Five Things About the Panther with The Chieftain - World of Tanks

[@ArchusKanzaki]

"German obviously cannot match the Allies in quantity. Quality was the only solution they had. Unfortunately the quality overmatch they needed was not in the realm the industry can produce" really sums up late-German war machines development. It is basically desperation as the only other options, is to just roll over and surrender.

[@ulissedazante5748]

To be honest, it's hard to think anyone anywhere could create a wunderwaffe tank so effective. That hypothetical tank needed sort of a John Wayne effectiveness - three Indians rolling dead in a ditch for every single shot fired plus no more than a flesh wound for every five hundreds shot fired by the other side

[@88porpoise]

@@ulissedazante5748 Yeah, it was near impossible. But winning a war of numbers was simply impossible.

[@ArchusKanzaki]

@@ulissedazante5748 that's why its called desperation which birthed things like Maus, or Ratte's land battleship concept. Most alternative games featuring Alt WW2 where German is winning usually features some kind of Wunderwaffen that is several generations ahead of Allies like Wolfenstein.

[@Stardude78]

@kevin barker Operation Valkyrie was too little too late. Operation Cobra and Bagration were days away. It would have only lead to the complete collapse as it would have tied up the replacement army one way or another.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@kevin barker well, the Stauffenberg Gruppe did not plan to beg for peace with everyone, only with the USA, the UK and France, while they intended to continue their war of annihilation (Vernichtungskrieg, War of annihilation directed vs the population) in the east and continue the Holocaust etc. they were just fascists who got cold feet

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

this needs to be a series nicholas! trust me, even on your main channel.

[@samholdsworth3957]

Much prefer it on his channel.....I ain't subbing to any wargaming channel

[@GTLandser]

Whoever did the slides and graphics deserves a kudos, they look really sharp and they are kinda cute actually: a little "geheim!" (secret) stamp to give it a more "archival document" or "film reel" feel. I don't know if every single thing was accurate, but I don't care, because it was a nice touch. It's fun to play games and roll out the spread sheets of hit values, but look...little things like not having alloying metals for your armor grade steel, or shielding gasses for your welds, or avoiding sabotage from slave labor (!), does have an effect. If a video game can draw attention to these intangibles and improve the depth and enjoyment from the study of history, then as I believe, General der Panzertruppen, Martha Stewart would say: "it's a good thing".

I like that you point out the "If they had build something easier more, who would have crewed it and where would the fuel habe come from" That is something that I thought about for a long time. And now there is a Video with one of the authorities on tanks saying it, which I will certainly use in any discussion in the future :)

[@folgore1]

One would think the German manpower shortage would've motivated them to ditch the "bow gunner/assistant driver" position and take their tanks down to 4-man crews! (Extra fuel for extra vehicles would still be a problem though...)

[@nickmitsialis]

Way back on the IMDB discussion board (for either Fury or BoB), somebody pointed out that IF Germany made more Pz IVs and equipped more divisions and regiments, it would multiply the problems of logistical support, fuel and manpower that Germany had at the time==which was a brilliant observation that had never occurred to me until the other guy posted it.

[@quentintin1]

@@folgore1 in the German tanks, the bow gunner was also the radio operator, monitoring the frequencies and maintaining the radios, removing the funker means that someone else has to do the job, usually that moves to the commander, but mounting the radio equipment requires space so either you remove equipment, or change the turret to fit the radios (which were not small in the German's case), adding mass to an already heavy vehicle

[@readyxo2586]

Lets answer the question about alternatives. It sounds like we all agree about fuel after October 1941. And it sounds like most agree about experienced crews becoming an issue somewhere between 1941 and 1943. So the question is, what does an army require prior to Operation Barbarossa to get to Moscow before October. Or perhaps the Caucuses (also requiring a bridge plan). What gun kills anything the opposition has in 1941, 1942, and 1943 and with standoff. Answer, 75L43. Though the 50L 60 would suffice in 1941. So what does an army need to produce so the army can use fire and maneuver with these guns by june 1941 to get where it wants to go without armored impediments creating psychological hesitancy to maneuver? Also, an army can start with the 50mm and upgun to the 75mm. Answer: panzer IV. If no other tracked vehicle crosses the boarder in June 1941 but Panzer IVs (say around 3000) does the army gets to moscow by October? Or the Caucuses (if a bridge plan is also produced)? No other tracked vehicle in this hypothetical. Just 3000 Panzer IVs. Perhaps make this number align closer to their Panzer BN ratios of IIIs to IVs if youd like. 2000 Panzer IV with 50L60 and 1000 Panzer IV with low velocity 75 L24. Does that army make it to Moscow by October? Now give all those Panzers 75 L43. How about then? Or do 2000 Panzer IVs with 75 L43 and 1000 Stug IV with low velocity 75 L24. Or use Stug III for Stug IV. Please run those numbers and we might find a solution for fuel and experienced crews. And we might find an army can get to moscow by October. Or the Caucuses ( with a bridge plan). And since we all know that fuel is an issue after October 1941, a smart army does something about that….unless another reason explains that “failure to close.”

[@greyone40]

There was a similar problem with the Luftwaffe. Essentially what was the point of making X number of aircraft when they couldn't train crews fast enough to fly them.

[@jeremycrisp4488]

I would love if dinner time conversations would include talks about tanks.

[@pistonar]

For me, it's only around the campfire with one of my buddies.

[@calebharris8072]

Yeah I'm just itching for a chance to have this topic somehow come up at the dinner table now, so i can flex on em with these well articulated points about the Panther tanks.

[@hanskloss7726]

Better than religious disputes about the virus of unknown origin.

[@williedesmond8201]

That would be great at xmas for me but I'll have to listen about rubbish iv no interest in ah well

[@eta320]

I’m really liking these formats for chieftain talks. Consolidation of information like this is great for people like me who want to dig into a subject but don’t really know where to start or exactly what questions to ask. I only wish they included his original sources but I’m willing to bet most of this info comes to him off the cuff at this point.

[@panzertank1985]

Agree, giving actual data source and statistic about the reliability of the panther would be better. If later model of the panther's breakdown rate was really that horrendous, then there would be really no point for the allied or the soviet to address this tank since they would be all laying dead on the ground functioning as glorified pillboxes.

[@eta320]

@@panzertank1985 it’s always a mixed bag of conflicting stories with the Panther, and even the Tiger. Towards the end of the war, as the fighting got more desperate, the Germans definitely used some panthers as glorified pillboxes. There are plenty of photos of panthers and such being buried in the middle of the road in a town, allowing the turret to stay above ground and fire. People like to use this as proof the Panther was garbage, but the soviets did this too. In a defensive situation, it is better to have a static but well concealed AT emplacement, plus the armor. Also, the Americans, British, soviets, and even the Swedish (iirc) did extensive testing with panthers after the war, and many late war overhauls to mid war designs were made with combating the Panther in mind. Whether the allies were simply afraid of a tank that wasn’t as good as they thought, or whether their concerns held merit is something I really want to dive into.

[@Mugdorna]

This is a WoT video, it’s not meant to be full of references and citations. Look up some of the stuff from Hilary Doyle.

[@tinchorb1340]

"Oh no, the tank is on fire" -said hans in a british accent

[@noremorsewoodworking2258]

"Ach nein, der Panzerkampfwagen brennt"

[@WorldoftanksNAarchived]

Did you learn anything new about the Panther?

[@Solsys2007]

Yes, the reason why there was no need to develop Panther II was new to me.

[@mqcapps]

Yeah...

[@ArchusKanzaki]

The night vision is interesting. And also the "cost" part since that argument is thrown alot. Now we have actual data to back it up.

[@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511]

It's a cat

[@mikereger1186]

Panther 2. Saw it on WoT but knew almost nothing of it. Now I know only one hull was ever built, making it barely more productive than the Valiant...

[@oliverhaake7552]

Thank you especially for point number 5: What are 3 Panzer IVs good for, if you don't have the crews, oil and logistics to run three times as many tanks.

[@jimtaylor294]

Or in other words; Germany had already lost the war (it's been estimated that Germany needed about 2.5 Romania's to meet their existing oil needs), due to losing the race for Oil, while the British and Russians protected their Oil successfully.

[@petrosdorizas6814]

Why would I point them to the video when I can just get in an argument with them?

[@WildBillCox13]

Hehehe

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Yes! Thats the fighting Spirit! Go on!

[@tsbjelland]

I'm not above plagiarizing Chieftain's info to give a dinner companion a metaphorical smack-down to make everyone think I am a font of all knowledge.

[@cgross82]

LOL!

[@strategicmind2652]

this needs it's own series called Five things about.

[@Treblaine]

I think it's already a series.

[@JessWLStuart]

I've always wondered about the make more Pz4 vs make fewer Pz5 issue. Thanks for answering it. Of course, the best solution for Germany would have been to not go to war in the first place.

[@rickastley4050]

Well, there is a solution for the lack of tank crews. Since Germany provide their allies with so little tank for example Italy. In the battle of Stalingrad, the Italian sector only had 10 to 12 german tanks I think. That is why the Italians had to use their sh**ty tanks to fight. For the fuel part, I can't find a solution yet.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

My father fought in 3rd Army as a Combat Infantry scout, he sketched German tank profiles for me in 1965 after seeing the Battle of the Budge movie. The M47 looked nothing like a Tiger ll but it was only a movie. My father, a Staff Sargent was awarded the Silver Star by order of General Patton for the Battle of Metz. Salute to all who served. Miss you Dad.

[@williammcdorman6426]

I didn't like as a driver to neutral steer a M 60 on rocky ground, the rocks if the size of baseballs would bend your center guides and break chunks of rubber off your roadwheels especially the inside ones.

[@iivin4233]

How did you feel about your prospects living in, working on and potentially fighting in an M60? I don't have an opinion myself. I'm just curious.

[@Stickman2030]

I would have loved to have seen some details on how well the infra red device worked, and its range. A report on its use in combat would have been interesting. That they were dismounted in the field says a lot, but some illumination (so to speak) would be good.

[@ondracekivo]

Decent night vision scopes with resolution, that modern person would call "decent" showed up just pretty close to year 1990-2000. Back in WWII i fear you would just see some unclear dot way over there which could be anything from house, rock or tree to the tank.

[@George_M_]

And another thing people don't realize till they've seen it in a museum - the Panther is honking huge. M4 is tall but it's relatively compact. The whole Panther hull roof is markedly high. You could probably fit the top of the actually tiny IS-3's *turret* below that level.

[@HaVoC117X]

The Panthers has 51cm of suspension travel, its ground clearance is much bigger so!

[@uni4rm]

Well, the IS-3's were junk. They were built to look good. In reality, just driving around they broke down, the front armor wields would crack, etc. Thats why they would ship them all out to the east to guard the borders of China to rust, where appearance was more important than performance.

[@Frserthegreenengine]

Funny how the Panther is bigger than a Sherman but yet looks more cramped inside than a Sherman. Guess the larger gun on the Panther is the reason for this.

[@teamidris]

It’s easy to forget how bad oil and grease was back then. You couldn’t put down the shaft loads you can now. Plus, you can make a gear today that is like the next gear, and ones ten later and a thousand later. All with just the right amount of alloys.

[@teamidris]

@@tommykirk3403 you might have 5000 miles between decokes, where you pulled the heads and scraped out the exhaust ports. I’ve chiselled carbon out of the old cement mixer engines. They would build it up until they stopped running :o

[@teamidris]

@@tommykirk3403 Kind of used to it with the off-roading where brake pads lasted about 200 miles. It was 3 hours fixing for every hour raced. Engine oil wasn’t so bad :o)

[@vshamus6]

Over 6000 Panthers have been built by the Germans but more surprisingly, nine were built by the British Army in 1945-1946. The Panther tank came in service AFTER the Tiger tank, the Panther being first used in combat in July 1943 in Kursk whereas the Tiger was first used in Leningrad in December 1942.

[@petesheppard1709]

Really, REALLY informative! I didn't know about the night-fighting capability, and the other points help reconcile seemingly conflicting information I have seen elsewhere. Tanks! 😎

[@johnbrooks1269]

Thoroughly enjoyed this format. Easy to watch, understand and follow the timeline. Well done!

[@non-standard6864]

6:57 I can't remember exactly where I had read it, but the author argued around the lines that by introducing Panzer V & VI, which had nearly twice the fuel consumption of Panzer III & Panzer IV, the fuel shortage of the German Panzer Units (which got steadily worse since 1942) got even worse and they lost finally their biggest power, their mobility.

[@Mugdorna]

The Germans had fuel problems from the start of the war. Hence the desire to control the Caucasus oilfields which was a partial impetus behind the invasion of the USSR. Sticking with IIIs and IVs wouldn’t have changed this situation.

[@Mugdorna]

@@CmdrTobs I'm trying to make the point that fuel was always an issue for the Germans, the later gas guzzling tank designs just made it worse. Even sticking with only IIIs and IVs would not have eliminated the fuel issue.

[@HO-bndk]

The Tiger I was faster across country than a Panzer III and with a much lower ground pressure.. What were you saying about mobility?

[@stevenbreach2561]

I've always espoused the "build more PzkwIV"theory.I am now converted.Thanks Cheiftain

[@devensega]

I’m still like the theory tbh. Yes they had man power shortages but they also had huge skills shortages. Germany was not a motorised society like Britain and especially America, they did not have a population of ready trained mechanics and drivers to draw on. The Panther was difficult to drive and quite a bit more complicated than PzIVs. The Soviet Union had similar problems and produced easy to make, repair and drive tanks. Anyhoo, it was all for naught as the allies had far better equipment on the whole and far better tanks being introduced at wars end.

[@AKUJIVALDO]

@@devensega far better tanks? Which was?

[@devensega]

@@AKUJIVALDO Britain alone had the Comet and then the Centurion, Americas late war Sherman's were excellent and had introduced a heavy tank at wars end. No matter what Germany did they weren't getting beyond 1945, they'd lost the war by 1943 anyway.

[@AKUJIVALDO]

@@devensega Comet wit its flat frontal armour? Centurion who had no chance to fight with German Panzers? US Heavy who was like Centurion? Shermans were excellent? Which model, what availability of these "excellent" models were in front line service against Germany? Oh my, someone is high on ineffective propaganda claims... Germany fought until 1945 and they lost on 1945. You can make claim that Germany lost on 1943 or 1939 or 1933...fact remains that Germany lost on 1945.

[@Mugdorna]

@@AKUJIVALDO The War was lost by 1943, the Germans kept fighting after this point. The Germans had no tanks to follow Tiger 2 (they had plans but no prototypes) while the Allies were introducing T26, Centurion and IS3

[@davemcneish2366]

Already loved the Chieftain for his sense of humor and credibility as a former Abrams tanker himself. Great idea to incorporate the imaginative graphics to add dimension to the standard tank video. Probably dial it down a bit for more balance in future videos, but keep experimenting! Awesome work!

[@williedesmond8201]

Did you knock out loads of T72s because that wasn't really a fight the Abraham's tank is a fuell guzzler the German leopards were better the Abraham's never did great in real war games competitions

[@sebastianmoore4875]

"Quality was the only solution they had. Unfortunately..." Wait a minute... I think that should be fortunately lol

[@Paciat]

Quality was NOT the only solution they had. They could also build a heavy tank and use it like a medium tank, and build a superheavy and call it a heavy. Its an option where you ignore both quantity and quality, and just make things bigger ignoring mobility issues and fuel consumption that lower the quality of a tank. And that is what they did.

[@sebastianmoore4875]

@@Paciat I was referring to his literal statement at 7:00 get off your high horse my dude

[@Treblaine]

It's exhausting to keep saying "unfortunately-for-the-Germans" as you have to say that whole phrase... quite a lot.

[@victoriacyunczyk]

Depends on which side you're on

[@noobster4779]

@@Paciat That is not what they did. The Panther was very much a medium tank by its design and the Tiger a traditional heavy tank by design. The Tiger wasnt designed for how it was actually used mainly during the war as a firefighter tank. And if we look at soviet tanks of the time german ones werent more heavy or used differently. Remember the benchmark for german tanks was never the western allies and always the soviet union. Both the soviets and the germans had a tank race going on while the western allies were just there and developed alongside it.

[@jd.3493]

Chieftain! Thank you for addressing the quantity vs quality argument in detail! Everyone always mentions it in WWII documentaries but never states that quality CAN defeat quantity (although not with the technology at hand at that time). What about the Tiger though? Would more Tigers over Panzer IV’s have helped?

[@Bochi42]

I've always wondered about the switch to the Tiger II. The original Tiger was a well proven design, more mobile good enough in most situations. Still the whole point is moot as Germany was going to lose no matter what at that point. But after all these are just fun things to speculate about with friends also interested in tanks.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

the 5th point you made was interesting. So my question is: Would it have been better to concentrate production on Panthers and Stugs and ignore the Tiger program and possibly phase out the Pz IV more quickly? (was this even on the table?) In other words were they just building too many different types tanks. Was it even possible for factories producing Pz IVs to easily move to Panther production? And then there was Hitler's fixation with Heavy Tanks. Would Germany have been able to concentrate on a single main battle tank considering Hitler's meddling and the state of manufacturing in Germany.

[@ArchusKanzaki]

No don't think so if we follow the logic and the purpose of introducing Tiger and other heavy tanks. The purpose of Tiger is to handle enemy heavy tanks such as Churchill or IS or KV, and it is designed to handle multiples of them (the quality mantra). It also supposedly should handle more Mediums when needed compared to a single Panther. This is just an example but, if Panther is supposed to handle 2 or 3 Sherman or T-34, a Tiger is supposed to handle 4-5 Sherman. No data at production cost but it probably will not even reach 2 times the cost of Panther, while supposedly able to handle more tanks than a Panther, while also keeping 5-man configurations. And in a way, while Hitler does meddle, it probably does not affect it that much and its not like its illogical too on what he's thinking. Even American are using M6 to sell war bonds even though they never use it, and people understand size easier.

[@mattbowden4996]

When you think it through, the Germans didn't actually produce that many types of tank. Throughout the entire Nazi era there was the Pz I -VIB, so seven German types, plus the Pz 35t and Pz 38t. That's nine types in total, and seeing as both the Pz I and Pz 35t were to all intents and purposes out of production before the war actually began, really just seven. Further; at any given point in time they generally had, at most, five (and more usually four) distinct chassis under production. The difference is the huge variety of converted and captured equipment they fielded, which makes what their factories were actually doing look far more of a mess than it really was. In the same time frame, the US army manufactured the M1 combat car, M2, M3, M5 and M24 light tanks, the M2, M3 and M4 Medium tanks and the M6 and M26 heavy tanks, so ten types. There was also the M7 and M27 medium tanks, but they were really prototypes similar to Panther II and Neubaufahrzeug. Similarly, from 1934 through to 1945 the Soviets built the T-37, T-38, T-40, T-60 and T-70 light tanks, the BT-5 and BT-7, the T-50 infantry tank, the T-28, T-34 and T-44 medium tanks and the T-35, KV series and IS series of heavy tanks. Lets not even get started on the British. They built literally dozens of different models of tank in this period. However, it is fair to say that once they got settled into production in earnest, the Americans and Soviets produced fewer types of chassis at any one time (typically just three) than the Germans whereas the British were in more or less the same ball park.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

@@ArchusKanzaki , thanks for the reply. Really helpful.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

Appreciate the reply. Thanks much.

[@michaeldunne338]

@@ArchusKanzaki Steven Zaloga had put out production estimates for Panthers, Tigers and what not in his book "Armored Champion," giving ranges like: - Panther without gun, radio or other components coming in at 117,100 Reichsmarks, on up to 176,100 Reichsmarks (with everything?); - Tiger at 250,800 Reichsmarks (without gun, radio or other components), on up to 299,800 Reichsmarks (with everything?); - and just 321,500 Reichsmarks for Tiger II. So seems possibly a Tiger was like around 1.7X the price of a Panther. The Panzer IV Ausf. G was estimated at 125,000 Reichsmarks. Zaloga cites in a note for this table on pricing: Vincent Bernard "Panzer Produktion," Blindees & Batailles, 2012 He also noted that prices with Panthers at least could vary by factory. Otherwise, seems some view as a myth that a Tiger was supposed to handle 5 Shermans. I can't say - maybe on defense, with sufficient number, under conditions that hindered combined arms for Americans (bad weather/visibility, or built up urban environments, impacting air support and field artillery) that could have been the case. But not sure it was a given.

[@McRocket]

I don't think I have ever heard The Chieftain say his real name in a video. Interesting and well written video, IMHO. THANKS.

[@MFCSteele]

The quad nods picture is hilarious @5:00 lmao

[@Bochi42]

I really enjoy these shorts as well. It's not new information to me but a nice fun refresher course and good entertainment.

[@opperbuil]

@Nicholas Moran, You stated in this video that a Panzer IV H model is not fully up to par with M4 Shermans or T-34's. Could you do a multiple angle comparison plz? Not asking this for a friend but I do think plenty of your viewers would like to know.

[@HSMiyamoto]

The green screen work is remarkable! It really looks like you did this in front of a Pzkw V!

[@attackanddestroy]

The green screen is acceptable but the composite is hardly good enough to make the scene look real.

[@larrybomber83]

Thanks for clarifying all that up for me. Great information, in an easy to understand presentation. Great Job!

[@HSMiyamoto]

In Quora, I pointed our that Germany only looks like it had more advanced technology because they pushed everything out of the lab and off the drawing table into the battlefield faster than anyone else. The U.S.A., in particular, had some amazing weapons systems in development during WWII, but they never put them into the field.

[@barthoving2053]

Yes, plus that the allied advanced weapon programs stayed rolling after the war so remained in a level of secrecy. It's much harder to persecute a german engineer for leaking info on an abandoned third Reich weapon system, providing he did not continued working on it for an allied nation after the war, then an allied engineer talking out a system that started in the war and still was developed.And this also goes for some journalist or historian uncovering and publishing it, or someone handing over documents. And of course people generally ignore the fact that the nuclear bomb pretty much trumps anything else in most advanced technology developed in WW2. We have a plane that goes two times faster, something that sees in the night ten times better. Well the Manhattan project had created something that exploded 200-400 times stronger than anything that was around before and announced according to some historic conventionce the the entering of a new age. From the machine age to atomic age.

[@WildBillCox13]

A sane addition to our forum. Thanks for it.

[@timothyhouse1622]

The US split the atom....just sayin...

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

High velocity guns like 75 and 88mm were generation ahead of any other. And they had jet planes year ahead of anyone else. But their electronics and organization of mass production were lagging behind.

[@richardkalmwater5996]

The USA developed proximity fuse which was a true super weapon. And the USA put this weapon into the field both for AA guns and artillery.

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

Well you certainly changed my mind on that last point. I was at one point one of the internet amateurs who questioned the wisdom of the panther. Great video!

[@boydgrandy5769]

I guess you must have a bone to pick with Heinz Guderian over his argument for upgrading and producing moar Pzr IVs rather than set off on the Pzr V Panther trail.

[@frodonifinger2628]

Yay, Finally a balanced view on the Black cat!

[@sissonsk]

In THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGE by Hugh M. Cole, it is claimed that new tanks that left German factories were often stripped of parts and less than half of the new builds actually made to the western front intact. "The spare parts situation was so bad that new German tanks were cannibalized at a depot west of Koblenz. Three hundred and forty new tanks were assigned to the Western Front during the campaign, but only 125 can be traced as actually reaching the armored divisions." pg 664

[@battlereed4708]

Thank you sir! Ready for the next one

[@Teedo_]

Hope this will become a series

[@louferrao2044]

Thanks Chieftan. Very good information which cleared up a lot of misconceptions.

[@robertmonaghan5420]

As Usual, Great Video... Thanks

[@gunraptor]

The Chieftain is the reason I even found out about World of Tanks. Hearing him explain the history of all of these machines naturally makes one want to play with them, if only in simulation.

[@SootHead]

Love the format! Keep 'em comin' Colonel!

[@Lykyk]

"**Unfortunately** the quality overmatch they needed was not in the realm the industry could produce" Chieftain confirmed for being based?

[@mokwit]

I had often thought that the real reason for "quality" tanks was shortage of crews - compare this with Luftwaffe who were desperate for pilots but could not find enough people who matched all the requirements - you couldn't just stick anybody in a FW 190 and with tanks crews it was likely s similar situation. Germany lost 2m of its highest calibre people.

[@thomasellysonting3554]

Excellent point about the Panthers having a longer maintenance cycle. This was largely due to Germany having a shortage of recovery vehicles, and the majority where designed for 30 ton vehicles like the Panzer IV and Stug. As a result they often had to send two recovery vehicles just to recover one Panther. Because of this, in addition to needing trained drivers, the Panther was often transported by rail even over short distances instead of road-marched. Unfortunately rail transport was a laborious and time-consuming process, so by Normandy Panzer officers were faced with the choice of either deploying their Panzer IVs first piecemeal, or waiting several days to several weeks for the Panthers to finish their rail transport. In practice, piecemeal deployment ended up the norm. Thats also why I would quibble a bit regarding the idea the Panther was a quality vs quantity tank. The overall concept is sound, but the Panther was not really the right kind of quality the Germans needed. Better armor and gunpower did not offset losing most of its road march capability. Thats indeed the main reason why some argue it was better to stick to Panzer IVs - they might not be better than Shermans or T-34s, but at least two battalions of Panzer IVs will arrive together with greater concentration of force. Instead most Panzer Divisions in 1944 ended up reacting immediately with just the Panzer IV battalion (which would get chewed up), which was then followed a few days later by the Panthers. That said, there were plenty of actual better designs that could have given the Germans an upgrade without losing much road march capability. Jagdpanzer IV and the Daimler Benz Panther both fit the bill. Even the historical Panther could have been modified by just reducing weight from armor to be more road mobile.

[@Chris-iy6du]

Can we get Sherman misconceptions?

[@petesheppard1709]

Nick's been tilting at that windmill for years...

[@kainhall]

Their is already like an hour long video lecture he made

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

1. "The Sherman was the best tank of the war" 2. "The Sherman was the worst tank of the war" 3. "The Sherman was the most reliable tank of the war" 4. "The Sherman had the best survivalability of any tank of the war" 5. "The Sherman had the worst survivalability of any tank of the war" 6. "The Sherman had a positive kill ratio against the Tiger and Panther - by far" 7. "The Sherman was fuel effective" 8. "The Sherman was never meant to fight other tanks" 9. "The Sherman was the best infantry support tank of the war" 10. The Sherman was faster, more agile and had better off-road mobility than the Tiger and Panther" 11. "The 76 mm armed Sherman was a Tiger killer - especially from the front - the 76 mm was the equal of the Tiger's gun" 12. "The Sherman had a much better HE round than the Panther" 13. "It is unfair to compare the Sherman with the much heavier Panther" 14. "The Sherman could undertake road marches the Tigers and Panthers could only dream of" 15. "The Sherman was much easier to maintain than the Panther" 16. "The Sherman was much cheaper than a Panther" 17. "The Sherman was much easier to produce than a Panther - German industry was hopelessly inefficient" 18. "The 75 mm armed Sherman had no problem dealing with Panthers and Tigers" 19. "The 75 mm was the best tank gun in the war - the long 75 and 88mm guns in German tanks were overkill" 20. "The Sherman almost never broke down" 21. "The gun stabilizer was a HUGE advantage" 22. "The faster turret traverse of the Sherman was a HUGE advantage - under all conditions and ranges 23. "The one who fires first will ALWAYS win - and that's the Sherman" 24. "The Sherman couldn't be larger and heavier to due to cranes etc." 25. "It was easy to outflank German tanks" 26. "The optics in the Sherman were much better" 27. "The gunner and commander in the Panther were practically blind compared to the Sherman" 28. "Ronson" was a post war invention" 29 "Sherman crews absolutely loved their tank - German crews and Generals hated their own." 30 " The Sherman would always come in packs of 5 - the Panther and Tiger would always turn up alone". 31 "The Sherman was much more advanced than German tanks". 32 "The Sherman had almost as good armor as the Tiger, despite weighing 25 ton less" 33 "The US Army had a long and difficult supply line - the Germans a short and sweet one.

[@drstrangelove4998]

You need to look at Sofilein interviewing Bruce Newsome to see the very latest research on the myth of German tank unreliability, it is an eye opener.

[@pzg_kami6472]

couldn't find it ,Any link please?

[@68RatVette]

excellent points about the manpower and fuel shortages!

[@ditzydoo4378]

As you and many have pointed out, those who don't discus Logistic, but in stead Tactic's. Don't understand Stalin's statement of "Quantity has a Quality all its own." Being that when A can produce 100 tanks of roughly like capable to B's 1 tank, you are doomed from the outset. This was the lesson neither the German's, Japanese, or Italians ever took to heart.

[@shawnkelley9942]

Great work. Thank You

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Excellent points, some I hadnt considered.

[@PaulFJ2006]

Agree with the 'better vs many' idea. The BF109 was an example of the other way of thinking, concentrating on production of a design that was a step below the latest and greatest (ie Mustang), and the Germans ran out of pilots and fuel. That being said, it wasn't Panther or nothing, the Germans ramped up production of their 'simple tanks' right until the end of the war, PzIV, PZIII (as Stugs), even the 38t (as Hetzer)

[@DJ118USMC]

The 109 was better than any fighter of it's time when introduced. It continued being competitive throughout the war with improved designs.

[@billwilson3609]

Most German aircraft engines had design and manufacturing flaws that limited their usefulness in combat. There's plenty of German reports where 50% of their bombers and fighters sent off on missions had to return to base shortly after taking off due to engine problems.

[@gamewizard1760]

The Pz IV, as a platform, had reached it's limits. Attempts to further uparmor and upgun the Pz IV ended in failure. A new platform was needed that could carry more armor and bigger guns that the Pz IV couldn't. Keeping Pz IV in production, would have made little sense. As the basis of various tank destroyers and mobile artillery, there may have been a way to keep them in production, but not as tanks.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Its not even just the crews needed to field extra numbers of tanks. Its also all the extra support echelon crews and vehicles needed to function. Tanks don't exist in a vacuum. They need supporting grenadiers, recon, engineers, medical, field kitchen, anti aircraft, signals, administration, fuel, ammunition, maintenance etc etc. Over 80% of the personnel in a panzer division was not in the actual panzer regiment. Without these supporting echelons tanks cannot function effectively no matter how more of them you have. This is why the panzer 'brigades' that were rushed to the front in autumn 1944 were completely ineffective. They lacked even basic recon and maintenance echelons.

[@ArtemisTherion]

I started playing WOT only because I wanted to see more Chieftain videos. and it's pretty fun.

[@MichalKaczorowski]

Please make similar episide about Sherman and T-34 myths :)

[@glengearhart5298]

Another well produced and informative video

[@readyxo2586]

Chieftain, What would you have produced between July 1940 and June 1941? And with what doctrine: the penetrate to encircle, or the penetrate to collapse the opposition? What would your endstate have been? And if the endstate were not achieved by October 1941, what would you produce and with what doctrine and with what endstate after 1941? And would you have left STG1 and 2 on Sicily in march and april 1941?

[@paultzacos7470]

I found the infrared info interesting ....Although the Germans were not the first to try it out they were the first to use it in combat.What equipment could detect infrared? I never new there was such equipment.

[@Legiondude]

I don't recall when the IR Panthers were deployed, but a unit of refurbished Lees with IR searchlight turrets for AA purposes had been secretly deployed to cover the Franco-German border area for the late '44 push

[@alastair9446]

The night vision itself is infared detection. Infrared is basically a torch that shoots out light that the human eye can't see. So to see the infrared you need infared detection. If you using nightvision against someone else nightvision you see them as clear as day as if they have a giant torch on their head. The equipment they proably reffering to is the T3 Carbine, which is M2 rifle with a nightvision scope. They using it in the pacific, but I don't they they used it in the Europe.

[@rolandhunter]

Thank God the reliability part has been clarified by Chieftain but....the "not" combat ready Panther thing was a "myth" again... Avg. The panthers Combat readiness was 65% on West and 62% on East. With Numbers: In 1944 Nov 15: 329 Panther was on the Western front. 234 was combat ready 95 waited for repairs. In 1944 Dec 15: 471 Panther was on the Western front. 334 was combat ready 137 waited for repairs. That is absouloutly not bad. And of course as we going forward to the end of the War the combat readiness lowered. Why? -Less expereienced crew -Less spare aprts -Less organization -More fights. You can find the combat readiness table 1944 may until 1945 march on Panther reliability section. PS: The shermans avg engine life time was 2,500-3,200 km, except M4A4 what coul go around 5,500-6,200 km. Tha Panthers avg engine life time was 1,500-2,000 km. So yes the Panther was worse, but for what advantages ;) But there are a report, when the german mechanical crew could achieve more: "An example of Panther reliability appeared in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (Armoured Troops Bulletin), from a Panther-recovery tank driver's report: Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km until 3 May 1944 without any needing to replace any parts. About 1,000km of this was made towing another Panther tank. The vehicle and engine are still in great condition and operational"

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The fact that the Germans felt it was appropriate to give an award to someone for getting their vehicle to 4,000km is probably telling in itself...

[@rolandhunter]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Yes, but still it says: The engine and the transmission could achieve that. This matter is true on every single tank. [And from a tank what had a problem with the final drive and could achieve the same range without transmission/engine/final drive replace like a sherman, ofc I would gave him a medal]

[@rolandhunter]

@@TheChieftainsHatch And sorry I forgot the mention it in my previous comment: As I said in my first comment, the vehicle crew had no or little bit experience with the tank driving/using. This matter increase the chance to give a medal/attention for somebody who achieve those km with that kind of tank.

[@1967davethewave]

My 91 year old mother is always bringing up these points over Sunday dinner, LMAO!!! Seriously, thanks for the info, it does make a lot of sense over some of the misinformation that is running around out there.

[@Normanpitt]

I was the only Engiishman to study in Bulgaria in the 1980`s.We were taught the Doctrine about Quatntity and Quality. The Sea can overwhelm everthying.

[@Normanpitt]

I am sorry I need to add that a water molecule is weak but together .....Reminds you of T-34`s and Shemans?

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

The story of the Tiger and Panther ends being simplified to "Germany wasn't as good as she once was."

[@MagpieOz]

The reality is "Germany was never as good as has been made out"

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Ah the background music is now background music at last, much more listenable Nick, thank you. However than Pz IV cost only 80% the cost of a Panther, that's not 'almost the same cost as'.

[@timothyhouse1622]

I caught that too. This seemed like a pitch for Panthers, is there a premium coming out on WG? My biggest thing was him saying the reliability issue was a myth but only mentioning that it was just as hard to fix as it was on any other tank. Ok, but that has nothing to do with it breaking MORE than it does on other tanks.

[@HaVoC117X]

@@timothyhouse1622 since early 1944 Panthers, Tigers and Panzer IVs achieved almost the same combat ready rates. A statistic after the battle of the bulge showed, that more Panzer IVs had brake downs related to their final drives than Panthers.

[@657449]

Qualified crews are a big factor in tank warfare . The people I served with in 1968-71 were a joke as was the training.

[@Cormano980]

Good info , now I'll go back to my model tank building

[@captainswoop8722]

Britain had IR equipment too, the 'Tabby' night driving system. IR lights and a set of goggles designed for allowing close convoy driving at night.

[@safn1949]

Driving the M60A1 on IR was a challenge to say the least, zero depth perception. But I got to do it several times and it was interesting.

[@MGB-learning]

Another Outstanding video! Thank you!

[@jimpool7780]

On Dec 22, 1941, a report to the Directors of Diamler-Benz stated "Based on experience in the Russian campaign, the New tank (VK 20) just developed by Diamler-Benz was now obsolite..." the B. W. 40 design was a dead end. The VK 20 was designed as a 20 to 22 ton tank, with either a 50 mm/L42 or 50 mm/L60, (which was a long barrel, more effective gun). The L60 was not issued to Panzer III's until mid December. This VK 20 was absolutely no match for thr Russian T 34-76 let alone the KV-1. The German did NOT just speedup design on an experimental tank, they had to redesign a new 34 ton tank with 80 mm of frontal armor and a more powerful L70 main gun.

[@Cotswolds1913]

Thank you, finally someone correcting the argument "Germany should have built more Panzer IVs", they literally didn't have the fuel for the tanks they already had.

[@MililaniJag]

Very interesting! Great intro! Cheers!

[@gamedude412]

The single greatest failing of the Panther is a simple single tooth gear with in the finals drives instead of a double tooth

[@uni4rm]

maybe. All tanks had issues with different engine and suspension parts that required replacement and repair. People say the Sherman was a more reliable vehicle, when in reality it was simply easy to work on, in comparison to tanks like the Pather.

[@gamedude412]

@@uni4rm do you know why Sherman transmission broke on less frequent rate but could be repaired/replaced fast? It was a simple double herringbone gear with the final drives. Which reduced to stress on individual teeth which is a big thing when there harden alloys are drying up.

[@HaVoC117X]

Then why do Panthers, Centurions and M26 Pershing all used double reduction gears with straight cut gears as final drives? And why does the Panther and Centurion ARVs had no issues towing tanks above their weight class? And do you really believe a radial engine, 30 Zylinder Chrysler multibank engine or a twin diesel of the m4 are easier to maintain than regular v12 engines? Didnt you listen to the video, it already said, that the Panthers final drives are as easy to replace as on other tanks! Panthers achieved the same combat ready rates as Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs since early 1944.

[@ericbrammer2245]

infa-red. I got a pair of RED Lensed Goggles from my Dad's USN Flight-kit gear as a kid. You put on those Red Lensed goggles for, oh, 1/2-hour [indoors], then take them off, and Step Out and YOU COULD SEE IN THE DARK for about 1-1/2 hours (more if well-lit by moonlight). Used them to Skateboard by Moonlight (it's a fullmoon now, & wishing I had those! The Longboard awaits Fresh Tar!), as a teenager. I ran a few Streetluge Runs this way, back in the late 70's.

[@MagpieOz]

That's simply night vision, nothing to do with goggles

[@WildBillCox13]

I admit to some surprise that the awkward turret ergonomics aren't an issue to be used against the "Panther was the best tank of war" asserters. That was my chief (pun intended) takeaway from your "Inside the tanks" coverage of Panther. Off topic, I bet that weird chute on Sentinel's turret was for policing the turret top of cigarette butts. Moving at speed, Sentinel probably had an aerodynamic oddity that whipped thrown butts back into the TC's face. Some cars are like that still.

[@randyhavard6084]

German aircraft in WW2 had thought put in to make maintenance easier, but it's almost like maintenance and repair was a afterthought when it comes to their armored vehicles

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The "horrible" reliability of the Panther and Tiger was mainly Allied propaganda. Sure, they had plenty of issues - but so did any other WW2 tank. All WW2 tanks were high maintenance and broke down - a lot. The Sherman, too. During road marches 30-40% of Shermans could be expected to suffer minor or major mechanical issues - on a daily basis. This is 1944 - even your vanilla family car would be expected to break down at any time. The achilles heel of the Panther (and most other German tanks and assault guns), the final drives, performed considerably better in German service than in French service. The reason the Tiger, and especially the Panther was singled out for special threatment by Allied propaganda is that they were so obviously superior when it came to combat capabilities that Allied HC had to come up with some kind of explanation/excuse why their own troops did not have tanks with similar capabilities. "Yes, they are dangerous; BUT they are also waaay too big and heavy, complicated, overengineered, not suited for mass production, horribly unreliable, slow, sluggish, near immobile behemoths, fuel hogs etc...." The Panther was just the first of a new breed of big, powerfull Western standard tanks that would eventually become the MBT. Both USA and UK were already designing similar tanks; M26 Pershing and Centurion, both would go through the similar cycle of teething problems as the Panther and any new tank. If the Panther was so horrible, the Americans and Brits would not have bothered with these new tanks. By 1944 the standard 25-32 ton tank (Panzer IV, Sherman, Cromwell, T-34) could only survive on the battlefield through numbers and "stealth". The Panther, Pershing and Centurion was the way forward.

[@Mugdorna]

The French used Panthers after the warm so they were deemed pretty decent

[@jimmiller5600]

What have I learned about these "Top 5" videos? I need to change my dinner table partners.

[@RabbitusMaximus]

"The Germans HAD to rely upon quality over quantity to respond to the allies, but unfortunately the level of overmatch created just wasn't there...." - Did you actually say "unfortunately" there?! (quietly thinking "thank goodness they couldn't....")

[@PadraigTomas]

The images projected behind the chieftain while he speaks are an annoying distraction. It is as if World of Tanks don't trust how good the content the Chieftain is creating is. Thanks for the topnotch knowledge.

[@Alan-yo1jr]

Do some of the Italian tanks from ww2! I've heard the M14 was called a "death trap" but I have not been able to find any photos of the interior, what makes it so difficult of a vehicle?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It was utterly outclassed. Riveted, 47mm gun armed vehicle going up against Grants and Shermans.

[@Alan-yo1jr]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for the response. I understand that, but was it a particularly difficult tank to escape from? Would it pass the "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire" test. I have not found a single photo of the interior of the tank, but I can't imagine it was very ergonomic just looking from the outside.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I've not seen an intact one inside, really. However, the hull hatch is on the sides, a little behind the crew, so I can't imagine getting out would be massively easy.

[@hilarylouisdoyle1529]

Excellent "thought provoking" video!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Hallo Hilary... I may have used you as a source....

[@titustitusnation1999]

Oh Sht, that was in T-34 Movie. Very Nice, I like 👍

[@DonMeaker]

My limited understanding is that, for aimed fire, the combat power is proportional to the square of the number of firing units, per the Lanchester Square Law Combat model. Against a platoon of 5 Shermans, or five T-34s, an equivalent single German tank would have had to be 25 times better in quality, which would have to be quite a challenge. The equivalent two German tanks would have to be more than 6 times better in quality, and the equivalent three German tanks would have to be more than 2.7 times better in quality. German armored fighting vehicle production during WWII was, according to Wikipedia, 49,777. US armored fighting vehicle production, (same source) was 88,816, and Soviet production was 107,341. British production was 32,967. Note many of all of these were light tanks. Overall production ratio (not counting other powers) was 4.6 to 1, so using the Square Law, German superiority would have to be more than 21 times better in quality.

[@Paciat]

Lanchester Square Law didnt work in WWI. It was useful when troops had muskets and didnt care about camouflage. I WWII USA assumed that US army Sherman is (as I remember from Chieftains "tank myths" video) is 3,7 times more effective than the Wehrmacht Panther. Also US tank destroyers that that 3:1 kill ratio were considered "a successful failure" because they were less useful at other things than a proper tank.

[@TheoHawk316]

PLEASE make this a new series!

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

What was the effective range of the Panther infra-red light?

[@HO-bndk]

Allowed target identification out to 400m in total darkness.

[@atfyoutubedivision955]

@hognoxious Well I don't know that!

[@chrisyunge8569]

I didnt unsub from the chieftain, but Ive resubbed, enjoy your work tho you make everything look like its a 2/3rds the size, good history, a especially your thoughts on ww2 American tanks.!!saw your vid on fireflys, my uncle fought in Vietnam as a firefly helicopter 50 cal, he was shot down 3 times, hes a lost soul.!!

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Myth six: the radio equipment were used to engage in the comment section.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

This will be great at our Thanksgiving family gathering. . . or it would if anyone in the family besides me cared about military history. 😉 Still, great video, drilling down into some of the details quickly and efficiently. More short videos, please!

[@iivin4233]

I'm not 100% convinced that quality was their only option. You can't one-for-one transform one resource you have into any other resource. Was it worth the teething troubles for them to introduce new pieces of equipment? What strategy could you build around half better but eighth as numerous vehicles? Germany could have either converted its strategy to fit the resources it possessed or converted its resources to fit the strategy it wanted to have. Neither were to be easy tasks.

[@ed9121]

I would like to know something specific about the German panzers start up procedure. I hope someone could help (asking for a friend). We have all seen many videos of Stug IIIs, Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers use a manual inertia starter to get going. I've read that Maybach V12s all had them and the Panzer IV (Stug IV, Wirbelwind, the various other flakpanzers with a PIV chassis) had such an engine, so it should follow that the Panzer IV could be started that way esp if later model tanks still did so. I have never found a photo or a video of such a start up. On military shows videos they're either already on or use an electric starter, but never a hand crank. So my question is to confirm that a Panzer IV had a manually cranked inertia starter and if there is a video of it? Thanks if you can help.

[@HO-bndk]

Yes. the PzKpW II, III and IV all used a Bosch AL/ZMA Inertial starter. The Tigers and Panther used a Bosch AL/ZMJ. Some parts were interchangeable between the two models but they otherwise differed in the input gear, train and clutching mechanisms. According to the operator's manuals, this was the way that a cold engine always had to be started. A YT video is pointless as it won't show the sequence of steps performed by the driver. In the 1944 Tiger driver's handbook that I own, it lists 7 steps even before the wireless operator and loader even move the handle (and another two between winding it up and winding it down again).

[@gus.smedstad]

Mr. Moran obviously felt that Someone On the Internet Was Wrong.

[@glypnir]

I’m somewhat concerned that the USA seems to be going down the quality vs quantity route now. Certainly our mass production capability is not what it once was, both in overall volume, and in overall capability. I heard of a study done in 1972 which said that in the event of a medium scale conventional war in Europe we would have to keep the sea lanes to Taiwan open to get enough fasteners to keep things going. I think things are worse now in these matters.

[@startingbark0356]

Yeah i see a lot of people saying panther was a waste and the tiger too, which i knew that didnt make sense

[@kg6itc]

This was badass, thanks.

[@SandyEA]

Like to see once of these for the Sherman

[@George-bz1fi]

Very good, really.

[@gordon295]

You are the Best !!! Thank you. :)

[@patrickwentz8413]

I always wondered how many gallons of fuel the Germans had on hand per month for their tanks and if that fuel was being optimized? To put if more bluntly how many tanks of different kinds could the Germans support with their fuel supplies and if was matched with the actual number of tanks they had? It would have been a very difficult question to get the correct answer for. How much fuel does a Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV, III etc use? Stug IV, III, Hetzer etc? What was the most economic tank to build in terms of cost per enemy tank killed vs cost of production and fuel required? Maybe the Germans could support 4000 tanks on the Eastern Front with logistics at a time and only if they were Stug IIIs? It is such a technical and nuanced problem to solve.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Tiger 1 and Panther used about 30% more fuel than a Panzer IVH - and about the same as a late war M4A3. The Tiger 2 twice as much as a Panzer IV. After Pearl Harbor - once USA joined the Allies - the Germans had basically lost the war. Even Leopards 2 couldn't have changed that.

[@billwilson3609]

They listed monthly fuel production and requirements by the ton for transportation purposes. People also forget that Germany had to supply fuels and lubricating oils for their occupied countries' industrial and agricultural sectors. They and the Germans made widespread use of producer gas generators that smoldered coal, peat and wood to produce a flammable gas that provided 50% less energy than gasoline. The German Army used those on all of their training vehicles and all transport vehicles behind the lines. At the end of the war, Germany had 500,000 vehicles of all types, including locomotives and maritime craft running on producer gas. Germany also refined city gas made from coal and compressed it into a liquid that was stored in long tanks fastened to vehicles to eliminate their need to have the bulky gas generators mounted. When questioned after the war, the German armor commanders and crews said their best tanks were the Panzer 3 and the Hetzer due to being well-balanced machines that made them mechanically reliable and used less fuel and motor oil. US GI's reported that the vast majority of German tanks they found still operating at the end of the war were Hetzers and Panzer 3's due to their commanders giving them priority for fuel and oil since they run all day on a full load of gas without breaking down. The Tigers and Panthers were gas hogs with the rest of their up-armored tanks not much better since engines use up a lot of gas moving 28 to 55 tons of metal around. The M4 Sherman was a gas miser when compared to the Big Cats. It averaged .5 mpg travelling cross country, then 1.2 mpg and 1.5 mph when cruising at 23 to 28 mph in overdrive on gravel or paved roads.