gamer has to re-jigger the movement rating of Panthers to reflect this General Order. Test track numbers simply did not pan out. On the front, Panthers were no faster than a Mark IV. Most simulations also over rate the speed of a Mark VI Tiger. With elite crews ( Tigers got them ) they knew enough to not trash the engine and tranny. Still, the break-down rates for the cats were pretty BAD. No small part of this is due to sabotage by the forced-labor on the production line. Recovered Panthers -- by hobbyists -- consistently show sabotage where it's virtually impossible to spot -- without a total strip-down. Heh.
The development of the Tiger I goes all the way back to 1937, where the Germans were in effect copying their rivals in the requirement for a heavy "durchburchwagen" (break-through vehicle"). As it was tough enough to get even the new Panzer IIIs and IVs out the factory gates and issued to the Panzer divisions, the Panzerwaffe had to make do with the Panzer I and IIs, and the Czech-built 35(t) and 38(t). The development of the Tiger languished for a few years, until the surprising encounters with the Soviet T-34s and KV tanks in 1941. Their first use was in an attack near Leningrad where the ground was swampy and the tank had to stay on the road; hence, they were easily picked off by shots to the side and rear, although the Soviet anti-tank gunners were stunned at how the new behemoth easily shrugged off shots. Contrary to what's supposed, the Tigers didn't take as prominent a role at Kursk as is often thought. Indeed, at the famed battle of Prokhorovka, there was but ONE company of four Tigers, which had one knocked out due to its periscopes being shattered; they were replaced and the tank was back in service the next day. Fuel shortages which were already plaguing the Heer as much as a re-assessment of the Tiger's role on the battlefield was the reason they were relegated to the defensive role; where its thick frontal armor and powerful 88mm main weapon could allow a proficient crew to pick off enemy tanks while remaining out of effective range of enemy retaliation. That only 1,500 were produced, besides being forced by problems with AFV production overall, was further evidence the Germans never intended the Tiger to be anything but a specialized weapon with a limited role. Its legend certainly did a lot more than its actual weapons did, creating "tiger-phobia" among Allied tankers (many green soldiers mistook a Panzer IV for a Tiger, which, with armored side skirts, superficially resembled it) and a legend in comic books, TV shows, and movies which were way out proportion to the actual combat utility of the vehicle.
@@selfdo You are incorrect on one point: on paper, the Germans schemed to establish entire panzer divisions -- two battalions of Tigers ++++ and etc. However, once the man-hours were figured in, Speer (the source of this tid bit) realized that such a super-concentration of Tigers was just never going to pencil out. This then shifted over to heavy tank battalions -- to be assigned to higher commands. (corps & armies) Even so, even keeping a few heavy (regular count) battalions proved too much. So they were scaled them back down to 36 Tigers as a heavy panzer battalion. In practice, the Tiger was such a garage queen that in every account I've read, such battalions lost at least 50% of their strength after three-days. Such losses were not due to enemy action, just mechanical breakdowns in the drive train, suspension, engine.... That's why you keep reading about 'companies' of four-Tigers. The other eight are in the rear being repaired. [The rotten gasoline consumed meant that mechanics were constantly changing out spark plugs. The more one uses tetra-ethyl lead to raise octane, the quicker the plugs foul. Cold weather starts were so problematic that crews were compelled to keep their engines warm. This became a plot minor element in Kelly's Heroes.] Until the Tiger, the panzer force simply did not have independent heavy battalions. (They did have trick companies of Nashorns, etc. to spice up the panzer force. Such kluge ups were never expected to be more than a stop-gap.) [ Kelly's Heroes was filmed in pretty cold weather. The actors were wailing about it. Any colder and they'd be filming in snow. The Tigers in the film were fakes based on T-34-85 machines. (Irony alert) So, they really DID need to keep such engines warm.]
As an aside I am sure I read that the Soviets sold smelted down German tanks and associated battlefield scrap (as steel) to Italy in the 1960s .. as such the Alfa Romeo rust buckets got their reputation
Just like my missus, I love the panther even with all her flaws. She's beautiful, has a large armament, and breaks down often.
REAR END NEEDS REBUILDING...?
reddit tier joke
LOL🤣
Ok boomer.
@@djm hAhAhaAh sO fUnneH
“...tanks driving around in circles events...” LOL.
how about zoo, circus, car race, atlethic sports .... lol
Lol circles are cool and all, but the right track needs tensioning badly in the clips in this video from tankfest. Made me cringe
@@thepewplace1370 I seen the same thing...All I could see in my mind, was that that very expensive track coming off or breaking in front of the crowd...
@@thepewplace1370 I'm *thinking* that was mostly an effect of turning like that and the front-mounted drive wheel. Or at least it maybe needed a bit of tensioning, but was just exacerbated by the turn. Because earlier when it's shown driving straight ahead both tracks look fine.
@@chrisc1140 it is an effect of front drive sprocket but with a properly tensioned track It shouldnt be anything like this noticeable. Reading the memoirs of Panther and Tiger tankers and those guys were absolutely obsessed with maintaining proper tension of the tracks because they were comparatively fragile and extreme weight/strain vs "normal" 25 tons tanks. Look at around 9:15 at the free hang under the side skirt on the R side and then compare it with the L side once it turns and straightens: there appears to be a several inch difference.
German tank: *transmission breaks* Commander"Hans, grab the mp 40 and go get some more parts.* Hans:"Is the mp 40 for the Russian? We are in our own base." Commander: "No, the mp 40 is for the other panzer men. Do you think they will just give us new parts without a fight?"
And set aside the next two days to dismantle and rebuild the tank
🤣
Your comment is funny, but when you can drive a tank carefully the transmission did not break that easy.
@@spaSSkloppe tiger : are you sure ?
@@bondrewdthelordofdawn3744 jep, when you are a good driver your transmission did not break that easy as our Propaganda try to tell us. Oy vey, I hope they did not start thinking.
The Panther was the first tank I can remember seeing as a child (even though I live in the US). I will therefore, always have an irrational love for it regardless of the realities of its flaws. This was an excellent video and I applaud your work here.
Nothing irrational about it at all. Panther crews, in general, loved their Panthers too.
I don't blame you they're a beautiful looking tank.
I'm stunned the most important aspect of the Panther was omitted from this video -- the Panther was the coolest looking tank of World War Two.
Indeed. It was a sexy beast... Literally 😍
in my eyes, the Bradley IFV's hull shape does remind me of the Panther's hull shape even...
Discutable T34 from side is cool looking too when speeding in forest
@Hernando Malinche agree
@Richard McCaig Actually, it took BOTH of these.
1:27 “was the Panther the best Panzer of the Panzerwaffe or just a fat high maintenance cat like Garfield?”🤣🤣🤣
Anyone who has driven a car from the 1960's knows how imperfect mechanics were then. Breakdowns were regular. Radiators boiling up. The infamous "brake fade" on steep hills. The tanks from 20 years earlier would have suffered all the same engineering problems. In a tank everything is pushed to the limit - and at times it will fail.
I have no nostalgia for the days of points and condensers, float carburetors, and of cars being considered "over the hill": at 100k on the odometer, or less.
3:36 go figure. The Panther isn't the only tank to have been rushed from the drawing board to production with no testing, and with disastrous results. The British did it multiple times, most notably with the Covenanter cruiser tank. The designers were so rushed that they forgot to include a cooling mechanism for the engine. As a result, the Covenanter was only ever used as a training tank and even then it was notoriously unreliable.
I'm gonna play hoi4 and rename my panther tanks to Garfield tanks.
Ethiopia wished it had Panther tanks in 1936. They would have slaughtered the Fascist Italians resulting in Mussolini being beheaded by his own people Ethiopia sells some of its Panthers to France, Poland, China, Czechoslovakia and the UK through its Eriteria territory The Panthers do help the Chinese in fighting the Japanese Czechoslovakia says no to Germany and goes to war. Hitler dies in a coup Soviet Union invades Japan Deaths reduced from 60 million to 5 million
Make sure to invest some XP in reliability!
@@christiandauz3742 Correction: soviets invade Europe and "liberate" it from capitalism and democracy, including Britain. Then starts war with USA, while Japan concurs Asia unrivaled. Death increased from 60 million to 300 million.
@@ScienceDiscoverer Uh, I doubt the Soviets would take on all of Europe They only invaded Poland because it was isolated and the Nazis did most of the heavy lifting In this Alternate WW2 the Soviets take Manchuria and Korea from Japan A divided Germany is no match for Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and UK. Allies are simply too powerful NATO has Eastern Germany, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia Communists Pact has Korea and Manchuria
I really love your way to explain things. English is not my native language, and your German accent sometimes confuses me, but I really like your channel. Keep up the good work!
I have always thought that the Panther would have been an amazing tank if developed during peace time. Some tanks that came later, and are considered very good, took longer to develop than the Panther's entire lifespan. Being rush into production most definitely hurt it. As for the final drive, it was fixed... in the JagPanther. Which used helical cut gears instead of straight cut gears. But the time and tooling changes to make this change to the main line Panther was thought to be too long, so the change was not made.
Germans had problems with steel quality as they lacked many vital materials in big enough quantities. And one of the major industries hit by this was the bearing industry. The fact that all final drives became more unreliable and the fact that HL 230 engine kept failing because of bad bearings, suggests to me that major role in brake downs was played by bad quality bearings. Even soviets noted that bearings on german Tiger II final drive failed easily. Bearings need high quality materials to withstand enormous forces. Panthers final drive initially kept failing because the outer housing split in one specific weak area where transmission shaft connects to the final drive. Material there is just on the edge of being too thin and they couldn't make it any thicker because there was simply no room for extra material. They did manage to figure out how to reinforce outer housing which greatly improved reliability of the final drive. One of the design flaws with Panthers final drive, in my opinion atleast, was the fact that they made it double reduction which increases potential failure points by 50% in the area of gear reduction compared to single reduction. For double reduction you need two extra bearings. Not good if you already have poor quality bearings causing problems on simpler single reduction final drives. Panther was one of the very few if not the only heavy vehicles that used double reduction final drive. Everything else used single reduction for obvious reasons. One of the things that could have improved reliability of final drives was if they had enough tooling to make helical, double helical or even herringbone gears. They wanted to do this but because they lacked tooling, they were forced to go with straight cut gears. Also they designed a new final drive but it was not a straight swap with the old one. New final drive needed new larger sprocket wheel and possibly modifications to the hull of the vehicle. They did make several Jagdpanthers and Bergepanthers with this new final drive at the end of 1944 but it did not go into mass production. So the conclusion is: Yes, Panthers final drive was flawed in design but most likely major problem were poor quality bearings.
The original Panther final drive was to have been a planetary gear but shortages of machine tools and a 4000/year production rate meant straight cut simple pinion gear was chosen. The final Ausf F was to get the planetary gear since weight had grown to 50 tons.
M26 Pershing and the Centurion also used double reduction gears. Seems like plus 40 ton tanks needed it, if not a planetary typ. I dont think it was flawed designe choice to use a double reduction gear.
@@williamzk9083 No the Panther II hull was tested with Tigers planetary final drive. The F would not be heavier than a G.
@@HaVoC117X The Panther Ausf F frontal hull Armour went from the 85mm of Ausf G to 120mm on Ausf F. It had a smaller but much more heavily armored turret (40%). Weight went from about 45 tons to nearly 50 tons.
@@williamzk9083 The weight of the Panther F should be 45.5t. F ist not based on the Panther 2 hull it's a G hull with a Schmalturm.
"Tanks driving around in circles events" lmfao ...
Sounds like 6 to 12 months more development time would have helped this tank tremendously.
And access to the materials needed to produce specialised steels. See KeeblerOrc's comment above.
The hard reality was the development was entirely subject to the course of the war.
Germany didn't have the time and materials in that frame of time.
@@chocoman45 Exactly. And if German was silly enough to design a tank which needed that much time to develop, then more fool them.
@@thethirdman225 Well you know by Operation Citadel they thought they still had a chance of beating back the Soviets. The Panther had problems, but at least its not the Elefant. In my opinion they should have spent more time improving their already working designs. Pumped out beefed up III's and IV's or went deeper to the Stug life.
"The Germans named it after a cat!" Yeah, and everyone knows that cats are high maintenance prima donas!
I sometimes have problems with your pronunciation, as it is not the best, but this you more than make up for with showing the written citations and your clear annotation. There is a lot of nonsense spewed by other self-proclaimed "experts" of whom you cannot to the least trace back where they got their information from. You give accurate, well-researched info from good sources. Much respect from me!
I think an important consideration that people tend to neglect is the fact that the Panther was never supposed to be the state of the art super tank. It lacked many of the finer features found on the Tiger such as the more sophisticated gear box and steering system and opted to use cheaper and more available units. Simple operation and mass production was considered throughout the design phase. Though there were potentially better gearboxes, drive systems and engine components; they were deemed not ready for mass production or simply were not mature enough in their developments. It's such a hugely complicated subject because it doesn't just boil down to MAN. Just like virtually all of Germany's military hardware; much of the smaller components are outsourced to smaller firms. On a side note I find it strange that despite using Spielberger's work as a source you came to your final thought on the Panther. I get the impression that the companies that approached the contract followed the specification quite closely and really didn't have the thought of a 'tank destroyer' in mind. After all both the Panzer III & IV would get substantially thicker frontal armor and one has a hard time considering them purpose built tank destroyers. Mind you I'm reading the janky english version of Panther and its Variants so I don't know.
The question of what is or is not a "tank destroyer" has as much to do with military doctrine ... how the army in question used them ... as it does with gun/armor thickness etc. The Chieftain has a long discussion of US tank destroyers which goes into this topic in detail.
Yes, the English translation of German literature, can be clunky. I'm also an American, so I speak and prefer reading material written in American. It's Color, not colour. And a truck is something is a whole vehicle. You get my drift.
@Michael Pearce "Germany was in short supply of nickel and used a minimum amount in forging it’s steel. That’s why German tanks were designed with interlocking steel plates so as to have more surface to weld together. " The big decline in German armour production quality comes after early 1944 when the manganese mines at Nikopol were lost to the Red Army. Once the existing manganese stocks were run down, the steel companies experimented with a molybdenum mix, which produced a hard plate. It's not certain whether this by itself would have produced the over-hardened (and thus fragile) plates seen on late-war German tanks as there are questions about whether the rolling techniques in the steel mills was not correctly adapted to the molybdenum-based armour plates. There's a good discussion from back in 1996 by an academic on the subject of armour-plate production here: yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html
@Michael Pearce Sorry, forgot to add that the "blown apart from internal explosions" are much more often the result of demolition charges being set to destroy abandoned panzers.
@Michael Pearce It was decent at tactical mobility, but its strategic mobility was among the worst. Shermans on the other hand weren't all that good in soft terrain, but you could throw them into 400mile marches and expect to have most arrive in good working order ready to fight. Even the Churchill being slower than some buildings were pretty good on the strategic side of things because the British paid attention and worked hard to ensure it would arrive at the fight. Germany can't say the same of the Panther despite a defensive fight not requiring movement towards the enemy.
It should be noted that later in the war, Germany was focused more on producing tanks rather than producing spare parts for those tanks because they wanted as many fielded tanks as possible. . . They kinda forgot that there's no point to producing a tank if it can't fight
Better yet no point if you lack the fuel or have to resort to alternate fuels just to power your training tanks when training drivers.
You don't need spare parts if it breaks down on the battlefield, and there are no trains left to haul it back to Germany to fix it... one time use/fielding over-engineered DISPOSABLE tank (destroyer?).
The Soviets did the same thing though? Their emphasis was produce as many tanks as possible and sort out the problems later.
@@shaneboardwell1060 thing is, the Soviets didn't make so many variants of their tanks that it would cause multiple issues to their industry unlike the Germans and they have a better sense of prioritization in comparison
@@fulcrum2951 That's pretty true. The Soviets could get away with it though because often times when say a T 34 broke down the tank crew would just hop in another tank because they had so many of them. The industrial output between the two countries just can't be compared.
Love how the symbol for Chieftain with his notable hat.
Awesome video. I have worked with engineers from the USA, parts of Asia and most Europe. I found your documentary the same as i find the engineers i worked with. You have approached the topic from a neutral perspective, researched information from multiple subject matter experts, and presented the information in an unbiased fashion. When i heard your accent i was expecting a biased portrayal, however i was happy to feel freedom to assess the facts on my own, unlike a lot of timely productions. In truth i have had the same experience working in Germany, each time i was assessed on my working performance alone.
I never heard it before but it makes good sense - Panther was a heavy, turreted tank destroyer. Maybe that's why comparisons with medium and even heavy tanks have never seemed quite right.
Several points: 1) German industry was having major problems with its metallurgy to the extent that a large number of Type 9 U-boats were built as material carriers to carry required trace metals threw blockaded waters. This fallowed that previously highly ductile hardened face armor became very brittle armor and failed to preform and became worse as the war continued. Also as the ductility of materials for the over stressed final drives continued failure was inevitable. Add the lack of all rubber like material used for hoses and gaskets. 2) New technologies were introduced, some good and some bad... for instance the main gun firing system was introduced that used an electrical current to fire the fuse of the 75 mm round... It was fantastic in trials and would prevent many tanks from exploding if a penetrating hit occurred, but in practice dust and dirt could prevent the gun from firing in combat. All new concepts when rushed can cause unexpected failures... This was wartime. 3) As the war progressed most weapon systems were pushed way beyond their intended purpose as well as shortages in manpower, training, supply, time and moral... The Panther was a maintenance hog and could not receive the required maintenance before being pushed to a new mission. 4) As to medium or heavy... its design started as a medium but that's not the point.... It was created to fulfill a mission at a specific time which is so often overlooked. When the Pz4 came out it was a rather heavy tank, a year later it was a medium.
The difference between a medium tank and a heavy one is mobility. Some say M26 was a heavy, and its the new steering system made it more mobile. As soon as Germans tried using this tank as a medium it failed. But as a heavy tank (with .better trained crews, longer maintenance times and less combat range), it did work. Soviets saw it, and said that its a heavy tank, that Germans use on a far larger scale. Soviets had the best scale. Up to 18 tones is a light. Up to 40 is a medium. And The engineer equipment like pontoon bridges were designed to support light or medium tanks. German heavy tractors had to ask witch type of a 'medium tank' do they had to pull, while the new bergepanther recovery tanks were meant to pull both the new 'mediums' and heavies, tho they may have been in units that have no heavy tanks. Germans are fooling themselves when calling it a medium and when calling IS-2 a superheavy.
@@Paciat To be fair more general history naming something heavy or medium have nothing to do with weigh but with purpose, so in that sense panther was medium tank becasue it was doing medium tank role. And btw he didnt mention terrible weigh of this tank, which is super high for such armor gun etc. Comparison to west alliance big gun shermans or TD are not quiet good because that was much lighter vehicles. And I remember how tight turret was in chieftain video, in such big tank ;)
@@swietoslaw Why do you think the turret of a heavy tank has to be much wider, apart from having a bigger gun? The crew has to spend more time in a divisional tank, while specialized heavy tank brigades are pulled of the front faster. So the crew comfort should be higher in a medium tank. And the Soviets notice that Germans arent using Panthers like other tanks. So unless Germans redesign their logistics, their engineer units etc Panther will be a heavy divisional tank. Witch history proved is a bad idea.
@@Paciat But panther was use about the same (from what I know) as Pz IV, so as medium tank
@@swietoslaw Panthers wouldnt be build it if it was the same as a PzIV.
Having read several extensive accounts from crewmen of the Panther who fought many battles in them, I have to note the almost universal praise they seem to garner from such crews. The men who fought in them appeared to love them. Surely that counts for a great deal, no?
You would think so yes. Same with the Tiger veterans. Sadly it seems that armchair experts know better.
You are absolutely correct.
Tactical aspects are good. Strategic aspects are poor. Outnumbered all the time, strategically, always lost.
The soldiers are prime to enjoying a tanks hard stats, but are unaware of the logistical and industrial problems they may have. Additionally someone can still love something even if it's a little shit.
@@scottjoseph9578 That's not a fault with the tank design, so much as it is symptom of the situation the Germans found themselves in.
"I break transmissions, Jon. It's what I do."
"its time to kick affordability off the table"
Panther was also noted as having issues with turret traverse. It was slow unless the engine was at a high RPM and couldn't traverse it's turret on moderate inclines. However I 100% agree with you & Chieftain.
*Laughs in Panther A’s excellent turret traverse.* -From a War Thunder player.
Only the panther d had that problem
@@mrwehraboo5478 I'm pretty sure it was across all production variants.
@@mrwehraboo5478 What they are referring to with "moderate inclines" is an entry in the French post-war report. What Chieftain et al don't mention is the context of the report - there was French Army politics at work there about future tank design. The 150km figure strikes me as highly suspicious since it really doesn't mesh with the ability of the Panther units to move longer distances without regular breakdowns (the unit strength-returns just don't validate this theory). I find it very hard to believe that this idea of moderate inclines (20 degrees or more) shutting down the hydraulic turret-drive since this problem is not mentioned either in German official testing, British post-war testing or in official or unofficial reports from the fighting units. Frankly that French report needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
@Michael Pearce you literally made no arguments over why the Centurion was overrated. You just shouted "Centurion Bad! Centurion Bad!"
"so take this part with a lot of salt, ideally from Jingles Salt Mines Ltd." Großartig ... U made my day
Excellent. I particularly enjoyed your fresh takes on an old subject. Thank You. I subscribed.
Your vids helped get me through this year. Bravo.
Helping with the algorithm
Engage!
Al Gore rhythm! 😀
@@TheCimbrianBull an Al Gore joke? God I feel old. Thank you.
As I see it , the beauty of the Sherman Firefly verses the Panther tank , is that the Firefly was an evolution built upon established technology , which meant that any problems were literally known ahead of time , whereas the " big kitty " was an unknown quantity whose true role had yet to be established , before it was rushed into service ( the engine , from what I have heard , could be somewhat temperamental ) .( correct me if you think I'm wrong )
"no plan survives contact with the enemy"--->"everybody's got a plan until they're hit in the face" - Mike Tyson
Tyson said it , but there's better men to quote
Flaws are what make it my favourite WW2 tank. It's so interesting to look at the contradictions in its design and try to understand why certain decisions were made in its design. If it was as perfect as some people consider it, it'd be boring. The Sherman was a good design, but it's never really tickled my interest because of that.
This was excellently done, and i loved the unbiased lens you managed to look at it through. This brilliantly lays out its flaws, its perception by its users and enemies, and its strengths. It makes a point about what made it unique, and comes to a proper conclusion. really well done.
What flaws? Inconvenient road wheel placement? Overly complicated production methods? Limited production lines? If they had as many of these as the Russians had t-34s then you would have a very different perception of the panther
@@scottsanders4589 i sincerely hope you are not serious. they made 6000, which is no small amount. thats more than the number of IS-2s by a wide margin, and the IS-2 is considered a wonderfully adequate tank for the war.
'Nock it off with them negative vibes! It's a beautiful tank, baby!' Oddball-The-Greatest :-)
It's piece of junk.
The fuel system leaks all over the place!
Other tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours so the most we can do is, like, scare them away y'know.
Still impressed you provide references. Keep up the good work!
thanks, I think that is the way it should be done.
The amount of research that goes into this is amazing.
The design of the tank sure lends itself to support your views. I was struck by a report from the Aberdeen facility that noted that the Pather was immune to the 76mm in the frontal arc but the sides and rear could be penetrated starting at 2,500 yards to 4,250 yards. Also the optics with the small field of view and good magnification lend themselves to a sniper type of role. Steve's book on Eslenborn ridge highlights a number of things, the poor crew training, the lack of protection to everywhere but the front, as not being a great design for a generalized tank.
It would have been interesting to see how good it could have been if it had been allowed full term development.
Nail - head - hit. That's the key in my view. Rushed production and the need to constantly play 'catch-up' didn't give this kitty the best chance. However, you can bet that the whole design concept was pored over post-war with much of it incorporated into the next generation of AFVs.
1945: german engineer: Finally! I made it! Ze optimal panther design! *thicc russian accent in the background: excelent comrade, now off to gulag you go!
@@robertstallard7836 It still influences German design.
@Hernando Malinche I didn't fault them. You accused me of it. Different.
@@ElDesperado7 Yep. They didn't copy it, interesting. I suspect because the Russians have very few original ideas that work.
06:07 "...unless the kitten is properly disassembled". Playing it close to the PG-13 rules ;-)
What
Love your videos. You've got a great take on everything.
The Panther was an excellent panzer! Initially it was rushed into combat before it was fully ready and available in large numerous! It had a good power to weight ratio good armor and firepower! In spite of deteriorating war conditions
I really like your "comic relief" in this video. The cat analogy was "purrfect". Does that make a Panther Abteilung a herd of cats?
:D
I appreciate your in video use of primary sources. Particularly Contemporary German ones. Great vids!
Panther, Centurion and T-44 where Genesis of post war tank design begin. Edited: possibly can add M-26 too since the end of the line are M-60
The Panther didn’t influence any post war tank. Both countries that used it; Germany and France, adopted a lighter than contemporary western tank with better mobility. Also the 75mm while being good at punching holes in steel was starting to become obsolete before the war ended. The Russians had the D-10 100mm rifle by 1944 which surpassed it easily in both anti armor and HE capability.
@@packr72 Absolutely. The Panther was a dead-end design. The Centurion was miles ahead of the Panther in every important aspect. Likewise, the T-54 was the genesis of all Soviet tanks, and took nothing from the Panther.
@@boxhawk5070 "The Centurion was miles ahead of the Panther in every important aspect" What are you talking about, the Centurion of 1945 was basically a British Panther. After 5 years of meddling with crusier and infantry support designs, the new cruiser was developed, until it resembled to a Panther or a proto MBT. Ironically just like the Panther it became heavier an bigger with limitations dropped, something you will never hear from Centurion lovers and panther bashers. The panther had the curse of ending on the defeated side, and Germany wasnt building tanks for the next 15 years, thats all that was to it, otherwise it would have been further developed.
Not the Panther. It was a dead end.
@@DD-qw4fz The only thing the Centurion had in common with the Panther is that they were both tanks.
My Grandfathers final vehicle in WW2 was the Panzerjager IV L/70. It had the Panther gun and it was deadly accurate
Doesn't accuracy depend a large part on the person firing?
@@KonstantinKonstantinovic-xf3qt yes and the type of gun The L70 was extremely accurate. From what I read and remember from what he said there wasn’t a lot of elevation needed. The the round was very fast. Opa used to say Bang ZIPP! Dead!
"Tanks driving around in circles events" I love how you phrase things!!!
thanks!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized About Panther vs T-34-85. “Quantity has a quality all its own.” ― Joseph Stalin. From Wikipedia. In the entire war, production figures for all Panther types reached no more than 6,557, and for all Tiger types (including the Tiger I and Tiger II) 2,027. Production figures for the T-34-85 alone reached 22,559.
Good video, good conclusion. I always wonder how the Panther and the King Tiger would have performed if the german industry would have been able to work without being under constant attacks and with an unhampered flow of raw materials like the American and Russian industry.
I like the video a lot. I think your balanced view is perfect. That principle, of design doesn't mean equal use, is a very good one seen throughout ww2 and all conflicts. The most important downside to any design, not tested throughly, is that there will be teething problems and the panther is one great example of what not to rush. Good video. Love the channel.
False: The most controversial cat was the movie cats.......
SouthParkCows88 "Cats is the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs."
"Cats" isn't controversial, it is universally disliked.
No controversy old boy. I think its a unified front against that horror movie
I thought that movie was quite yiffy, thank you very much. :P
@@FirstDagger "I didn't lose, I just failed to win!"
Love the symbol for "cats don't conform to your wishes"! :-D
Reminds me of the bumper sticker, “Dogs have owners, cats have staff. “
Just discovered you.... amazing work loved the video!
If it looks right, it probably is. Very well analyzed and entertaining. A couple of interesting additions--yes the final drive was a trouble spot---and yes the tank grew in weight, but a couple of things that were emphasized by German tank vets who drove Panzer V's....Gun, Mobility (suspension, ground pressure, power, ease of control), vision, planning, communications---and of course Armour protection. These vets emphasized that if your boot would sink in to the earth above the sole, a Panther could easily traverse where enemy tanks would struggle (suspension, control, planning). Second--the suspension was exceptionally smooth. Though they didn't have the Sherman's gyro-stabilized gun, their Pkw V's could actually get accurate shots off on the move because of the incredibly long travel of the suspension----something witnessed by my friend who was a Sherman tank commander in '44/'45, who also confirmed Sherman commanders knew to avoid P-V's unless they outnumbered and happened to surprise a "loner" and had a side shot---always attacking German motor convoys at un-protected weak spots. This American vet was also one who said it was well known that the Panther gunners could not just hit a Sherman from 1500 meters, but they were able to put a shell through an open visor at that distance---true or not that was his belief and fear/respect is an important factor. (like the ripping sound of an MG42 for which, apparently, a film had to be produced to try to calm the nerves of the infantry about to face it) The German tank vets also echoed Guderian----with an experienced crew---(most important they said was commander and driver), they feared no enemy tank in tank v tank---aircraft were a different story although it's interesting to note that several claimed they shot down enemy aircraft among their "kills". Lastly----when he was alive our neighbor Jacques Littlefield who rebuilt a Panther---and a friend of ours was also the chief technical mechanic who confirmed this----said that in restoring several German military vehicles from WW2 it was not uncommon to find cigarette butts and other materials in key oil passages--particularly those serving final drives and indeed they did find that in the P-V they were restoring apparently....which they attributed to clear examples of sabotage. But JL did also tell us that compared to the Sherman's robust spur gears, the Panther's finer final drive gears did appear too light for such a powerful tank.
Provided it had an open field of fire and didn't have to move very far, the Panther was a good tank. Just like the Tiger, on the defensive it was formidable. For a fast moving offensive, it just didn't work out as hoped. Germany being chronically short of fuel didn't help matters.
The Tiger was indeed good on the defensive but it was actually meant to be used offensively, it just didn't get many chances to due so.
Great episode! The Panther remains my favorite German tank of WW2. One thought occurred many times during this episode - this clearly isn't a blitzkrieg tank that would charge its way over large fields into the teeth of the enemy. Its name actually sums up this tank's strengths for tactical usage - waiting concealed for the perfect time to pounce with a killing blow. Just like a panther.
Except its huge, even taller than tiger. It simply excelled in no rolle what so ever
Except a tank is an offensive weapon, tank destroyers are defensive. Being the size of a small house, no roof sight, and a cartoonishly long gun makes use in ambush problematic. It's taller than a Sherman, which is bemoaned for being soooo tall. But being defensive makes the final drive less an issue.
@@drudgenemo7030 Well stated and just as the Germans found out.
One of the best presentations in the series. Thank you.
This video was a cut above. Excellent
Every new tank will have teething problems, the Panther especially since it was rushed from drawing board to front line service. The Sherman (early ones anyway) used an aircraft engine thus requiring high octane aviation gasoline, not something you want in your tank as it begins to burn. Good video, thank you.
The M4 burned at a similar rate to other AFV's of the period, this however had nothing to do with the gasoline engine (almost every other tank building nation used gasoline engines) but with poor ammunition storage, which was remedied by adjustments to training/regulations and a reconfiguring of the design (the later addition of wet stowage). something interesting to note is that the workhorse of the Panzer arm the PZ IV burned at a similar rate due to the same issue of poor ammunition stowage, in this case though it was never remedied.
To add to the other two comments, Diesel engines were considered for some tanks not because they were less prone to fires but becuase they were simpler, cheaper, generated more torque and diesel was faster and cheaper to produce than petrol. Research by the operating armies, especially the US and the British found that most catastrophic tank fires were caused by the ammunition, either by a penetration cooking the ammunition stowed in the tank off, or, when a slower burning fuel fire eventually reached the ammunition stowage and cooked the rounds off. And thats the important part, CATASTROPHIC fires were usually caused by ammunition cook offs, fuel fires tended to be slower to spread and burned far cooler. A fuel fire alone rarely killed a tank. This is not to mention the fact that almost every WWII tank that I can think of had both automated and manual firefighting systems located in the engine bay (usually carbon dioxide) that could be tripped by the crew in the fighting compartment. That is not something a crew could do if shell splinters cook off the ready rack!!
Aviation gas is no more flammable than regular gas. High octane is not the same as high volatility.
The G model performed well enough in the field after some of the initial faults were overcome but the series was unable to fully utilize the potential offered by the complex design. Armor quality was very good until bombing induced shortages reduced it's effectiveness. Main armament was very effective. The design flaws range from an overly maintenance intensive suspension and drive / transmission layout to retaining the initial, lighter weight design's weak spur gear for final power transmission to the front drive sprocket; generally too complex a design for a war of attrition that the Reich could not sustain. The Tiger series matched the Panther V in complexity. Both designs hindered efficient manufacturing and maintenance at a time when Germany desperately needed to field armor to counter the massive quantities of tanks produced by the Soviets and Americans.
if you go and read a comment you will see that it wasnt that hard to produce
@@ulfenburg7539 but it was hard to maintain. and for the time it took to build 1 tiger or panther, ussr could pump out at the very least 3 t-34s due to their absurd simplicity
@@bassbusterx k i already know but find the other comment i was talking about and see his knowlegde
Apparently even t this late stage of the war the Panzer IV was still a pretty competitive tank, and they could have produced 2-3 Pnzer 4's for every Tiger . (Yes, thats the Tiger, not the Panther, but I'm sure it was still better than a 1-1 ratio.) So given that as authoritative voice as Rommel remarked that the big thing on the Eastern Front was numbers, would they have been better off producing as many Panzer Iv's as possible and delaying the production of the Panther and Tiger until some more of these problems were ironed out?
@@austinpundit6321 another thing to consider was fuel availability. Germans did not have fuel to run more tanks than they actually had. I do not know what is the fuel consumption difference between a Panther and a Pz IV, but perhaps even if they produced 3x as many Pz IVs as they did Panthers they would not have enough fuel to run them.
Excellent, MHV! I love your conclusion. Just great!
You did an excellent review the this tank. Thank you.
"Panther: shitty transmission, great gun. We are going to need both."
CoH2?
@@antoinesanfacon7934 Da, comrade.
I get the feeling that "light, medium, heavy" tank designations are equally decided by perception as they are by actual size and weight.
I really like your point about rushed design; combat is a rough place to work out design flaws. Thanks for the video, very good work.
I would have thought that the difficulty of maintenance should have been in this assessment. Never the less this is masterful analysis.
What difficulty in maintenance? Don't listen to Chieftain.
Calling it a tank desyroyer is an interesting concept I hadn't thought of it before
It's gun was great in AP but because of firing pressure the HE wasn't as good as say the Sherman 75 or 76(same problem for the 76 but less so) or the t34. Less than the L42 panzer 4 even. Tank vs tank is generally regarded as 40% or less of a tank's job. The panther was optimized for killing tanks at long ranges in open environments(very narrow FOV on the optic, slow traverse, lack of a commanders override to help get the gunner on target, no unity or roof sight). Armor was heavily biased to the front suggesting that close engagements was something to be avoided(the side armor sans the skirtzen, which was developed for this problem, was vulnerable to antitank rifles, and the skirtzen only added 5mm of protection). Just about anything called a cannon would penetrate the side or rear, the front was relatively impervious to medium tanks at 1000 yards. Very specialized tank. In that niche very good. Outside that niche? Well they lost the war and most postwar customers preferred its opposition.
Panther: My under-one-year development is unique in history! P-51 Mustang: What was that you just said?
The original version of the P-51 went from order placement to prototype rollout in 102 days, and first flight in 149 days. Also, why did you have to be so rude in your response?
No, it just had poor high altitude performance until fitted with the Merlin engine. The A version still had its uses.
Engineer:"there's still hours of field testing before the tank is perfect" Hitler:"are you daft? A battle with the Soviets is a field test for the Panther"
Driving off the rear axle sprocket will puts track slack along the top return. This keeps the loaded track under tension so less likely to ride off the wheels. The Panther drives from the front axle. The track slack can be clearly seen in the tank museum films. That risks it riding off but also risks higher shock loads in the transmission as back-lash is taken up.
Heavier armament - higher tactical maneuverability - improved armor protection. All in one vehicle? That sounds straightforward enough...
Technically Guderian laid out a priority order not a list of expectations. Do note the man considered firepower and mobility more important than armour.
In an alternate history where Germany doesn’t go insane and try to fight the world the panther is regarded as one of the finest tanks ever built, that overcame initial teething problems to serve well into the mid 60s as the primary medium tank and early main battle tank of the german army before being replaced by the leopard 1 In this cursed timeline it was rushed into production by a resource starved nation trying to fight everyone at once and remains an imperfect and unfinished design
underrated comment.
there would be no panther we know without encounter with t34s
If the germans had any sense they should just have tried to take eastern europe and russia before poland got protected by the allies, maybe take some years to create a powerful navy and then invade western europe. Or develop nukes, that'd be fun lol
i think this is my favorite of your videos. you basically echoed my thoughts on this machine, or maybe i echoed yours. either way we are on the same page. great job brother.
That was an excellent piece of technical analysis w an extremely fair consideration of the Panther's good and bad, as well as suggesting it might have been the square peg for the round hole. Thank you for sharing your efforts w us. What I will say is I'd have a very bad feeling in my gut if I looked out the turret of my IS2 or Firefly because I am staring at death, one is not leaving the field. If I was in a Sherman, I'd be saying, "come on boys, lets go find a latrine somewhere" because when the Panther sees us we'll all be crapping our pants.
"... and I'm not finished yet". Ooh, that authoritative voice. I hear echoes of panzer commanders barking orders from their cupolas.
DAS IST NICHT FERTIG!
It all fun and games until the transmission stops working
@Michael Pearce A tank that fires without the ability to reposition is a dead tank. Its just a question of how long it takes to realize that.
I agree, ze transmission keeps breaking
Great video again. The one liners were awesome. The mobility job of the tank mechanical issues are more endurance issues after the first models. The fuel leaks and other problems would they have existed without B-24 interruptions of the production lines? And are the transmission problems also a result of declining German steel quality by 44? As someone said maybe it needed another 12 to 16 months development. There aren’t many complaints about turret traverse, ammo storage, gun maintenance, the other job of a tank. But as a former US panzer Hauptmann in the 80s, in 1945 the only other tank Ild want to be in is a Pershing. Both are fast, armored, maneuverable, reliable for the days battle, and have an ass kicking gun with great sights. The panther will keep me alive to deal with mechanical issues after the battle. And a live veteran tank crew is more than worth it’s weight in gold.
Something i don’t think I heard mentioned about the round counts that I picked up from the chieftain. I think you did a good job pointing out some ways that you expect higher round counts per kill but he mentioned the propensity to keep shooting at a tank after it’s disabled. This I believe was in a talk about tanks and their burn rates, where he reminded the audience: if you punch a hole, you might kill the crew or they may bail out and temporarily disable the tank but that tank may easily go back to combat in a short time. So to ensure that the tank is not easily re employed you may keep shooting until it is on fire, then the tank is considerably more difficult to fix. This also results in a lot of rounds used for “1 kill” but not to say it was necessary, strictly speaking.
The Panther in my option was an outstanding tank. Speed, mobility, crew protection and fire power.
But "moody"
With problens like many others tanks, as the war was going they would make more improvements
@@WesleyKwong by the time they would have fixed the panther to a usable state the centurion would have been on the battlefield and then it wouldn’t matter anymore
@@BeaufighterGaming As they did with the Sherman firefly? With few numbers and high priority of fire by German's tank crews? Even the americans struggling to put the Pershing in action and when was put Tiger I crews immediately could put an end to them ( one time a tiger shell did go through between the driver's seat so everyone bailed out ) centurion was made between no big wars, so there was no rushing to production without properly testing and searches for eventual failures... In contrast with most German's tanks that was profusely tested before being put at mass production...
@@WesleyKwong to be honest the tigers didn’t really matter at this point, almost all Germany tanks were panzer 4’s with a couple being panthers. Most of the tiger 1’s had been destroyed and there were only 100ish tiger 2’s functional at one time. The centurions armour could withstand the short 88 easily and could shrug off the long 88’s and 75’s as well, but that doesn’t really matter because it was unlikely the cent would even see a tiger or panther, it would almost all the time be fighting infantry and towed anti tank guns and if it was fighting tanks it would be fighting stugs and panzer 4’s
I love these videos that go against common perceptions. That's when I feel like I actually learn something.
At the same time just because something goes against the conventional wisdom doesn't make it true...
That ending was not only poetic, and beautiful, but quite touching.
Awesome video Man. Well done.
Well done! You prove the frase "Germans have no humour" to be false. "Some" must be added and "no" must be removed. Also greetings from my cat Faust.
It was a great tank when they got the bugs worked out but, it was pretty much over by then.
Yes indeed. By then, Germany faced even bigger materials and other resources issues so even with most of the bugs ironed out, the whole strategic situation meant it hardly mattered.
03:10 - a similar feat was in the Royal Navy’s adoption of the 15” naval gun without prior testing, based on the 13.5” on existing dreadnought battleships. First fitted on the Queen Elizabeth class, these were a great success. It CAN happen.
Great video - Panther is a great looking tank and some really good specs - but besides the automotive issues with the Panther - my big issue with the Panther is this from the French report from 1947: “Aside from his periscope gunsight (which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind” Hard to beat the enemy if you can’t see him - from everything I’ve read is the 1st tank that shoots usually wins in a fight.
Great analysis here. Good work! Thank you for translating all the technical information to English. Of course, you could always do such in French too! I joke of course. ;)
Great presentation. I think the Panther was the best looking tank on either Allied or Axis side of the war.
You know it's funny because my first thought upon seeing the Soviet examinations of the Panther was, "Sooo it's a Heavy Tank Destroyer with a turret."
Tiger 1 design was badass, it was legendary. They should have upgraded what they had and made more not venture in new designs with so many flaws
Yes agree.they should have also redisigned the panzer 4 with sloped armour. Quicker and easier.