Germany's Answer to the T-34 Tank - The Panther Tank

[@Simplehistory]

This video was made possible thanks to everyone on the Simple History Patreon: www.patreon.com/simplehistory

[@Account_abandoned-q7m]

Om

[@yi_hou3092]

There's a little bit of an error on the Variants, the Panther Ausf F and Panther II had different design philosophies The Panther II was the answer to the fact the Ausf D were getting shot by Anti-Tank Rifles and was uparmored from 40mm to 60mm the hull and standardization with the Tiger II using its road wheels and tracks but never entered service but was used as a test bed for the Ausf A and G and then captured by the Americans and was grafted an Ausf G Turret The Panther F was basically all about the Schmalturm Turret and would've used the Ausf G as its base along with a new 75mm Cannon

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

Good video, but just a correction, the glacis plate of the Panther was not around 100mm of effective thickness, but around 139mm (80mm @ 35 degrees from horizontal).

[@GunnerHeatFire]

"I told mama we'll be seeing tigers, elefants and panthers. She thought I was visiting Moscow zoo.” - Company of heroes

[@OscarDirlwood]

The powers that be have granted us IS-2 heavy tanks!

[@jimroberts3009]

@GunnerHeatFire. Also lynx (panzer ll Ausf L Luchs), rhinoceros (Nashorn), mice (Maus), martens (Marder), lions (Lowe), wasps (Wespe), hornets (Hornisse), crickets (Grille) and bumblebees (Hummel).

[@GunnerHeatFire]

@@jimroberts3009 Those too!

[@tedhubertcrusio372]

​@@jimroberts3009 the Löwe SPG is so powerful, the US made their own version, the M107 SPG.

[@dominicdemuro462]

I told mother I would be seeing Greyhounds, Wolverines, and Fireflies. She thought I was visiting Berlin Zoo

[@wildpurple005]

I think this was supposed to come out BEFORE the “panther tank in basement” video 😂

[@EBOWSAGOE-BIRIKORANG]

Yeah,I think so

[@haxor7372]

Should also mention the Jagdpanther, a tank destroyer variant mounting the 88mm PaK 43 to devastating effect

[@titan_tanker]

Turretless tanks is such a flawed design even if it was an attempt to mount heavier gun

[@Tsarbloonba]

@@titan_tankeri mean not having turrets are for tds which are better for ambush attacks and can be more angled too

[@aperson3280]

@@titan_tanker Thats why a turretless tank had the highest k/d ratio during ww2

[@TinyBearTim]

@@titan_tankerit’s not

[@selfdo]

The Jagdpanther reflected German AFV policy to build a casemate-style tank destroyer with the "next gun size up". With the same main weapon as the Konigstiger, it's ability to stand back and pick off enemy armor made it a devastating TD. But only 382 examples were produced. There were other plans also for the Panther chassis, but the initial teething troubles that required significant rework delayed them well into 1944. By then, material shortages and heavy losses, especially in Normandy and during Operation Bagration on the Eastern Front, which saw the virtual annihilation of Army Group Center, forced the Germans to simply concentrate on Panther tank production. Also, realizing that, mostly due to the need to repurpose and make do with what they already had, there were too many types of tanks and derived vehicles, too many gun sizes, and too FEW AFVs overall. There was a program in place by late 1943, the "Entwicklung", or development, which was an attempt to standardize tank production between types and purposes. Still, there were, I'm not kidding, SIX different categories of Panzer proposed in this "Entwicklung" family. Germany never quite got past the "craftsman" mentality and simply focus on MASS production, which the USA mastered and the USSR at least put up the numbers. Indeed, the American M18 Hellcat TD is more of what the Germans ought to have built as a purpose-built vehicle. It sacrificed armor protection, and incorporated the latest in American automotive technology, such as a variant of the GM Hydramatic automatic transmission, which made it easier for relatively inexperienced drivers to handle. It still had a powerful enough gun, and had the war continued in Europe, a "Super Hellcat" with an M3 90 mm gun, same as on the M26 Pershing, would have been issued. Being lightweight, it was quite mobile, facilitating the "shoot-and-scoot" doctrine of engaging enemy armor. Moreover, the chassis was very suitable for variants like anti-aircraft, self-propelled howitzers, ARVs, CEVs, Bridgelayers, Command vehicles, and amphibious tanks. But even the USA abandoned the Hellcat in time, giving working vehicles to NATO allies, like leftover M4 Shermans and M26 Pershings.

[@selfdo]

It's entirely FALSE that the Panther tank was developed as a response to the Soviet T-34 tank. The original requirement for a REPLACEMENT vehicle for both the Panzer III and IV tanks, which had overlapping purposes, and, in the end, entirely swapped roles, with production of the Panzer III, save for rebuild of inventory vehicles into the Ausf J and Ausf N types, in favor of the StuG III SP gun (which also, when fitted with the 75 mm L48 weapon, was very effective as a tank destroyer, credited with more AFV kills than any other type),halted altogether, was a vehicle in the 25 to 30 ton range, sporting the KwK 40 L48 main weapon also used on the Panzer IV from the F2 model onward. This program was started by Krupp in 1938, but was halted after the Polish campaign, in favor of refinement of the Panzer III and IV models, and hopes that the war would be called off. Even when it wasn't, following the defeat of France in June of 1940, the production of the German medium tanks proceeded at not too quick a pace. This would change a year later when Barbarossa commenced, and the KV-1s and T-34s were encountered the FOLLOWING DAY, to their Germans' astonishment. The need to build a better tank than what they had was especially evident by a rude defeat in October 1941 at Mtesnk, near Tula, where T-34s virtually annihilated a battalion of Panzer IVs. The VK(20) program, which had proceeded at snail's pace, got instant priority. It helped that a few T-34 "runners" had been sent to Kunersdorf for evaluation. Damiler-Benz already had a prototype that was almost a T-34 copy, but independently arrived at, with the rear engine, rear drive sprocket powerpack (the German tanks until then and the Czech 38(t) used the rear engine, front drive sprocket with the gearbox in front of the driver), which allowed a lower overall profile and better ability to slope the glacis plate. Although Hitler favored the DB design, especially with the diesel engine, which he considered essential for AFVs, the WaffenAmt 6 selected MAN's concept. However, many changes, some insisted upon by Hitler also, led to design and production delays, and this "feature creep" ended up ballooning the tank's weight to almost 45 tons, about ten more than targeted. The original Mayback HL210 engine, also used in early versions of the Tiger I with mixed results, was deemed underpowered, the bigger and "badder" HL230, rather cramped in the Panther's engine compartment, was spec'ed. This led to huge reliability troubles, including ENGINE FIRES. There were other "teething troubles", but the vehicle held promise with its overall protection, mobility, and firepower, in reality, before the idea was coined, one of the first MAIN BATTLE TANKS. Hitler had the Kursk Offensive delayed so several battalions of Panthers could be deployed, this was disastrous, both for the delay overall in giving the Soviets more time to prepare defenses, and for the Panthers as their teething problems had not yet been solved. Needless to say, their debut was a FIASCO, with many of them breaking down right in the assembly areas, and within a week, when Hitler had the Kursk offensive called off, only 16 of the original 200 were still fit for action! They were all withdraw to "go back to the drawing board", so to speak. Most of the Panther's original reliability problems were solved, save for that fragile differential, driver training dealt with that issue. The "G" model, which added a "chin" on the bottom of the turret front, eliminated a troublesome shot trap, and it was probably, WHEN it ran, the finest tank in the war. Most Panthers, along with most Tigers, served on the EASTERN front, where conditions took advantage of their long-range standoff firepower. In the West, although in certain situations they could be devastatingly effective, its strengths could not compensate for deployment in unsuitable terrain, as in the Ardennes, or make up for crew and commanders' inexperience, as experience with lopsided losses to the US 4th AD at Arracourt in September of 1944, where Panther crews kept stumbling into ambushes by Patton's more experienced tankers, whose oft-maligned M4s with their 75 mm M3 guns proved more than adequate to take out these "Big Cats"! Oh, and a minor quibble...indeed the Panther was initially deemed "Panzer Kpfw V 'Panther", bu there'd actually been a prior Panzer V, the "Neubaufahrzeug" multi-turreted vehicle, of which five prototype vehicles were built in 1938, and none of them saw actual combat. In trials, this particular vehicle proved cumbersome, slow, and difficult to operate. About the most "action" they saw was that, a few days after their comrades had landed and secured the city, they were ferried from recently-overrun Denmark to Oslo, Norway, and paraded around to impress the locals. In 1944, Hitler ordered the Panther to be simply named "Panther", no Roman numeral. BTW, Der Fuhrer criticized the Panther, deriding it as "that clanking 'He 177' ", in reference to the troubled heavy bomber, which also had major problems with ENGINE FIRES.

[@chaorazul_4477]

finally a good comment... and probably even researched more throroughly than the average simple history video

[@sthrich635]

Great read but the Battle in Arracourt was more of a classic lesson about imbalanced combined arms and much less about Panther designs flaws or the quality of German Panzer crews even in late war. The major participating German formation was a Panzer Brigade, not the much more common and tested Panzer Division. That Panzer Brigade in Arracourt had the same number of tanks as in Panzer Divisions, but with heavily reduced other support elements: It only had half the strength for its Panzergrenadiers, a lack of artillery regiment and only had one-third of support units including recon and AA. In other words, the remaining combat arms were expected to perform 200-300% more of their work to support their Panzers, and needlessly to say they failed big time. Massive numbers of Panthers lost to US ambushes not because of their commanders' or crews inexperience, but simply they had very little recon units to scout them out, infantry to escort the tanks, or artillery to disrupt US AT defense. Again just tanks alone don't win battles - combined arms does.

[@selfdo]

@@sthrich635 Good point that at Arracourt, lack of other arms, especially infantry, contributed to the Germans' poor showing. It was a result of throwing in quickly what they had and could put in the vicinity of Metz. The panzers got priority for what trains were bringing reinforcements; they were committed to battle before what would have been a proper Panzer division in formations (panzergrenadiers, artillery, communications,etc.) and strength could be assembled. I believe they knew that throwing a tank-heavy unit at the Americans and not having a well-thought-out plan was going to go badly; but had they waited even a few more days, 4th AD would have rolled into Metz almost unopposed. Points out the desperate situation on the Germans' Western Front in September 1944. Please keep in mind that Market-Garden was raging and obviously it was getting priority for reinforcement; General der Panzertruppen Hasso Von Manteuffel, a very capable commander, had to make do with what he had. Interesting to note that nearly 200 German panzers and assault guns were committed; when the typical strength of a "Panzer" division was about 50-60 tanks...meaning most fought in a constant state of being understrength. That many Panzers would have, had they had the luxury, been assigned to at least two divisions, likely together as a panzerkorps. I believe that each division would have had, at what they considered by 1944 "full strength", four panzergenadier battalions in two regiments, and one artillery regiment. Of course, in line with "Ausfragtatik", these units would have been mixed into "Kampgruppen" to suit the situation, but again, you have to have them AVAILABLE. As you pointed out, the Germans were going into battle woefully understrength in infantry, artillery, and other supporting units, and the results could hardly have been surprising. The overall point, of course, is that technical superiority of one's weapon system(s), armor included, doesn't necessarily yield satisfactory results unless they're commanded and deployed properly to take advantage thereof. Also, one thing's forgotten about Arracourt: although it cost the Germans dearly in armor, which they sorely could have used in either the Hurtgen Forest defense, or in the Ardennes, or even on the Eastern Front, they did STOP Patton's Third Army from advancing on Metz for weeks, as he was forced to go "old school" with infantry and artillery to assault its several forts, something his purported rival, Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, was better at. Their objective WAS achieved, they simply paid too much for it!

[@shishirmishramishra1014]

........ how long did that take to type?

[@rolandhunter]

Check out the reliability seciont at wikipedia. 4.200 km with a towing panther...is good as a sherman tank.

[@karlsson7300]

One of Panther´s problems - of what i´ve read - was the shape of the sprockets inside the drive for the drive wheels. Because they were shaped horizontally they had a reduced distribution of forces. The result was they broke relatively often when the tank was driving faster than approximately 28 mph. So it could never reach it´s actual top speed of 34 mph.

[@joegatt2306]

Very true. The Germans could not manufacture stepped sprocket teeth, (like the Sherman's) due to lack of tungsten and other alloys, but they usually broke off, mostly due to driver's incompetence, (and there were many from late 1944) not due to speeding up. Experienced drivers drove their Panthers without mishaps for a thousand miles or more, (Repairing the Panzers” by Lukas Friedli).

[@Iskelderon]

0:58 Krupp and Krups (the guys who made the coffee grinder on the flying DeLorean time machine) are two VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY different companies. 🤣

[@drydogg]

There was a story about one the Panther Aces, during the Breakout from the Normandy beachhead. He was positioned at the top of a hill, where a road came up in front of him. He ambushed M-4 Shermans until he ran out of ammunition and had to abandon his position. He used every shell he had and still the Shermans kept coming, and coming, pushing the burning hulks out of their way. It was then that he realized that Germany was going to lose.

[@jebbroham1776]

The Panther was the best medium tank of WW2, and don't give me that "reliability" bs argument because by 1944 it WAS reliable. The teething problems had been mostly worked out and it functioned as designed.

[@scorpiontdalpha9799]

The term "best" is different for each nations. Panther is best medium for Germany but definitely not for US (hard to deliver oversea and is more complicated design-wise), not for Soviet since Soviet wants a giant tank force, not a force of giant tanks (at least not yet). The same goes for others.

[@1Meme2UniteThemAll]

tankie detected. opinion rejected.

[@jebbroham1776]

@@1Meme2UniteThemAll Your argument is invalid, facts don't care about your feelings.

[@joegatt2306]

@@jebbroham1776 You are right on the false criticism of the later models' reliability, (Ausf.G) but if not unreliable, its 'over-engineered'. Just to show you how pathetic Shermanboos can be. Compare any Panther model with the best of the Shermans, the M4A3(W)76 HVSS and the German tank beats it in every respect. Armament, Optics, Armor, Mobility, and by mobility, I mean just about everything: power-loading, ground-pressure, speed, range, maximum grade, trench crossing, vertical wall (or step), ground-clearance and for the last two: fording dept 1.9m to 0.9m, (which means when a Sherman is in dire need of a bridge, the Panther could just wade across! So much for the excessive weight) and turning radius: 4.7m to 9.4m! (which means a Panther can pivot inside the confines of a street, the Sherman needs a crossroad). Sources: Jentz & Doyle for Panther and R.P. Hunnicutt for Sherman.

[@joneshgw6378]

The sherman and t34 was also a nightmare during the first operations. A tank as a whole is a complex system, even a small or simple tank, from the engine to the gun and electronics you can only simplify so much. Thats where testing ans fixing before action comes… and neither nation really did that. Because the companies behind it also wantee to make money.

[@falke_blade9341]

I love how much detail was put into this video especially in the factory shots!!

[@Anlushac11]

I can say I found this video to be one of the better videos on the Panther tank and informative.

[@Harikejn]

There were some versions of T-34 tanks with flame throwers. Here are two fun facts: 1. Believe it or not Yugoslavia had in production the Renault tanks before WWII. They bought the licence for making the tanks. 2. Believe it or not Yugoslavia also made some T-34 tanks in small quantities, with couple of modifications after WWII.

[@AudieHolland]

A Yugoslavian T-34 was modified to resemble a Tiger tank and it was first used in the movie "Kelly's Heroes (1970)" and later in "Saving Private Ryan (1998)."

[@Harikejn]

@@AudieHolland Yes it was. It was also used in Yugoslav war movies during the 60's and 70's.

[@AudieHolland]

@@Harikejn Ah. Which movies? Don't know many Yugoslavian movies. many = any.

[@Harikejn]

@@AudieHolland Well, Battle For Neretva, Battle For Sutjeska. Find on internet for Yugoslav movies, especially partisan movies.

[@Harikejn]

@@AudieHolland It was used in movies such as The Battle On Sutjeska, The Battle On River Neretva.

[@parsayousefi1416]

Consider that it gave the nickname the best tank made in ww2. It makes sense that it had armor of heavy tanks penetration of anti tank and speed of light tank and was considered a medium tank

[@SNOWDUDE13]

5:14 The dot is so barely visible, I thought it read 285 mph 😅😅

[@keolath1343]

2:05 The F variant had the Schmal turm or “small turret” as the turret to, as you stated, make production easier. The turret was tested and proven to hold the KwK 43 gun (king tiger gun) but due to lack of space the gun couldnt be reloaded. That turret was also planned to be the main turret put on any panther that needed a new turret As for the Panther II it was indeed built, at least the hull was with it currently residing at the Armor & Calvary museum in Ft Moore (Ft benning) Georgia. The collection has certain dates where they open the collection to the public to come and see the vehicles with the legendary T28 “doom turtel” right across from the Panther II in the collection

[@Goc4ever]

I really liked this explanation, nicely done Simple History. The part of the night-vision device was especially interesting because a piece of such technology contributed to develop night-vision devices for new-generation tanks of today's armed forces worldwide.

[@sudeshbambal1978]

I thinking about wt players will come here

[@thomasthedestroyerofplanet6018]

You were right 😊

[@dumbcook42]

Radio wave Microwave Infared Radiation Visible Light Ultraviolet X-Ray Gamma Ray

[@takumifujiwara4149]

we are here

[@LeroxYT]

The missile knows where it is at all times

[@Abyssal_night450]

Yes

[@robertdacquisto6871]

Great video! Do one about the Nashorn, that is such a cool vehicle.

[@joneshgw6378]

The idea if sloped amor is already evident in many german vehicles before the Panther, like their halftracks or scout vehicles sdkfz222. They did not copy the idea fron the t34. However the germans prefered a spacious envirourment to operate with the crew, look at the panzer 3 and 4 conpared to the t-34 or sherman. They were rather big on the inside in comparison. Sloping amour means a cramped space, less ammo, equipment, they didnt wanted that on tanks. On the Tiger 2 you can see to what that leads… a pretty big vehicle if you want sloped amor and space on the inside… Also shermans and t34s had also massive problems when they were introduced, it was not a german only thing.

[@ben9724]

Could talk more about the armor and protections that germans have put on the tank. I was able to see a Panther ausf A. in a museum in Canada. It was covered with Zimmerit, which stop magnetic bombs and grenades to stick to the tank.

[@HammerJammer81]

Favorite Tank of the war for me was the Panther II design. Love that tank

[@Spz751]

Fun fact: the panther was so close to being a full mbt it was almost classified one

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

The problem is there isn’t a clear definition of what exactly an MBT is. You could say an MBT is any tank with its armor focused on the front and a high velocity gun capable of penetrating the vast majority of tanks it might face, in which case the Panther is indeed an MBT

[@ethanedwards422]

If the panther can be called a MBT, then the Mark 1 from ww1 can also be called a MBT.

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@ethanedwards422 the Panther has most features that define a modern MBT: armor focused on the front, good mobility, highly capable gun. There isn’t a strict definition for what an MBT is, but the Mark I is definitely not it

[@Ryomen_Sukuna_But_Russian]

12:48 imagine blocking off all the air vents causing them to get smoke poisoning lol

[@somtochukwuobidegwu5426]

I don’t care what anyone says the panther tank is my favourite tank and have one of the best design.

[@PanzerFausYT]

0:52 - 1:00 those were A20s or A32s

[@EriVi-ng3lf]

I am sure you mean Krupp, right? Krups is a manufacturer of kitchen appliances.

[@alanroberson9749]

Excellent work dudes!! I'd like to take a moment to dedicate this to the German collector that had his tank and other relics stolen from the German government, simple history even did a video on it!

[@Riceball01]

Once correction, most German tanks didn't use interleaved road wheels, only later tank from the Tiger, on used interleaved road wheels. The PzKpfw I - IV all used non-interleaved road wheels.

[@corymorimacori1059]

"We have lost many brave men, but their sacrifice is not in vain. Our tanks now form a line of steel so powerful that all German resistance will be crushed beneath its mighty treads. Today - we will watch as Seelow falls. Along with all those foolish enough to stand in our way." Viktor Reznov

[@NakulDalakoti]

4:54 This tank's had it, everybody out !

[@Ausf.D.A.K.]

It's "Krupp", not "Krups". Krups makes coffee machines.

[@abramluna301]

The first panther version wasn't the first the first was the VK 3002

[@KunalGarshan]

Yup

[@jankusthegreat9233]

Ty for this video

[@Tomato-oi1cg]

USA:We name our tanks after generals USSR:We give our tanks number designations Germany:Big cat

[@Sodoriash]

Congrats on 10 years of KZbin

[@nicholaskirk9810]

Cool animated videos, I’ve just subscribed as not to miss any future posts, thank you, 🇬🇧👍👍👍👊.

[@ratcartoons]

Amazing! I could watch this forever! 😄🌟

[@arefuu6682]

underrated tank overshadowed by tiger 1.

[@thomasburke7995]

The panther was the culmination of several factors. The biggest being the torsion bar suspension and sloped armour both developed by Christie. Now Christie after being told NO by the US Army shopped histank to both the British Russians and other countries also to be told NO. The overall best tank of the war never really made it into combate and that would have been the m28 patton with a 90mm HV cannon and thicker armor. The panther in the end was really just a stop gap for the Tiger and the jagtigers.

[@JohnnyNevada-el7vg]

Was it though? The Panther served by doctrine as the Breakthrough-Exploitation-Medium-Tank in the regular Panzer-Regiments battalions, while the Tigers job was just to create a gap in the enemies defense. Also the Jagdpanther was a Tank-destroyer, its usage outside of dedicated units was of pure necessity due to a lack of Tanks.

[@LegionQueenCycad]

Slogan of the Panther “Hans, ze transmission broke!”

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

The transmission didn’t break that often, the final drive however did

[@LegionQueenCycad]

@@yarnickgoovaerts The problem was the mechanical parts weren’t built for a vehicle of the Panther’s weight, the transmission would break because the Panther was just too heavy for it

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@LegionQueenCycad the transmission wasn’t any worse than other German tanks. Other parts like the final drive did break often, and that was mainly because of poor maintenance and the fact that crews trained on Panzer I’s and II’s, instead of actual Panthers

[@LegionQueenCycad]

@@yarnickgoovaertsTrue, but there was also the factor that as the war went on Germany had to use less and less hence workers to make the tanks, had why the Panther and by extension the Tiger have a reputation for breaking down often, and weight was a major factor too, putting too much strain on the drivetrain and transmission, there is also the fact that German tanks were completely over designed, they were too complex and required constant upkeep to even function

[@iliadnetfear2586]

Fun Fact: when Simple History says, "over 84,000 T-34s they faced" this line becomes less scary when you hear that Russia had employed over 119,000 tanks throughout the war and lost well over 80,000 of them. They lost more tanks than Germany ever had, and that was with Germany losing tanks in Africa, Italy, and France, not their entire force going in one direction like Russia had the advantage of. Mass producing an underperforming tank does not a good tank doctrine make.

[@joegatt2306]

Actually, the Soviets fielded 131,700 tanks in WW2, (pre-war strength + wartime production + Lend-lease) and is known to have lost 96,500 of them. Both figures as per G.F. Krivosheev.

[@selfdo]

Furthermore, for their supposed superiority over the German Panzer III and IVs, which it looks evident "on paper", the USSR lost disproportionately to them in the first three years of the Eastern Front campaign. Indeed, even in 1944 and 1945, when the German tank losses mounted, they were due more to operational problems, like running out of fuel or breakdowns and inability to recover before being overrun. The actual "giveaway/takeaway" ratio of German AFVs, which by 1944 the majority were SP guns and TDs, actually INCREASED in the Germans' favor when actual combat losses are figured, despite the huge improvement that the T-34/85 was. There are many factors that reflect the outcome of battles and losses; including logistics, leadership, doctrine, training, and experience, wherein a technically inferior vehicle can inflict lopsided losses, and there are numerous examples of that happening. As IDF tank general Israel Tal once put it; they could have swapped equipment with their Arab opponents before doing battle, and the outcome scarcely would have differed.

[@titakristengco]

This was the Truely first (Main Battle Tank) same Tank collators and historians said.

[@titakristengco]

But the Centurion Tanks was the official the 1st MBT.

[@SuperiorAmericanGuy]

The king tiger tank is a giant terror tank.

[@b4nterontilt]

it was garbage. Not rated by anyone that time

[@SuperiorAmericanGuy]

The king tiger giant terror tank killed all allied tanks in one shot.

[@fenz_fern]

@@SuperiorAmericanGuynope it was garbage because it was so heavy it often broke down before reaching the front because it was weighing almost 70 tonnes

[@SuperiorAmericanGuy]

And I assume the same is that for the me 262 and the Bismarck right?

[@b4nterontilt]

@@SuperiorAmericanGuy me 262 was garbage also. And Bismarck wasn't needed at all. Best fighter Germany had was Focke Wulf Fw190

[@JoanOlléiTosquella-h4r]

Great video. Could you do it of the Panther II?

[@nerwus1]

Panther II was completely pulled out of the snail's buttocks

[@TinyBearTim]

It’s literally just a panther with more armour and small changes little is different

[@JasperIsEpic]

@@nerwus1no it was a real thing it was never got past the prototype phase, though there is a single Panther ll hull with a Panther g turret attached in a museum some where

[@nerwus1]

@@JasperIsEpic The turret was the F variant i think

[@JasperIsEpic]

@@nerwus1 nope it was the Panther G turret there is only one Panther F turret remaining and it’s heavily damaged due to it being used for range practice for a number of years.

[@APOLON-bm7ym]

Warthunder player timetravels to 1943 and became Panther commander. Due to its ingame knowledge, he brought 22ap and 3he shells. Battle of Kursk began. 15 minutes later. "Obersturmfuehrer, wir sind out of ammo" "Drive to one of the caps to rearm" ??? Pfuuu, stupid one, sorry... But it will make you to reply with much better WT related joke

[@shanefranklin8733]

Did anyone else notice the unfinished Jagdpanther hull at 7:41?

[@newskenger3885]

Yes, it is a copy of a famous picture.

[@24tanksalot]

Love this channel

[@tntfreddan3138]

Quite funny how the 85mm gun on the T34 was basically equivalent, or even worse than the long 75mm gun on the Panzer IV H/J.

[@josepholiver6733]

Great video 👍

[@frankhernandez6883]

*good to hear the truth spoken and not from some Hollywood movie claiming the Sherman was a great tank!*

[@zhuangsaur227]

I wonder why the Panther Tanks armor was only at 55 deg to the vertical instead of the 60 deg to the vertical that wouldve given an LOS of 160mm not just 140mm LOS

[@quagsire1249]

Maybe for transmission space?

[@PietroBrion-km2ep]

8:15 the optics in this scene are unrealistic, those are for the 88mm, found on the Tiger, Tiger II, Jadpanther and others

[@Star_Wars_Nerd_6J]

Hello 👋, I love the videos!

[@ilfarmboy]

nice one well done on saying German language

[@tavish4699]

i lsitened to a panther commanders memoirs and he said they were not impressed by the night visions and sent them back

[@erichschneider4759]

Best looking tank with tiger 2 in WW2

[@KunalGarshan]

Kv 1 during early barb wos op like the germans couldnt penetrate them with panzer 4s in late kv1's were obsolete against tigers panthers king tigers etc

[@bloodblade9913]

Can you do the battle of vimy ridge pls

[@pauloldham4605]

Panther's 75 mm had better pen than the tigers 88 mm.

[@محمدملکوتی-ج6ث]

very good video

[@flamesshome1823]

War thunder should re-add the Panther II

[@bonniestvnewsnews2082]

bro forgot the first panther the vk 3002 (M)

[@watcherinthedark247]

I'd like to take a moment to dedicate this to the German collector that had his tank and other relics stolen from the German government, simple history even did a video on it!

[@TheoM.-tl5jp]

he used the tank to help people in the wwinter

[@2fwelding842]

Guessing you didnt actually watch it. He was fined and given a time frame to sell his collection

[@watcherinthedark247]

@@2fwelding842 force to sell and stolen are pretty much the same to me, he wasn't doing any harm and even helped people. Plus what's the point of being able to sell it if he has to pay fines? That's just theft with extra steps

[@Indian_Germany]

Panzerkampfwagen V Panther ❤

[@muhacnt7988]

Wouldnt be surprist if modern mbt have the same specs as fhis boi

[@itamarluiz1442]

Brings a video describing the participation of South American countries that fought in the Second World War II.

[@babish9755]

Video about the tiger 2 next?

[@b4nterontilt]

Tiger II was garbage

[@babish9755]

@@b4nterontilt debatable

[@ethanedwards422]

​@@babish9755not debatable. The Germans already had a effective tank in combat in the panther. The tiger 2 only took up valuable resources for a tank that didn't even make it to the front line most of the time.

[@weisserpanther_]

Why is there a tank with 18 kills (stripes on the barrel) in the factory? That doesn't make sense!

[@avia1295]

Jagdpanther was the best Panther variant ..

[@vintagemilitaryvehicles]

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@CARL_093]

my favorite ww2 tank panther

[@otisred7848]

This may be up for debate but I think the Germans would have been better off upgrading or even a redesign of the panzer 4. When it was upgraded to the 75mm the Germans should have redesigned it with sloped armour and wider tracks.

[@otisred7848]

Sorry ment to say the 75mm kwk40 long barrel

[@JohnnyNevada-el7vg]

@@otisred7848The biggest issue of the Panzer 4 was the overloaded suspension, the long 75mm and the extra armor pushed the design pretty much to the extreme, why a common cause of breakdown for late war Panzer 4 was the rolling wheels breaking off due to tge stress from the extra weight. It certainley coudnt handle more, thats why the germans never slaped the proposed sloped armor package on in the first place.

[@b4nterontilt]

@@otisred7848 there was no chance to put long 75 in Pz IV. Turret was too small for it and bigger turret wasn't an option since turret ring in the hull wasn't big enough. It required brand new hull

[@ethanedwards422]

By the time the panther entered production there was no feasible way to upgrade the panzer 4 even more, the turret could not be expanded to handle a bigger gun, armour could not be increased as it was already too heavy. As a fun fact, the panther was cheaper to produce than the later panzer 4s.

[@b4nterontilt]

@@ethanedwards422 no. Panther cost 146k RM white Pz IV 103k RM. Not to mention fuel use, resources and time production

[@panzerfaust503]

Actually the angle gave it 140 mm effective armor.....sry

[@IsaacTeoWaiKitMontfortss]

are we not going to talk about the sights saying 8.8cm pzgr instead of 7.6cm or is that just a panther II

[@TinyBearTim]

Panther 2 did not have a 88

[@IsaacTeoWaiKitMontfortss]

@@TinyBearTimthanks for pointing that out

[@natheriver8910]

Very fascinant 👏 👏 👏 👏

[@ish2008]

Re-upload?

[@Florida5thscale]

15:49 on the sight it should be 7.5cm not 8.8cm.

[@cyacullo]

Good tank

[@migs232]

Cool

[@JamesBSweet]

ne was no best tank of the war the closest one has to be the sherman there was a lot of Sherman's variants

[@Llyd_ApDicta]

"Ausf." is not a word, it is an acronym for "Ausführung", which means version similar to the English "Mk" or "Mark". So you either use the full word or leave it off and say Pan*t*er (hard "t") G.

[@gantulgaganhuyag717]

At 1.36min, ausf or ausfuehrung was explained. So your comment is somewhat redundant

[@paleoph6168]

1:36

[@Llyd_ApDicta]

@@gantulgaganhuyag717 No, it's not since he keeps saying "Ausf".

[@MajorJakas]

​@@gantulgaganhuyag717you didn't even correct the actual mistake. It's not an acronym it's a contraction in Deutsch, or an abbreviation in English.

[@KingKnight1280]

Which was better, panther or tiger?

[@lightbluewaves5526]

In general the panther. Way more of them were produced and the gun of the Panther was as good and equally effective as the tiger's gun despite it being smaller size

[@SPADES9088]

VK 3002???

[@hfdennycheng9010]

IN MY OWN COUNTRY, IT IS JUST HAS POLITICAL HISTORY BUT SHORTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY HISTORY AT SCHOOL LESSONS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE HISTORY TEXTBOOKS WOULD NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SOVIET T-34 TANK AND THE GERMAN PANTHER TANK MY OWN COUNTRY IS CHINA

[@chimken6643]

How many times r u gunna glaze the panther?!?😭😭

[@承昱張]

Is ERSATA M10 a Panther tank?

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

Yes

[@martini2334]

reupload?

[@ReggaeIGandalf]

1:07 it's called M A N not men.

[@aistisnarmontas4515]

When you think of it Russians were more advanced because they build in massive numbers and made stuff simple and easy to repair and by having so many tanks there was always spare parts around if you needed to fix tank in action. You couldn`t say same about germans.

[@luisrenato4089]

"Russians more advanced because they built simplier stuff" what???

[@sharky7002]

@@luisrenato4089just leave him alone. He’s clearly using big words he doesn’t understand in an attempt to appear intelligent. Best you can do is leave him alone and ignore him

[@alfrancisbuada2591]

I thought the most fearsome tank the Germans had was the Tiger?

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

The Tiger was far more infamous, but the Panther generally preformed better

[@alfrancisbuada2591]

@@yarnickgoovaerts How exactly?

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@alfrancisbuada2591 the Panther is more mobile, lighter, cheaper to produce, easier to transport by rail, has effectively the same amount of frontal armor and it even has superior penetration at short range, while still having similar penetration values at longer ranges

[@alfrancisbuada2591]

@@yarnickgoovaerts In contrast, to the Tiger Tank?

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@alfrancisbuada2591 the Tiger was heavier, slower, more expensive, needed different tracks if you want to move it by rail, has 100mm of unangled frontal armor (the Panther has the same amount if you take the angling into consideration) and it’s 88mm gun actually has lower penetration values at short range, while only slightly beating out the Panther’s gun at longer ranges

[@blaine7294]

Panzer 6 and panzer 5

[@pyeitme508]

Yep the Panther tank. :P

[@Armada-1935]

Why tf are there bots on a simple history video?

[@ShadowReaper-pu2hx]

They’re on all kinds of channels.

[@Armada-1935]

@@ShadowReaper-pu2hx 😑

[@OKA4LIVE]

here

[@oktabyotv3895]

Bro can you make video about tanks used in ukraine and russia war today

[@JKD14]

Boom

[@b4nterontilt]

Panther was actually massive flop when it comes to armored warfare. Only tiger II was worse for the Germans

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

And what makes you jump to that conclusion?

[@b4nterontilt]

@@yarnickgoovaerts low reliability, lots of technical errors, expensive to make, takes long time to make, very complicated, low fire power against infantry, too heavy for medium, too light armored for heavy. Overall very dissapointing project. Should've stick to Pz IV-like tanks with new improvements

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@b4nterontilt the low reliability and technical errors were only really a problem initially because they were rushed into production without fixing those teething issues. By the end of the war they were as reliable as Panzer IVs. And just so you know, in 2 years they produced almost as many Panthers as they produced Panzer IVs in 6 years. It has an adequate HE shell, and besides that it wasn’t supposed to be an infantry support tank so that isn’t super important. It’s frontal armor was effectively as thick as the Tiger I’s, while it’s lighter weight means it’s more mobile and easier to transport by train. The Panther was the best tank Germany could’ve built. And even then, the Panzer IV was a dead end. The Panzer IV H had so much armor the transmission almost couldn’t hold it anymore, while it’s gun was not powerful enough to reliably deal with newer versions of Shermans and T-34s at longer ranges.

[@ryleeculla5570]

Just reposted with older videos >:(

[@XianjacobCabrillos]

They need a tiger not a panther

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

Panthers were better than Tigers in most of the important aspects

[@hotsauce9554]

Tbf, their answer was to upgun their current stock of Pz.3's and Pz.4's to the 50 and 75mm respectively. And ofc things like the Stug changing from a close range infantry support gun platform to a tank destroyer 😊

[@yi_hou3092]

The Panzer IV was actually supposed to use the 50mm Cannon even before the Panzer III, there was a test unit that did use the Long Barreled 50mm Cannon

[@hotsauce9554]

@@yi_hou3092 oh yeah, i mean theres no doubt variants of both! Im sure you look hard enough you'll find a pz 2 with a long 88 😭