Why the Panzer IV was NOT the Workhorse of the Wehrmacht

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Link to the mentioned book: » Panzer! Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com More books from the Military History Group: » militaryhistorygroup.com

[@DIREWOLFx75]

I don't think you understand what is meant with the term "workhorse". And the Pz IV did not quite start out as such, because originally, it carried the snubnose HE-cannon, making it unsuited for hitting evemy tanks. The workhorse tank of a military is the one most commonly used in as many fronts and roles as possible. The one you can send in anywhere. The Pz IV was literally everywhere from the beginning of the war until the end. And it managed to remain relevant the entire time. It was the basis for a horde of other vehicles, even if most of them were never massproduced. AND the Pz IV was also the single most individually common German tank. as your own numbers shows. Doesn't matter the slightest that it doesn't dominate the numbers. It's Germany's single individually most common tank. It was used for every kind of mission a tank could be part of. Except possibly airborn landing, but Germany didn't exactly have the means to conduct an airborn landing with an armored component. Also, as your own data shows, the Pz IV had an almost 50% greater production than the next 2 most common.

[@Suchtel10]

Would be nice to know how many Panther they could have produced if Panzer III, Panzer IV and Tiger production facilities were as soon as possible fully converted to Panther production

[@seriousmaran9414]

I tend to agree the definition of workhorse here is wrong. It is something used as a general purpose tank. It is not exclusive, so the 4 and Panther could both be described as being workhorse tanks although neither was designed to be.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@DIREWOLFx75 1) native speaker reviewed the script, he had no objection. 2) "it carried the snubnose HE-cannon, making it unsuited for hitting evemy tanks." Too bad, there was AP ammo for it and the regulation (May 1941) states it is completely suited to attack tanks with. It killed plenty of tanks, besides T-34s and KV-1s, but those were problem for most tanks. I leave it at that, maybe do your homework first before you tell what I "don't understand".

[@arnijulian6241]

Great video but if anything is the workhorse of the German Wehrmacht it was 2.75million horses they had acquired through invasion of European nation along with their native 1/2 a million odd. If horses are not included then Germanies strength was not tanks but Sonderkraftfahrzeug=Special-purpose motor vehicle being mainly the over 15 thousand Sd.Kfz. 251 & the14 thousand odd Sd.Kfz. 10 to name the 2 most produced of 23 official variants though unofficial variants also exist in small number for the most niece purposes. Germans Sonderkraftfahrzeug like Britain with the over 84,000 universal carriers in ww2 was their respective nations land army workhorse. Germany & Britain could not field the tank numbers of the USA or the USSR though could achieve a large fraction of it with resource better focussed on AFV's which Russia & the USSR greatly neglected! Tanks are fun but they are not what wins wars alone & the USA was always jealous of the British universal carrier in ww2 which is why they tried copying it with no production success then copied the Germans with the M3 half-track that 41,000 were produced in ww2 but only by around 1944 in production in any meaningful amount. M3 half track wasn't great or even good but the USA built a lot of them in short time which matters. Better meh now then something good to late for the event. USA was industrial beast but it was not without short coming s even if few compared to other power of the time as the USA had ludicrous domestic converted commercial industry & more money then sense! The USA could throw population & capital at most any problem unlike other powers of the world at the time or even today though the USA is not it's former ability from the 1950's at it's peak.

[@ropeburn6684]

Panzer III chassis didn't choose StuG life, StuG life chose them.

[@ALMdawgfan]

Hahaha! Yep… Who needed to be able to roll?. The Stugs didn’t have to go far…. The Front kept coming to them!

[@SmedleyDouwright]

The panzer 3 had a torsion bar suspension.

[@typxxilps]

in the german army you have no choices, you are chosen - or not.

[@Mark3nd]

No love for the Stug IV?

[@Deep-Red-0]

@@Mark3nd that would feel like cheating on the Stug III and I'm monogamous

[@null3752]

the real workhorse were definitely horses

[@AndrewGraziani-k7d]

Ah good one, you got us there.

[@deg6788]

Amen

[@andrewklang809]

Truly the unsung -heroes- of the Wehrmacht.

[@billyponsonby]

🫡

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

@@andrewklang809 and any army not Brit Commonwealth, USA or, to a large extent, France.

[@omegalis]

It really is amazing how Germany clearly didn't fully commit to war production until after they had already effectively lost.

[@tysonssg3040]

That is what I took away from the video that was fascinating as well. I guess they just figured the Army they had could get it done. Until Stalingrad and Tunisia cumulatively whacking a very significant part of their order of battle off the map in just a few months. Also probably gotta keep the people back home flush with commercial goods to convince them everything was cool.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

More like WAY after they lost. War was over in 1941 already, under moscow when exhausted german army couldnt defeat another bunch of broken and nearly hopless recruits. After reorganisation of soviet army war was over, they didnt stand a chance even if allies play neutrality card again.

[@flipsterfloppa9065]

@@alexturnbackthearmy1907the war was lost once all the tweakers in high command decided they should go to war with everyone else all at once

[@johnnyb2909]

​​@@flipsterfloppa9065it were actually the french and british that declared war, and the germans needed to attack U.S. convoys cause they were supplying the soviets with enormous amount of equipment.

[@tinman3586]

The National Socialist government lead by Hitler wanted to avoid putting their population through too much hardship through rationing and long work hours like what had happened from 1914-1918. During the first world war Gsrmany was a military dictatorship and the hardships endured by the population lead to the German Revolution of 1918 which overthrew the Keiser and forced Germany to seek peace.

[@wraithwyvern528]

I think the main reason the Panzer IV (particularly the long-barreled versions) is thought of as a workhorse is because it was one of the most likely tanks a Sherman or T-34 tanker would encounter of similar capability to their own workhorse of a tank. Thus, documentaries/docudramas tend to show them as common counterparts and video games like Company of Heroes balances all 3 tanks effectively the same in terms of role, cost, and performance, even if statistically plenty of Panthers and Panzer IIIs were running around the actual battlefields. It's easier for people to apply a common logic for all 3 tanks than to constantly be accounting for differences with the mega-variety pack of combat vehicles the Germans deployed in the war which definitely can complicate historical narratives or video game design especially to lay audiences.

[@alex_zetsu]

The thing though is that it seems a Soviet or American tanker would have likely been more likely to see a Panzer III in his crosshairs than a Panzer IV, so I'm not sure how this misconception would have started.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

The Pz IV was a stopgap between the main battle tanks Pz III and Pz V. Hitler planned for 1941 as the last major fighting, but he forgot that Stalin got a vote too😊

[@looinrims]

I think it’s just because they’re similar in capability and people like to make analogous comparisons Most people forget panzer 3 was a medium tank despite being pretty small for a medium tank

[@aleksazunjic9672]

It was considered as workhorse because it was workhorse 😁 Other than that, Germany did not have a workhorse tank (which is partially true) . Note that despite high production numbers Panther was not as reliable as PzIV , i.e. many would break down thus actual available number was low. As for PzIII, production ended in 1943 because it was deemed obsolete.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

The panzer 3 is not that small. It's got the same basic dimensions as the panzer 4. It's smaller in terms of volume, but it's length, width and height is basically the same. It had the same engine, and as krupp showed with their concept vehicles, it could be modified to accept the same turrets as the panzer 4. The panzer 4 really shouldn't have existed, it only exists because the support/escourt medium tank role was given to a different company to design than the main medium tank design, as intially the plan for the support tanks was to be much greater differences, but the separate companies and thus separate tanks was kept even when the main difference was just armament.

[@alexandershorse9021]

You are right in sheer numbers but the term “workhorse” can refer to the fact the Panzer IV was the only German tank produced through out the war, along with the Stug. They were both continuously upgraded, so both were sound platforms. Ironically it was the Panzer II and III that won the early war victories but usually don’t get enough credit - except on your channel. The Russian and US production numbers were really interesting and showed German tank production was completely inadequate - and you didn’t even include total British production, which was quite significant.

[@apyllyon]

They later retrofitted stug to use PZ 4 chassis in the late war to rationalize production,further added bonus 4 was very slightly larger in overal dimension than 3, giving the crew already sitting somewhat comfortable in the stug 3 just dat itty bit more space

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@apyllyon they did not. The stug 4 was the result of damage taken to certain factories resulting in more stug superstructures than available panzer 3 chassis. So they put them on panzer 4 chassis that were available. Panzer 3 chassis stugs continued to be the primary stug produced in the war. Adtionally the panzer 4 chassis is not larger than the panzer 3 chassis. The panzer 4 has more volume only because it has a larger super structure, but that was not carried over onto stug 4s, which had regular stug 3 super structures resulting in the basically same internal volume.

[@yashkasheriff9325]

I'm sorry, a sound platform the Panzer IV is not. It sways all over the place, the leaf-spring bogeys can't take the pressure of two 80mm plates at the front and regularly wear themselves out and strip all the rubber from them from frequent use (hence the pairs of bogeys with steel roadwheels on Jagdpanzer IV Lang), the Finns noted that the Panzer IV Js they got made their brake drums glow hot red in summer road marches, and it is a hilariously instable gun platform unless used defensively. The Germans only used it for so long because they had no viable option otherwise, and replacing it with Panzer III/IV was one of Wa.Pruef 6's constant hot-button topics until they went with Panther.

[@yashkasheriff9325]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 For context for anyone who was wondering, Alkett was being bombed to shit at that time and Alkett's Jagdpanzer IVs couldn't be made. The StuG IV is a stopgap while other factories spooled up production and took up the torch.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@yashkasheriff9325 Eh, such is a life of german army in ww2. No more jags 4? We have some pz4 that are halfway destroyed, so...here, have a stug 4! It just as good, we promise! No more panzer 4 hulls? Eh...i guess these pz 38`s will do nicely, just a small cut here and there, and we got ourself a new, *improved "stug"!

[@lambastepirate]

The reason Panzer 38 T chassis was built so much was the Skoda works did not have cranes that where heavy enough to lift the Panther or Tiger tank chassis. Or they would have been working on panthers.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

This is probably not entirely true considering the germans were in the process of starting production of 38t chassis in Germany. And had been planning to do so for a lot longer. Another reason they kept making them is the chassis was quick to produce.

[@lambastepirate]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 I read a story about Goering's brother he was a industrialist put in charge of the Skoda works and they had wanted him to produce bigger tanks but he could not for the reason I said before. Also Goering's brother was a very good man he worked against Germany, and Herman he brother had to get him out of trouble a couple times he also ran an under ground railroad for the Jews got thousands out and when he was arrested and they wanted to prosecute him for war crimes many Jews came to his help and got him freed!! A little known piece pf history.

[@razvananghel7492]

@@lambastepirateIve seen a documentary about Goering's brother on Viasat History and yes, everything you said is true. The guy was a hero, he played the nazis and saved a lot of people, mainly jews but not only. A fascinating character, unknown to the general public. A figure that deserves recognition and a book or even a movie about him. i admit I was really surprised cause I never heard of him before and Im a bit of a history buff. What a guy indeed

[@darthcalanil5333]

Most Pz38Ts were produced before any Pz4 G, let alone Tiger or especially a panther even finished testing.

[@lambastepirate]

@@darthcalanil5333 Correct a bit long in the tooth and too light weight. That is why they wanted to change production.

[@peterlynchchannel]

The workhorse of the Wehrmacht was the workhorse.

[@dusk6159]

Like the jeep for the US and the lend lease trucks for the USSR

[@akriegguardsman]

​@@dusk6159didn't the USSR rely rather heavily on railway instead, while trucks was important, I read somewhere that the soviets really liked railways

[@Rokeen-Zeboss]

​@@akriegguardsmanyes but there is only so much you could do with trains

[@dusk6159]

@@akriegguardsman One could say the civilian and rank and file part of the USSR loved to the absolute the trucks and jeeps.

[@moonreaps3753]

i mean, the workhorse of the Wehrmacht in early war terms could have been the LT Vz. 38 (Pz. 38t). Even then, its not even originally german yet it was the most effective early war tank the Wehrmacht had (or in this case, stole) at the time. Czechnology is peak.

[@raylast3873]

I think one factor that contributes to this idea of the „workhorse“ was that the Panzer IV was present in some form for the entirety of the war. It was deployed from the very beginning of the war until the very end, and during that time it never went out of production. On the surface that makes it seem very dominant, even if the actual numbers don‘t totally back this up.

[@grognard23]

It appears the distinction could be made that the Panzer IV was the AFV workhorse, albeit for a restricted amount of time while the Panzer III, as a chassis, was the true workhorse, if one must be chosen - with the caveat that even then, it wasn't by a tremendous amount.

[@ODST6262]

The Panzer IV in the early years 1939-1942 was in one battalion of two to three battalions in a Panzer Regiment. The number of Panzer IV in each company was so low that there were only 10 as mentioned in the video. You look at the number of Panzer IV in a Panzer Regiment, and divide by 10 and that gives you the number of battalions. This changed in 1943 when the Pz III was still the main battle tank. The Panzer IV in the new 1943 organization started by July to have four companies of 22 Panzer IV each. One battalion at Kursk was this strong, and it was the only tank battalion in the panzer regiment.

[@raylast3873]

@@ODST6262 10 tanks in a company doesn’t sound very low, a tank platoon only has between 3 and 5 tanks, depending. But the Pz. IV being spread thin in the early war would make sense for it‘s role at the time, which was to support the Pz. III against soft targets.

[@brennus57]

That's a great perspective and analysis. There seems to be a recurring theme and pattern when we look at German wartime R&D / production. That is an inability to settle on a set of requirement specifications for a piece of equipment to satisfy a given battlefield requirement. It appears that even when a design was finalized, production was frequently halted to add features and capabilities that had only a minor impact on the overall performance of the end product. One possible exception being the Bf-109 perhaps. Curiously it seems that one of the frequent criticisms of the Sherman and T-34 is that these designs were not upgraded frequently enough. That designs which were "good enough" were left in production even when larger guns and better armor could have been incorporated at the cost of slowing production. Ooops... got to run. Another space/time portal is opening nearby. 😊.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

As far as I know the Sherman and T-34 received also many upgrades.

[@EpicRenegade777]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized i imagine your breakfast is pouring over combat manuels

[@FromPovertyToProgress]

This is a common problem in military production during war-time. The problem is that every improvement to a design forces the entire factory line to stop for retooling. But you cannot simply ignore feedback from the front or your weapons will never improve. American fighter and bomber manufacturers solved this problem to a large extent by having one factory churn out one standard type and then flying the plane to a depot where the latest modifications were added by hand. Then at some point when all the modifications could be combined into a new design, a new factory was built to manufacture the updated design. Then the old factory could be shut down for retooling. And so on… That system enabled a constant flow of up-to-date designs while still getting the benefits of mass production. As far as I know the Germans never did this.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Not every change requires the factory stop for retooling. Infact keeping a varient of the existing design means the vast majority of the factory does not need retooling.

[@kennethferland5579]

This fragmentation of production was a natural consequence of the Nazi fragmentation of leadership that expected and welcomed every kind of interserivice rivalry, that naturally lead to the commanders and strategists to want 'their own' kind of equipment that would be 'more elite' then their rivals and show the dominance and brilliance of everyone involved in making, deploying and commanding that particular Wunderwaffen. With the top leadership, aka Mustache Man being so easily swayed by such displays of killing a fly with a sledgehammer everyone naturally tried to do exactly that. In contrast the US and Soviet militaries had political leadership which did not want to see subordinates compete with each other so directly or establish 'fiefdoms' in the arms industry, arms were thus standardized and dispensed to commanders with far greater seperation between the command and procurement sides of the military and with the procurement side being given the imperative is mass production rather then satifying every commanders whims for gold-plated solutions.

[@milgeschichte]

Funny. Not a single point was new to me - yet the conclusion evaded me. After hearing and reading it for fifty times I would've said without any doubt that it was the PzKpfw IV that was the workhorse. Without ever connecting it with the other data. Thank you for the enlightening video.

[@geordiedog1749]

Me too. Exact same thing. Now I’m paranoid about other bleedin’ obvious stuff I might have missed:)

[@maxiferrari08]

Cool dich hier zu sehen, schaue regelmäßig deine qualitativ hochwertigen videos😊

[@milgeschichte]

@@maxiferrari08 der Kanal ist im Prinzip Vorbild von dem, was ich eigentlich machen wollte.

[@maxiferrari08]

@@milgeschichte geschichtsvideos wären definitiv auch interessant, sind halt sehr rechercheaufwändig

[@milgeschichte]

@@maxiferrari08 vor allem in der Qualität, die wir hier bei Herrn Kast sehen. irgendwann mal vielleicht...

[@detritus23]

So, perhaps the better title would have been: "Due to the vagueries of the German wartime logistics and production decisions, no one tank was the workhorse of the Wehrmacht."?

[@akriegguardsman]

Nah, the workhorse of the Wehrmacht that allowed them to fight from the russian steppes to the bocages of france was exactly what other commentators pointed out : the work horse

[@ScienceDiscoverer]

@@akriegguardsman The good ol' meatbag!

[@detritus23]

@@akriegguardsman Are you sure they were work horses? They could have been repurposed show horses. Or captured stallions from the Skoda horsefarms. Regardless, don't forget that they were also rations-on-the-hoof.

[@dersaegefisch]

You are absolutely right! Short and memorable. I like it!

[@AlphaAurora]

People forget that the Pz III exists sometimes. Both Pz III & IV were from pre-war designs and doctrine, where the IV was Infantry Support, and III was the main medium tank. When both roles combined mid-war, you end up with the Panther trying to replace both in an early Medium tank. The German workhorse statement is best borne by the Pz III/IV line-up, especially when you consider that the pre-IVF2 models of Pz IV had anemic howitzer-guns meant to shoot HE for infantry support. The Germans also built a "medium" tank and replaced both around mid-war though, with the Panther. That was very huge and heavy, especially compared to T-34/Sherman. So instead, most people turn to the Pz III/IV for a comparison, due to paper stats.

[@nepete7]

Basically, but not infantry support - the medium company with Pz IV was to provide support for the light companies equipped Pz III. So the Pz IV was a support tank until 1942 when it was equipped with the longer 75mm gun, but shortly after the Panther began in 1943 to take its place. Clearly the Germans would have done better to have transitioned quickly, but they lacked the capacity. The British are a bit similar, fielding various mediocre to poor tanks until standardizing on a mix of Cromwell, Sherman and Churchill.

[@LivingroomTV-me9oz]

Well, you could argue that the III/IV was the workhorse for most of the war, as V’s numbers only pick up in ‘44.

[@yankie4299]

Must say, number of Panthers produced is really impressive. I always thought there was more significant difference between PZ IV and Panther, like 10k to 3k. I never really got deeper into searching about it.

[@gebhard128]

One thing that summary shows is that the Pz III is not that lackluster compared to later tank designs then we think. The major german victories on the eastern front were achieved during the invasion 1941 and the summer 1942, so time periods the Pz III was the most important armored fighting vehicle and many of them not even equipped with the longer barrel gun. It seems the design just did its Job at the time the german army was able to launch offensive operations in the east

[@scockery]

German's had air superiority, though. And in 1941 only 7.2% of the total Soviet tank force were T-34's and KV-1's.

[@potator9327]

Panzer III was not the most important Tank, only the most nummerous.

[@czwarty7878]

@@scockery but still a significant part of T-34s & KVs destroyed in 1941&1942 were from either Panzer III or Pak38 5cm guns. 61% of T-34 losses (in regards to kinetic weapons) were due to 5cm guns. They were able to tackle them and they did.

[@INoticeTooMuch1]

@@scockeryI would assume the number was higher than 7.2% right? Most sources say they lost around 20,500 total tanks with 2300 being T-34’s and a further 900 being KV-1’s. That would be 15% of all losses. Maybe the other tanks were so weak the T-34 and KV-1 had to step and fight more? Like those crews saw more action against German units relative to their portion of the tank force.

[@off6848]

@@INoticeTooMuch1 I think p3s fought t34s the way the Brits had to fight the p3s by getting close or ambushing. Most early t34s broke down I think only 55ish % of those 2300 made it to the battle. When it came to KV-1s and 2s don't even bother they used anti tank gun screens and artillery against those and since the Soviets didn't do true Panzer tactics they were predictable and moved with the whole army group they didn't break off into separate heavy panzer divisions the way the Germans used p3s and p4s in N Africa so the Germans could set up anti tank screens to stop KV1

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

To me the term "workhorse" isn't clearly defined. It can be associated with production numbers, longevity and adaptability. For that matter, Panzer IV ticks all the boxes, even more so than T-34.

[@edwardgray4693]

I agree it was the only German tank produced and used in every year and every theater of the war, so I think that alone qualifies as a workhorse.

[@dusk6159]

It seems that one has to push new concepts and questionings about the WWII to make the situation lively. This isn't the debate of the lend lease for the soviets, or in what scale did they waste casualties, indeed the Pz IV is a definition of a workhorse.

[@kh2b573]

​@edwardgray4693 It was only produced so late out of sheer necessity, they could have ended production right then as with the Panzer 3 but they couldnt afford to shut off panzer 4 factories temporarily to more important vehicles. The Panzer 3 was just as much of a workhorse as the Panzer 4

[@potator9327]

I would say "workhorse" is defined incorrectly here, or at least arbitrarily. One possible definition could be: A "workhorse" is a term used to describe something that is reliable, hardworking, and able to perform consistently over a long period of time. It is often used to refer to a machine or tool that is sturdy and capable of handling heavy workloads. Here, however, the term is understood to mean that the vehicle dominated in terms of numbers at all times to the same extent as the main Tanks of the Allies.

[@TheSlazzer]

There can be more than one "workhorse" in an army. So I don't think folks are wrong calling P IV a workhorse tank. This video does a good job pointing out what exactly this word means and what it doesn't. As for me, P IV remains a workhorse for it ended up being the only "medium tank" (counting Panther as a heavy tank) in the German army comparable to Shermans and T34s - that was also built throughout the entire war. That, while providing a reliable, relatively ergonomic weapon platform, radios and good sights.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Dang, bud, making me think first thing in the morning! I never knew enough about tanks to have thought of this before. Your figures clearly show Germany didn't concentrate on one single tank like the Soviets and Americans. But then I started thinking about what "workhorse" means to me, as an American old fart, and my brain got really confused. To me, there's a flavor of "used throughout" and "depended on". Clearly the T-34 and Sherman qualify. The Panzer IV does sort of qualify, but so do the Panzer III and the Panther, and I'm not sure the meaning of "workhorse" allows for multiple workhorses. Did the Luftwaffe have two workhorse fighters (Me-109 and FW-190)? Did the US have 3 workhorse fighters in Europe (P-38, P-47, P-51)? The US Navy had one workhorse for the first year in the Pacific (F4F) and a different one after (F6F), but is that allowed in the definition of "workhorse"? The F4U was the Marine Corps workhorse, but only for the second half; does that count? The A6M was the clear Japanese Navy workhorse for the entire war, but I'm not sure the Japanese Army had a workhorse. So, I think you are right, but primarily because Germany had too many workhorses, and the word maybe only allows a single workhorse, maybe, sort of. Man, it's hard work, thinking about such things before breakfast!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thanks! > Man, it's hard work, thinking about such things before breakfast! lol, probably the reason why I don't have breakfast most of the time :)

[@MaxRavenclaw]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized But when you do have it, it's always panzerwaffles, isn't it?

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

I think that is part of the problem. Different people have a different definition and conception as to what qualifies as a workhorse. Depending on how you frame it, such a vague word can be used to describe a lot of things.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Neither Soviets nor Americans focussed on a single tank. Of course M4 and T-34 were the most numerous and important ones, others were around. US: M3/M5 Stuart, M3 Lee/Grant, M4 Sherman, M7 Medium, T-25 Medium, M6 Heavy, T/M-26 Pershing. Note: M7 and T25 were meant to replace Sherman; M7 was even approved for production before they found out it actually sucked. At least T25 turret was used on 76mm Shermans. USSR: BT-5/7, T-26, T-40, T-60, T-70, T-34, KV-1/2, IS-2, T-43, T-44. I'd argue the Wehrmacht was focussed on Panzer III, but production couldn't keep up with demand. So the older and lighter tanks had to fill up the ranks. Pz I and II were never meant to see combat action in what eventually would become WW2; Pz 38t was meant as a stop-gap. Fair to say the Wehrmacht had several workhorses: Pz II and 38t in 1939/40, Panzer III in 1941/42, Panzer IV in 1943, StuG, Panther and Panzer IV to the end. Panzer IV was a support tank and never meant to be produced in huge numbers. When it became more important with the long guns, the industry wasn't really prepared and planning already went towards Panther (to first peplace Pz III and later also IV). So at the same time Panther production started in at least three factories, Panzer IV production hadn't been maxed out yet. Total war was only declared in 1943 ! IIRC with Nibelungenwerke in Austria they went from two factories to three. This factory alone produced most Panzer IV from 1943-45. As for the aircraft analogy: Backbone doesn't always mean workhorse. Spitfire certainly was the RAF backbone, but Hurricane was the workhorse. IMHO, a true workhorse has to be versatile. This qualifies P-47, Fw-190, Mosquito and Ju-88 as well as all the US Navy fighters. Extremely versatile, hard hitting and to a degree rugged enough to take one on the nose and survive. Although other aircraft may have higher production numbers - 109, P-51 - or served longer, they were mostly reduced to (or good at) specific mission profiles. Workhorses can do it all. Today's MBTs are both backbone and workhorse; the F-4 Phantom is probably the best example for aircraft.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Ah yes, 88`s were a great asset, just like 88 on the ground. Not the best fighter/bomber, but they can do everything good, in daylight or under cover of darkness.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

One small point about production numbers: number of produced doesn't translate equally to number of battle ready machines and readiness varied to significant degree.

[@pastajensen]

This put thing in perspective even if I have seen the numbers before I always considered the Panzer IV as the "workhorse-tank" from the mid to late war.

[@namefinder]

I had no idea just how many Panthers they built near the end of the war, I always thought that Panzer IIIs and IVs were much more common! Eye-opening statistics.

[@danielhurst8863]

I think people are confused because the Panther tank came later, and appears to be better in every aspect, but the Panther barely cost more to produce and almost the same manhours. The only reason the Panzer IV stayed in production is because the shutdown would have disrupted Tank deliveries to the front enough that it would be unacceptable. Not all the Panzer IV plants could be switched over to Panther production faster enough. It was more important to get an acceptable tank built and sent to the front, even if it were not as cost effective based on combat potential. The tank you have is better than the potential tank you don't have.

[@czwarty7878]

Exactly, which is also why we still to this day have this asinine myth of "Germans should produce more Panzer IVs instead of Panthers and Tigers" which is based on absolutely false assumptions and misunderstandings on every single aspect of tank production and implementation.

[@off6848]

The tank you have is better than the tank you don't have true especially since the long barrel p4 could pretty much deal with 90% of all allied threats and often from longer ranges.

[@Chibanah]

He is still wrong, these are just numbers, which don't take in consideration how fast the Panthers faced mechanical problems on the frontline even in the later years. Panthers were less reliable and were harder to maintain on the frontline, and needed more fuel and so on, all of these factors are ignored in this video, which creates false image about the the comparison between Panzer IV and Panther.

[@czwarty7878]

​@@Chibanah you are wrong, and you can't even see it. You repeat myths from online videos and History Channel. Providing fuel, ammo and spare parts for higher number of PzIVs that would be equivalent to Panther company would be way higher logistical strain even taking into consideration fuel requirements of single Panther (and it's not even that obvious either). Late Panther reliability rates were barely 10% lower than PzIV, and actually cost less to produce in relation to combat efficiency. And what about replacing higher losses, total writeups of PzIV, losing both offensive and defensive abilities, not to mention needing more crews to man higher number of tanks to keep same combat efficiency, and training more replacement crews that would be needed to replace inevitably higher losses from fielding inferior tank? Real German supply issue was trained manpower, not materiel. In relation to combat effectiveness Panther WAS more cost-efficient than PzIV. Stop repeating old wives tales and insulting men who know more than you.

[@off6848]

@@Chibanah no they weren’t there were 6000 ish Panthers about 33% broke down 50,000 t34/57 and 53% broke down Yet all we here about are the unreliable Panthers Then there’s the Sherman’s with the Ford engines another bunch of clunkers still all we here about are the Panthers It’s way over blown Panthers was better than any allied tank by a long way no contest

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

The "Stuges" are my fav. 👍👍

[@donjorge8329]

StuG.

[@5ve1e79]

Stugs sturmguschutz you sound like stooge though

[@yashkasheriff9325]

For context: The decision brought up at 11:54 to turn Panzer IV into a tank destroyer chassis wasn't one of absolute insanity. Panzer IV G/H/J were absolutely killing their own suspensions, and the Finns noted that on summer road marches, the brake drums on their Panzer IV Js (called the Nelonen in their use) would glow hot red, and no matter if you're Finnish, French, or Russian, they all note an absolutely infuriating tendency of the Panzer IVs with the long 7,5 cm to sway when driving and coming side to side when coming to a stop, much like a drunk girl. This did not happen with their StuG III Gs (called the Sturmi) and a proficiency in close quarters forest fighting could be observed at the battles of Kuuterselkaa, Portinhoikka, and Vuosalmi - the Finns made them work fantastically on the attack despite their lack of turrets because of superior visibility and flexibility, as well as efficient coordination with infantry.

[@robertbromley5230]

The bias might come from the Western Allies encountering so many of them in France 1944.

[@inductivegrunt94]

Considering different variants, the Panzer III was more or a workhorse than the Panzer IV. The StuG III helped a good part in that. But neither could really be the workhorse with how really mechanized the Wehrmact was, that being not as much as the propaganda and media shows. The horse itself was the real workhorse of the Wehrmact. The Panzer IV will always hold a special place in my heart as my favorite German tank of WW2, even if its legacy isn't what it would initially appear to be.

[@daniellejones5981]

There is one thing not mentioned here. German Production wasn't 'cranked up' to full war production until Albert Speer did it! That was in '42 and it took time to implement. That's why production jumps so much in 1943! The PzIV is called the 'workhorse'' because it was the fair equal of T-34 and was produced in greater numbers in 1942, while PzIII's were knocked out quickly!

[@brianlong2334]

Germany didn't mobilise its economy and resources behind the war till 1944 and didn't try to till 1943. Germany produced almost 40% to 45% of it's ww2 equipment in 1944 why getting bombed and losing an estimated 50% of it's production that year overall.

[@hellohelloington9442]

Very interesting video! I had never really looked into the true numbers on this topic and just assumed that the Pz.IV was the workhorse until now. Interesting to see how different the situation actually was, and honestly it makes me feel naive to not have known until now. xD I always like the Panzer III more anyway :) Thanks for the video!

[@billmarmot2069]

Perhaps the Panzer IV is known as the workhorse because the Panther broke down on the way to the battle and the Pz Is, Pz IIs and Pz IIIs failed to get the job done?

[@SlimeJime]

germany's greatest battlefield successes were with the pz iis and iiis. By the end of the war, the Pz IV's chassis was extremely overloaded and as unreliable as the Panther

[@russwoodward8251]

Excellent supporting numbers. A very interesting topic. Thank you.

[@Warmaker01]

Thanks, it negates my belief of the "workhorse" idea for the PzKpfw IV. The Germans really were spread out on their armor production. Her enemies decided on a platform for mass production and efficiency. The Germans switched several times with wartime production: PzKpfw III -> IV -> V. The sheer variety of vehicles that they had to maintain in the field must have been a nightmare logistically.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Technically they never switched. But produced multiple at the same time. They split prodution rather than switch production.

[@marksummers463]

They also didn't standardize their ammo. For example, they had all kinds of pistol rounds.

[@brianlong2334]

Let's have a quick ganda, shall we... Germany 33 variations and what 9 types. Of them variations what 10 are TD and what 10 are also small numbers of AA Tank's. Soviets 34 variations of what 12 types. USA 29 variations of what 11 types. UK 22 variations of what 7 types.

[@jagtai]

You misunderstand the term. The Panzer IV was the workhorse of the Wehrmacht, because it was in service throughout the war, and remained relevant throughout.

[@noobster4779]

The thing is, the Panther was supposed to be the workhorse of the wehrmacht The idea was to compleatly switch from the Panzer IV to the Panther and basically only have Stugs, Panthers and Tigers in Production as the main combat forces. However do to in dustrial problems and primarily the dire state of tank demand on the frontline the germans could never switch fully to the Panther tank and had to keep the Panzer IV going. Switching would have meant a lack of production for tanks in total for at least a few months and the demand of the frontline of constant crippling tank shortage simply didnt allow to make the switch compleatly. Unlike most of the allies the germans didnt have a time frame where they could temporarily stop or switchproduction without immediat impact on the frontline like the americans or the soviets. The germans had the plans for standartization on the Panther ready but the catastrophic situation at the frontline didnt make it possible (in addition to other problems like increasing ressource shortages complicating things, a problem the USA never had). The soviets were able to switch to full T34 production and ignore front demand temporarily do to their ability to sacrifice menand land in 1941/42 and their huge stockpiles of older tanks to burn through. The USA was safe and could always chose when to fight and where so they had no immediat demand for tanks. The germans always had the issue from 1941 onwards that any temorary hold in tank production eather meant a slower advance agaisnt the soivets and losing precious time or a weaker ability to stop soviet advances with their own tank division. With a streamlined prodcution it first has to get worsebefore it can get significantly better mid and long term.After the last german rebuilding in 1940/41 there was no period left to do this anymore.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Soviets switched to full T34 production before war started.

[@terenceblakely4328]

I heard that once the bugs were worked out the Panther was simpler to make than the Panzer IV.

[@satriaputrapratama4703]

Yeah makes sense, by appearance alone Panther looks sleeker and simpler

[@JohnSmith-lf4be]

It was cheaper and took fewer man hours to make

[@Bobafett-lc2vx]

Great video. Also speaking of the British, they never really had a “workhorse” as well. Even with the lend-lease Shermans and their cruiser and infantry tanks (crusaders/cromwells and the Matildas/churchills/valentines) there never was just one workhorse. They had an array of tanks that, when development finished, had moderate production runs, but were replaced by newer models, just like Germany.

[@ethanedwards422]

The Matilda could be the British work horse? It was the only tank to be used from the start till the finish of the war, in every theatre of combat. While outdated by the mid war period, it found great success in the far east

[@wbertie2604]

​@ethanedwards422 it wasn't in production for the whole of WW2, though.

[@grantm6514]

14:00 The size of the Panther always takes me by surprise. The vids of guys turning the inertia starters also show what a presence it has.

[@chrislewis6050]

I don't understand why anyone is arguing over an opinion. "Workhorse" is not a defined category. It's meaning is different in different groups. Most numerous has a clear definition, and so can be measured. Opinion can't.

[@4ebees]

Really well presented and argued. Seriously well done.

[@billballbuster7186]

Very interesting presentation that would indicate that tanks were a lot less important in the German army than previously thought. Germany's success in the early years of WW2 was more down to Tactics and Communications than it was in superiority in tanks and vehicles. The British calculated that throughout WW2 German anti-tank guns were responsible for the majority of their tank losses, not German tanks as commonly stated.

[@plussum3255]

Interesting video! That really overhauled my perspective of German industry in ww2.

[@juanpedrowallace1117]

Ach du Schnitzel, hab ich etwas neueste gelernt heute

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol

[@jthunders]

Ach du mein lieber schieber

[@S1nwar]

10:10 its crazy that they actually had 100 Ferdinands in that battle. i wonder how much kills they achieved or if like 100 stugs would have been more efficient in the same situation

[@BelugaChonky]

Stugs are ambush vehicles ferdilans are the long range sniper's dishing out damage without recieving anything back

[@TheShatteredskys]

It's crazy how much the narrative and perspective of the war have changed in my few years on this earth. I remember the first time I saw a scale model of a panzer I thinking "no wonder they got rid of those rinky dinks so quick" Now I was just a boy then but I think the idea of how numerous older and dare I say worse equipment was on the side of the Germans specifically, though it certainly plagued the other major powers as well. I've heard people infantilise the Wehrmacht these days as a band of incompetent extremists, but obviously this is not only incorrect, but paints those who died fighting the scourge in a bad light. The tactics used by the Wehrmacht seem all the more impressive knowing what equipment they were often using, and in that it makes the tactics, bravery, and drive of the allies all the more impressive. Good video as always.

[@abbcc5996]

you can only do so much when you are cut off from ocean trade and are being bombed 24/7 and your factory workers are mostly forced immigrant workers

[@czwarty7878]

@@abbcc5996 "forced immigrant workers" is a nice euphemism for "disposable slave labor" lol

[@Thirdbase9]

I would argue that no German WWII panzer was mass produced.

[@mchrome3366]

Thank you for having one of the best WW2 channels anywhere that really delves into the nuts and bolts of weapons. Years ago this type kf information was hard to come across let alone get into the details you go into.

[@bussolini6307]

great work, love your vids.

[@donovanchau3483]

I wonder if the misconception was spurred on by the Panzer IV’s later variants being somewhat comparable to M4 and T-34 in on-paper performance characteristics

[@Drownedinblood]

6:46, can someone tell me the purpose of that arrow in the viewport? I got my assumptions but I wanna know for sure. I actually thought there was a way to use that as a sight.

[@jerryudonneedtoknow3903]

Finally I have been waiting for a video like this. while I like German tank, I despise the Panzer IV. It gets so much random and undeserved praise that it's just frustrating. I especially look at it engineering wise, and it's a massive failure of a vehicle design in many regards. It has so many flaw, misjudgments, and so forth, its just myth off assumptions. I personally just have distaste for this vehicles since its has probably the worst engineering flaws of almost all the German tanks. Simply just from a welding perspective, the Panzer IV is a more complicated mess. if I recall correctly I remember it was state somewhere that the Panther was faster to produce. I can figure the drop in production out of the Panzer IV, but in terms of man-hours and etc. I would figure why the Panther would be quickly in some cases, in many regards of just analyzing the design of the chassis in terms of assembly, bolting, welding, etc, the Panther in some regards is much more simpler. I cannot in any regard see it as a balance design since in it self, its a very imbalance design which affects is reliability and such. Hell the Finnish called the Panzer IV the Rastvistin effectively meaning shakey for the reason of its rather strong vibrations, its suspensions were outdated, its frontally too heavy, its chassis weight balancing was awful, its filters were inadequate, its road wheels were too small, etc. The Panzer IV is just such a poor design that get too much assumption based praised since its flaws are not as known.

[@Wien1938]

Indeed. When one takes a proper look at the vehicle, it's no wonder that the Panther was supposed to supersede the Pz IV!

[@knoll9812]

However was effective on battlefield when no other tank was. Panzer iii too light and panther nog reliable yet. In that window the panzer IV was killing t34s. The panzer IV was pretty good for a 1937 design. The German mistake was not replacing with a reliable 35 tonne tank

[@jerryudonneedtoknow3903]

​@@knoll9812 The panzer III wasn't too light but rather too small. The Panzer IV was not very good for 1937 either. If anything the Panzer III was far superior in all aspects of design, it was just too small. The Panzer IV was a overtly strained vehicle already from its birth it has many issues, every subsequent modification made it worse as a vehicles with its only compelling factor being that it has just barely enough armor, and a good gun that could do things. Its Armor design was complex, time consuming and so forth to make and assemble, its armor layout was very unbalance frontally leading to a most of issue on various parts. Engine was always strained, both in part due to weight and poor hull balancing, its transmission was strained because of the frontal hull imbalance, the wheels were way to small for the chassis so frequently broke, but the front weight imbalance often made the first two road wheel have failure, this would attemt to be resolved by putting all steel roadwheels in the front, the suspension was very unstable which caused a lot of shaking, and as one could guess, failure would occur to do frontal imbalance hull, additionally the filters were whole inadequate from the start, which further placed strain on the engine, the frontal imbalance hurt the final drives causing issues for that, and so many more problems. The Panzer IV was just an emergency vehicles, you could say ersatz. It was used until something better could be made, and that was the Panther. The Panther has the common German tanks design issues of a cramped engine bay which constantly constitutes to overheating and other factors, but looking towards the transmission and final drives, a reliable one did exist and was made and tested, the key issues was they it was predicted only about a 1/3 could be produced compared to the current design we see today.

[@knoll9812]

@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 panzer iii was a good tank except that it couldn't carry a larger gun. Not sure that the drive train , engine, armour and suspension were capable of being upgraded. I am not a massive fan of the panzer IV. I understand that it was difficult to produce which meant that limited availability for first years of the war . Understand that had hit limits of upgrade. It badly needed a replacement in 1943. However the Germans didn't produce a replacement. A replacement would have been smaller than panther. A 35 tonne tank with a gun that was 20% more effective. This would have given them a reliable and available tank. I think that a 45 tonne tank in the 1940s was pushing the limits of mass production.

[@bhangrafan4480]

The use and development of Panzers varied significantly during WW2 as a result of upgrades, particularly in the early years, and industrial production problems later in the war, leading to the well-known substitutions of the STUG III and IV. Turretless STUGS being quicker, easier and cheaper to produce, and tried and tested as infantry support and AT weapons. A key point to note though, is that the German tank concept was for the use of MIXED formations of tanks in the ideal case. In other words MEDIUM TANK (Pnz IV) and LIGHT TANK (Pnz III) co-operating. [The heavies (TIGER I) are mostly reported to have operated independently in separate battalions.] Shortages meant this ideal could not always be achieved and either STUGs or Pnz IV or III unmixed were often used. In the mixed formation, the Pnz IV concentrated on AT and infantry targets, while the Pnz III was optimised as a tank killer to protect the Pnz IVs from allied tanks. It seems fair to say still though, that the Pnz IV was the main all purpose medium MBT of the German army late in WW2.

[@kernowpolski]

Great work - please do something on the Czech tanks 35T and 38T, after all Rommel's ghost division used 38Ts to get to the Channel

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks, did already: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i56bnnSemcSSpZI

[@kernowpolski]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Apologies - I've been a bit slow 🙂and thanks

[@Alte.Kameraden]

StuG Life exe engaged with lots of bling. 😎

[@michalsoukup1021]

I did not chose the Stug Life, I got drafted in the Wehrmacht

[@Hedgehobbit]

Both the Americans and Soviets stuck to one main design, but the British were even worse than the Germans in producing multiple tank chassis over the war. It's easy to see how the PzIV being a workhorse was true from the British perspective. And since the British dominated the historical writings of the post-war period (at least in English), that idea easily spread to the US.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Interesting point!

[@turczynski7830]

Yeah but fuckin stug was in infantry armies as stormgun (hence the name) and not in tank armies. Stug is infantry armored gun used as support for INFANTRY. So panzer 4 was workhorse but for it's armies, TANK armies. And stug was used in the as support, because its basiclly panzer 3 without turret, and panzer 3 was main German tank before always breaking panthers.

[@wbertie2604]

From 1944 onwards, turreted tanks in tank units were being replaced by StuGs.

[@Ironside701]

It is also important to know that the focus of tank production changed significantly during the war years from 1938 to 1945. During the attack on Poland and the campaign against France, the majority of the panzer divisions consisted of Panzer I, Panzer II, Panzer 38 (t) and only a few Panzer III and Panzer IV. But this picture changed drastically in a few years As anti-tank defenses continued to improve, lighter armored tanks quickly became obsolete. And yes, the StuG III was the Wehrmacht's most produced Tank/Tank destroyer but it was only produced in large numbers (or converted from older Panzer IIIs to the Stug III) in later years of the war. Due to the lack of "normal" tanks, the StuG III was often forced into the role of a main battle tank along with other tank destroyers. This in turn significantly reduced its efficiency.

[@Ironside701]

So... what's my point? I think many people in the comments have already said this before me. But I think it depends on how you want to define "workhorse"... in terms of numbers, the Stug III was probably the workhorse of the Wehrmacht. But it lacked a rotating turret and close-range defense capabilities. Because of that, Panzer III and Panzer IV, had better chances in tank-to-tank combat at close range, as well as in an infantry support role. Maybe that's why people think of these as workhorses instead of the StuG. And thanks for reading my stutter.

[@f12mnb]

Thank you for putting this video up. Many people tend to look only at the peak or end of WW2 and get a skewed impression.

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

This further increases my amazement over the shortcomings of Panther tank. It was supposed to be the MAIN tank of the army, yet they failed to address obvious ergonomic issues and pretty much decided to let final drive die sooner than later. Yeah, more advanced final drive would have been more difficult to manufacture. But it would have prevented so many mechanical failures and maintenance nightmares, and it must have been obvious it would brake from the day 1.

[@jrd33]

Panther was a mechanically complex tank rushed into production with many problems. Not convinced making it more complex was the solution... With the state of German industry and logistics in 1944, what they needed was simpler, more reliable equipment, not more variety and more complexity. Of course, by 1944 it was too late to fix the systemic problems that should have been addressed years ago.

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

@@jrd33 Panther wasn't more complex than any other tank of its era. It wasn't really more complex than Pz IV, which was reflected by its cost (in money) being not that much higher. Sherman tank had way more sophisticated equipment and final drive. And yet it was reliable as hell. Because things like final drive and transmission require proper build and design, and not necessarily "simplicity". Panther's final drive was famous for breaking at very low intervals, because it was a simple gear. Herringbone gear or even better, planetary gear, are more difficult to manufacture, but they will break way less often because they are simply tougher solutions.

[@jrd33]

​@@bezimienny_andzej6425 Thank you for taking the time to explain. Now I am (slightly) wiser :-)

[@gwilymmorgan5115]

I love this author's scholarship.

[@agentepolaris4914]

I didn't expected the pony at 7:45, really sweet detail

[@MagiciansApprentice1]

A good analysis that begs more questions for first years of the war the Panzer IV was a support vehicle - not used for tank vs tank warfare. Were fewer knocked out ? so fewer replacements made? How long did it take to build a Pzr IV compared to III or V? We often see the figure of six or seven shermans = one Tiger in time and cost. What is it for the Pzr IV? How many factories built the Pzr IV? (compared to the sherman) Were they often destroyed by air attack?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Panzer 3s were incredably quick to make. Only 4000 manhours before 1943 and only 2000 hours in 1943. Panthers took between 150 000 and 55 000 manhours depending on sources. Panzer 4s took 15 000 manhours to produce. Despite being similar size and cost, the panzer 4 is more complex to build than a panzer 3. More bearings in the turret. More complex suspension system. More welding on the hull due to the sponsoon storage overhanging the tracks, etc. The panther was just a nightmare though to build. Way to complex.

[@Teh0X]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Those are some wild Panther man hours you have found. Are you sure those are not the prices in Reichmarks? I don't think even Tigers took just that much. At least one source claims 2000 hours for Panther. Also the price was just barely over Panzer IV. Funny thing about Panther is how people call it unreliable due to overcomplex something, while in reality the main issue was the oversimplified final drive. There were better options, but that was chosen to speed up production.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@Teh0X Yeah, main problem of panther is that is stupidly simple, i bet they could remove few tons of weight by just making it rear drive t-34 style (also would make access much easier). But it was really a step above everyone else for sure even like that, brits would get something similar only by the end of war, along with soviets (Centurion/T-44).

[@RouGeZH]

@@Teh0XJens Wehner (the one quoted in the video) recently wrote an article about Panzer production. He doesn't give man-hour but production costs: Panzer III: 103,000 RM Panzer IV: 117,000 RM Panther: 145,000 RM Tiger I: 300,000 RM Contrary to what @matthiuskoenig3378 wrote, the Panther wasn't an expensive tank. Given its capabilities compared to the Panzer IV, it was a rather cheap tank, and an industrial success. Wehner also compares these cost to other allied tanks, and the germans were NOT more expensive. With the exception of the Tiger I, which was without peers but a small % of German production. If the USA produced more tanks, it is mostly because its industrial base was 2,5x larger than Germany's, and its automotive industry in particular even bigger. And if the USSR produced more, it is because it dedicated a larger share of its arms production to tank production (12% in 1944 against 8% for Germany) at the expense of other vehicles, of which Germany produced more.

[@benjammin3381]

@@RouGeZH Without the lendlease they would be forced to produce other things than tanks and artillery.

[@kurtwpg]

It's interesting that when the Nazis were winning it was mostly with Panzer II and Panzer III. I don't think it says a huge amount about those models as much as it says that the precise features of your primary tank is not a giant factor in an overall war effort.

[@JGCR59]

I first thought this was pendantic but while watching the video it made a lot of sense to me :)

[@onkelfabs6408]

Because the actual working horse was actually the working horse of the Wehrmacht.

[@captainhurricane5705]

Statistics are fun to look at, but really, the Panzer IV went from an infrantry support tank to a main battle tank and then to a 'it's not the best but we have to keep making them' tank. At the same time the German army switched from being an offensive army to a defensive one, therefore requiring weapons more suited to the defence, such as Stugs/Jagdpanzers, and tanks with a bigger gun than the Panzer IV's. The T34 on the other hand, was built for one purpose only, and that was the attack, and it served well in that one role from 41 to 45, so yes, it is unsurprising so many of them were made.

[@jerryudonneedtoknow3903]

Not infantry support it was a Support tank there's a difference between support tank and infantry support tank. Germany was also still and offensive based army, it went strategically defensive, but their tactics still remained rather offensive with was successful on their part. This can be seen simply with Heavy Tanks and Heavy tank destroyer which by German doctrine are offensive based vehicles and still used as offensive based vehicles. Even in late 1944 with Wacht am Rhein / Battle of Bulge, the Jagdtigers were deployed following the Heavy Tank Destroyer Doctrine which emphasized supporting the offensive

[@Mortablunt]

Something the Soviets and Americans did very well was figure out what they needed, settled on it, optimized for production, and then just never quit. In industrial warfare, it is vastly superior to have more or less OneMain functional sufficient model for each major equipment type, and then just keep making as many as possible, rather than to have numerous models, and then keep tweaking. Every extra models, diverts resources, and every tweak stops production and hinders maintenance. We are getting a lesson of this where we are seeing Russia, outproduce Ukraine, and the west and weapons, because they settle on what they wanted, and just had to upscale production versus having numerous competing options that fall in and out of favor and production.

[@jerryudonneedtoknow3903]

@@Mortablunt This is complete disregard to doctrine, manufacturing, and industry. Doctrine wise, variants provide generally strong benefits but at a const of production. Roles are key in the military and efficiency in combat is maintain with good StuG for example are assault guns by role, they could be used as Tank destroyers, however it was much more efficient to have the StuG III and say a Jagdpanzre 38(t), one to do assault gun role and one to do tank destroyer, this prevents a case of a tug of war where a unit is needed for this, but because they could do the other role, they are demanded in the other role. In addition, specific design complement specific roles. Multiple modification have certain benefits, in the German cases, their variants adapt quickly to tactical situations, a problem can be put into action quickly AND efficiently, it just hurts production. Problems and complaints are heard from the troops and modification are done to boost their combat abilities, cost cutting measures can be put in quickly. simplified designs to speed up production can be put in very quickly. The Germans address the industry on a tactical scale, it is very good for combat and immediately, but bad for mass production. The Soviet manner did massive changed basically altogether at a single point in time. This hurts production heavily but with little modifications every few months, the production grows fast and high without hindrance, however, any tactical response and even some strategic responses will come slow, you have to really on that fact that you design would work well after implementation of the new modifications, otherwise, it'll hurt it for a long time. You also disregard the factors of the machine tool, workers, training, and so forth, looking mid war with Panzer III, Panzer IV, and Panther. Machining tool are precision machinery, you need to make those or modify those existing to make parts for the tank, this takes time, then you have to train the operators how to use them, how to use them to make a certain part, etc. In Germany case mid war, phasing out one line of production would result in less tanks because the time of conversion for the machinery would take a while. When the Panther being produce, the idea was to keep the Panzer III and Panzer IV and production and slowly lower their production and shift the machinery so they can still keep outputting a high number of tanks. Well Hitler was told this production line of Panzer III's couldn't me maintain, so the Panzer III was sort of dropped where some of its machining tool would be given to the Panthers production and some to the StuG III, well since that was the case, the output of tanks decrease because of the conversion of the industry to increase production of the newer model. You basically disregarded to complexities of shifting to a new model chassis. I personally hate the Panzer IV, it's a failure of engineering in so many regards it hurt to analyze. They needed the panther sooner but a complete shut off of Panzer IIIs and Panzer IV chassis would lead to a steep cut in tank output I don't really want to deal with modern stuff, but Russia has an actual Wartime production running, the West is just being a bit pathetic with peacetime production. Military production for modern time shifted from actual proper war scale production to a much smaller scale more emphasized towards smaller skirmishes, anti-terrorism, anti-insurgent fighting. Even the organization shrunk, What used to be Division have shrunken mainly into regimental sized units

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Oh yes, T-34 modifications were very painful for soviets. Used short 76, dropped it for 57mm (which soviet industry couldnt make in big numbers and guns made were shit and most were just thrown away as scrap metal, at least on early runs), used long 76, it is not exactly good against panzers and better tanks are on the way, so they try to make T-34 better (resulting in number of weird prototypes), which were used as a base model for new T-34-85, which was...still bad. Gun was finally enough to take on big cats (panther or tigers (regular ones)), but they had no trouble removing them from existence as well, from much higher distances and good chances of knowing where they are moving from even before seeing anything.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Also last part is true only for air (fighters) and ground, any big planes and all ships (even like patrol boats) take insanely long time to underdeliver not very good vehicle, and you will be lucky if it doesnt have some deadly flaws. Still, seeing UK unable to fit carrier group for so many years...is ridiculous, even in russia with all corruption among higher ups there is at least something you need to do, you cant just "guess we arent using second aircraft carrier anymore" and then cut army budget again or "guess i`il die" from vickers after they were refused leo 2 hulls.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Informative historical coverage video of housework by countries in WW2

[@livincincy4498]

I had no idea how many panther tanks were made in comparison to the Mk 4. Then realizing those were made in the last (2) years of the war is actually amazing. This was when allied bombing was at its strongest. The USSR probably would have suffered huge losses without strategic bombing by the allies over Germany. A few thousand more panthers would have been horrific casualties for the USSR.

[@cheften2mk]

Or the steel and diesel from the 1131 U-Boats could have been used on tanks. Practially all of germany’s diesel went to the navy

[@fridrekr7510]

That’s my main take away too. One often sees the argument, that Germany should’ve stuck with medium “workhorses” like the PzIV instead of chasing the big cats like the Panther - but this video seems to show that they had no problems producing the Panther in relatively large numbers and it wasn’t significantly more costly than the PzIV. So I guess the argument then boils down to whether Germany should’ve fully comitted to quantity and gone with PzIII and StuG instead of going for a qualitative advantage like they tried historically.

[@loganwallace101]

@@fridrekr7510 Just imagine the sheer quantity they could have made only producing the PzIII chassis

[@DebatingWombat]

@@fridrekr7510 The problem with the PzIII was that it couldn’t be upgunned sufficiently, unless the turret was dropped, which is why there was still a pressing need for the PzIV until the production and quality issues with the Panther could be ironed out. If I recall correctly, then the quick spin up of the Panther production numbers was also the result of deliberately designing it to be easier to mass produce than the PzIV. Despite somewhat underwhelming production numbers, the “workhorse” moniker, as others have pointed out, is not wholly off the mark, due to the PzIV being in the fight from start to end while not becoming obsolete, as the PzIII clearly was by the late war. Sure, the StuGIII was still useful, but in its tank configuration, the PzIII was clearly insufficient as a late war fighting vehicle.

[@thomasmitchell7645]

A very well presented and data-driven argument! Thanks. By the way, the word numerous is pronounced nuMERus.

[@albertserramontmany]

Yet again another example of how you really study history, by going to the sources, and not through some wishy washy impressions. Congratulations.

[@Deep-Red-0]

I love this channel almost as much as I love Stug 3s.

[@jansnopek3376]

Despite what has been said, Pz. IV can still be considered as a workhorse. The reason for this is that, unlike all other German tanks, it served from the beginning of the war until its end. The Pz.I, Pz.II and Pz.III tanks were at the beginning of the war, but not at the end, whereas the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II were at the end, not at the beginning. As for the Sturmpanzer IV - Wikipedia states 306 units, not just 166 units.

[@maral2014]

1:31 I thought the panzer III's ended production in August of 1943? In the video it shows 37 to 45.

[@Wien1938]

When we talk about workhorses and look at numbers, we're not taking in account the concept of combat-effectiveness. In German after-action reports in mid/late 1942, the long barrelled Pz IVs are constantly praised for their (comparatively) long-ranged killing capability. The same is true of the Panther. There's an excellent study of an action fought by Wiking in mid-1944, where the Panthers perform overwatch for the Pz IVs, which operate in support of the grenadiers in the town. The Germans on the northern thrust of Zitadelle mention dug-in KV and T-34 tanks outranging the Pz IVs (let alone the Pz IIIs!) and you can see the need for a better armoured and longer gunned tank - hence the importance of the Tigers in that battle as they could both close in and outrange the Soviet tanks. Combat capability acts like a force-multiplier - it's relative and situational but it's there.

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

Based on all this information, we can safely say that the workhorse (based on deployment on the battlefield, not production) depends on the year: 1939 (September, against Poland) was the Panzer II, 1940 (May, against France) was the Panzer II, 1941 (June, against URSS) was the Panzer III, 1942 (Summer, against URSS) was the Panzer III, 1943 (July, against URSS) and 1944 (June, against the western allies) finally it was the Panzer IV and 1945 I'm not sure. Summary, 2 years of dominance for each tank, and 1945 I don't have the data.

[@cattledog901]

Its an interesting analysis and while I dont disagree per se you did yourself a disservice by not clearly defining what definition of "workhorse" you are using. For example, Oxford defines it as "a person or machine that dependably performs hard work over a long period of time." Websters: "A machine, vehicle, etc. that proves to be durable and dependable." The PzIV could fit those definitions because of how it was able to be an effective vehicle at every stage of the war in diff configurations. There is no part of those definitions that requires a certain quantity to be met or it to make up a certain percentage of your tools/army. I can see where you are coming from but a better title might have been "Why the PzIV wasnt the BACKBONE of the Wehrmacht".

[@benjaminrush4443]

This is a great report on German Tank Priorities throughout their War Years of WW II. Many descendants of the Allies like me - USA assume that Germany had massive numbers of Tanks in the categories of Panzer IV - Panthers - Tiger I. People do not realize that many repairs were done back in Germany. The US Sherman was designed to be repaired in the field. Big difference. As I continue to learn, the US totally abandoned any Horse-drawn artillery & supply units in the late 1930's. Germany relied on Horses well into the War including their initial Blitzkriegs and especially Operation Barbarossa - 750 horses - Supply, Artillery & Reconnaissance. Movies usually try to impress us with images of Tigers, StuG III's & 88 Flak Guns used in Ground Operations. Thanks for your efforts to provide reality during WW II.

[@GARDENER42]

That was quite an eye-opener, as I'd always believed Panzer IV production far outnumbered all other German tanks. The ratio of Panther to Mk IV in western Europe was also a surprise & gives credence to British tank crews' often dismissed claims they were up against tanks other than the MkIV.

[@WangMingGe]

Yeah I was surprised to see just how common the Panther was, too. Maybe it's an example of one of those cases where revisionist historians, trying too hard to come up with contrarian theories, should have taken veterans' accounts more seriously.

[@frankgulla2335]

Thank you for filling some of the gaps in the "story" of German armor in WW2.

[@LordPecka]

7:45 did you just call Rainbowdash a lame horse? Man you are brave! :D

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I use rainbowdash nearly for every horse joke in my videos :D

[@andrewklang809]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Rainbowdash is a pegasus, not a horse.

[@ernestcline2868]

​@@andrewklang809A horse is just a wingless pegasus.

[@andrewklang809]

@@ernestcline2868 And Rainbow Dash has wings.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I know the difference between a Panzer III and IV, I don't care about horses and pegasi that much.

[@ChrisDaRed0709]

I think some additional context matters. The Panther came out when Germany was already in the midst of gearing into a wartime economy. If Germany had geared into a wartime economy before Barbarossa, Panzer IV numbers would have been much greater over the time of the war.

[@hillbillyscholar8126]

Great information that is overlooked by other historians. Thanks for sharing!

[@Stay_at_home_Astronaut81]

Excellent video.

[@beavisl4472]

How did I get unsubscribed?

[@CalgarGTX]

The production numbers parts I mean.. a lot of pz4 production happened pre war or in the 'we are totally winning this' stage of the war when germans where also capturing droves of enemy tanks along the way, and it was also a way less suited for mass production design than panther was, most people seem to forget that. Pz5 Panther was it's direct intended replacement as mainstay of the pz divisions so it makes sense pz4 production was slowed down once pz5 ramped up, not to mention a lot of pz4 chassis still got made to make other variants. Also the fact that germany didn't really fully switch to a war economy until mid 1943...

[@entilzha1283]

Also don't forget after the Allies got air superiority, bombers were blowing up factories and hampering the supply chain that also reduced war production.

[@TheSaturnV]

Production numbers do not tell the complete story. What you'd have to look at are unit records of how many tanks were available for action on any given day. To my knowledge the PzIV was more reliable, less prone to break down and more easily/quickly repairable. For example, a Panther in need of a transmission replacement spent many hours being disassembled to accomplish this, all the while not contributing to the fight. Looking through Tigers in Combat Volumes 1-3 you will see the numbers of Tigers available for combat were often very low due to the same maintenance/recovery issues. I think in this light, I think the PzIV retains the crown of Workhorse.

[@HaVoC117X]

When the war situation got worse, it got worse for all german tanks. Jentz and Doyle made statistics for 1944 early 1945. You can find them on the tanks Wiki pages. Throughout 1944 there wasn't a significant difference between the availability rates between Panther, Tiger and Panzer IV. I think the maintenance part of the Panther is a bit overhyped. The guys in Saumur said they prefer to work on the Panther compared to other wwii designs. Transmission replacement was a rare event anyway, and the final drives were accessible from the outside behind drive sprocket.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

HaVoC117X already made a great response. > I think in this light, I think the PzIV retains the crown of Workhorse. First, this is not a competition and second, it seems you completely missed the point of the video.

[@ManuelGuajardo-zd7hx]

And I just became a new subscriber today Mr military visualized. Alex from USA 👍👍

[@Platanis2008]

1. Sturmgeschütz III was not a tank. If we compare production of "non tanks", then motorcycles or lorries were more numerous than Sturmgeschütz III. 2. The title refers to Wermacht, so T-34 or Sherman are irrelevant. 3. It's almost certain that the Panther would eventually get the title of "workhorse" IF war continued for a few more years...but, it didn't... It's like the Me-262 or the FW 190 or the FW Ta-152, all of those better than BF-109...but, the 109 was the workhorse!

[@Bobafett-lc2vx]

I consider the stug 3 as a tank. Also your comparison doesn’t make 100% sense, in terms of comparing stugs to lorries and motorcycles. That falls under the category of “armored fighting vehicles” vs “non-armored/non-combat vehicles,” which with that argument, you can say that the Sd.Kfz. 251 (half track) was the most produced compared to the stug 3

[@Platanis2008]

@@Bobafett-lc2vx How can you consider the Stug a tank? It has no turret! The title of the video refers to Panzer IV, ergo i expect a tank...in case it is NOT mandatory to be a tank-as a Stug III is not a tank-it may as well be ANYTHING...a motorcycle, a lorry, even a horse from Florian Geyer!

[@Bobafett-lc2vx]

@@Platanis2008 Same could be said for the Mark 1 from WW1, yet people still call it “the first tank.” You also skipped over my point that at the very minimum, the stug 3 is an armored fighting vehicle: which by definition, a tank also is.

[@saskaheino8776]

Most interesting. I've a related question. For a short while now, I've been thinking why were both Panzer IV and StuG III designed and built around the same time for mostly the same purpose (i.e. infantry support, engaging static defences, pillboxes, machine gun nests, and so on). Although they were utilized by different branches, the armoured divisions and battalions and the artillery, the purpose would seem more or less the same, at least as far as I understand. They co-evolved, too, in a rather similar fashion, becoming effective anti-tank weapons from 1942 onwards. Now, I haven't been looking into this that thoroughly, so it may well be that there is a good answer (or answers) to this question, but I wondered if you could shed some light on it? In hindsight, the fact that the Germans had both the Panzer IV and the StuG III allowed them to have a tank with a fully traversible turret and a longer 7.5 cm gun after Barbarossa, but this doesn't tell a thing about their parallel existence in the first place.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

StuGs should have been ideally in every infantry division, which made up about 90 % of the divisions (depends when, where, etc.). This was simply not possible, at least not, if there were Panzer Divisions with that amount of Panzers. Similarly, there was a lot of testing around and of course, from my understanding nobody wanted to start a World(!) War in 1939, some even were against a war. Also even in 1941, the General Staff assumed that mixed (so different types of Panzer) Panzer companies would be the future, whereas later on, Panzer companies were usually of just 1 type. In short, there are many different factors and developments on going: rivalry between arms, doctrine, production capacity, development capacity, industrial structure, etc.

[@saskaheino8776]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thank you! I had some similar guesses in my mind about bureaucratic rivalry, lack of unified military planning, production capacity etc., but this helped a lot. Definitely an interesting question to look into, if I may say so!

[@jrd33]

Panzer divisions were designed for fast-moving mobile warfare where turrets were considered essential. Infantry formations were for defence or relatively direct attacks on fixed positions, were turrets were not required. SP guns were also used where possible in anti-tank companies, where again turrets would be an expensive luxury. Germany never had enough of any of these weapons, so it was always a case of doing the best they can with what they had available. The US never had the same resource or supply issues, so they went for all turreted tanks and tank destroyers. But I'm no expert.

[@stuartaaron613]

I believe that regarding the Panzer IV being the workhorse" of the Wehrmacht, it was the chassis rather than a particular system that made it the workhorse. Look at all of the different uses that that chassis was used for. To name a few, the Panzer IV tank, Stug IV, Nashhorn, Hummel, Flakpanzer.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol, I actually addressed this before the summary and the situation even gets "worse" for the Pz IV.

[@fridrekr7510]

Even then, the equivalents based on PzIII and Pz38 chassis are far more numerous.

[@sharky9075]

They made only a few hundred of each of those vehicles compared to literally 10.000 Stug IIIs

[@yashkasheriff9325]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I have to say I appreciate the work you're doing to finally make more people wake up to the fact that Panzer IV was always crap and never made anyone happy. The StuGs do your job better with short AND long guns, they carry more powerful radios making artillery call-for-fires extremely easy (the Finns LOVED this), and they've got superior visibility too. So despite being tank destroyers they're actually viable offensive platforms for the attack supporting the infantry, as we saw at the battles of Kuuterselka, Portinhoikka, and Vuosalmi.

[@zeedub8560]

@@yashkasheriff9325 The Panzer IV wouldn't have been upgraded and kept in production if the Panzer III's turret ring had been just a little bit bigger.

[@ptonpc]

In some ways, it's good the Panther was not produced a year or two earlier.

[@zeedub8560]

Eh, it just would have resulted in even more Panthers being abandoned when they broke down or ran out of fuel. Germany's many other problems weren't going to be fixed by an earlier deployment of one tank. On the other hand, there might be a few more of them today.

[@johnnyb2909]

​@@zeedub8560no i dont think so, it would be more likely that you had better panthers in 1943 and 1944. The germans knew how to produce tanks and transmissions, but they were lacking the most important source for that: time. The germans needed every vehicle in the east and as fast as possible.

[@zeedub8560]

@@johnnyb2909 They still would have lost the war despite better Panthers. Besides time, they also lacked some of the metals needed for alloys. That wouldn't have changed if the Panther had gone into production earlier, it would have made the problem worse. Also, the Allies probably would have produced better tanks earlier if they had really needed them. Or just if the war had dragged on. Panther vs Centurion would have been interesting.

[@copter2000]

It's a good thing the T-34 wasn't produced a year or two earlier...

[@johnnyb2909]

@@copter2000 which t34?

[@Sebastian_A_Var_Herman]

7:45 I keep forgetting ponies might or might not show in your videos, and I’m always pleasantly surprised when they do :)

[@christianwilson5956]

The panzer IV was the stopgap tank for the wermacht to get from panzer III to panther.

[@Paciat]

That would mean they planned to produce PzV before PzIV...

[@juusolatva]

to be fair the reason the M4 Sherman used multiple engines was to maximize production using different contractors that built different engines, although the US Army preferred to use Shermans with the Ford GAA engine while the other types where used for lend-lease instead.

[@AltCtrlSpud]

Make Zimbabwe Rhodesia Again!

[@yup162]

no

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

Make yourself pro-freedom again!

[@HistoryHaty]

Stop being a outdated colonist. Stop being Anti Freedom.

[@LmgWarThunder]

Wasn't Rhodesia like incredibly racist?

[@niallmartin4098]

Why?

[@tballstaedt7807]

You gotta admit it's a sexy tank even if it wasn't the work horse.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Without a doubt!

[@SD78]

LOLWUT? The Pz.IV was the primary medium tank of panzer divisions after the Pz.III was phased out of frontline formations. The Panther was intended to directly replace the Pz.IV and some well-equipped late war divisions like Panzer Lehr had both Pz.IV and Panther regiments.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Watch the video before you comment. The war didn't last from 44-45 only.

[@McRocket]

Excellent points and video. You make your case extremely well, imho. ☮

[@muhlenberg2608]

This is a very informative video. Thank you for taking the time to put it together.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Simon_Nonymous]

A very praiseworthy video!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you kindly!

[@jthunders]

My mother in law worked at the Nibelungen-Werke in st. Valentin 1944 as a 15 year old. Supposedly that one plant made over 50 percent of the panzer IV. Triggering air raids on that plant and the Goering steel works upriver in Linz as the US air force came in range in Italy.