More Panthers Instead of Tigers: Could It Have Been Germany's Best WWII Tank Strategy?

[@sthrich635]

It is a common misunderstanding of Germany's war and economic situation to assume conversion ratio "1 Tiger II for 3 StuG / Panzer IV or 2 Panther" would somehow help German forces in any meaningful way A German panzer fighting in battle wasn't just a metal casing of a tank, it was a tank with 5-man crew, ammo, optics, and radio inside, and on the outside, a platoon or two Panzergrenadiers escorting said panzer, and at the rear the commanding officer and obviously not least, the maintenance crews. Making sth like 3 Panzer IV instead of 1 Tiger II meant Germany had to find and train 3 times more crews, 3 times more infantries, produce 3 times more radio, electronics and precision equipment, and if one look a bigger picture in terms of organization, say 3 companies of Panzer IV for 1 Tiger company, then it would be 2 more officers, and 2 more separate support units like repair and such. In late war Germany, resource shortage was obviously dire, but some resources were much critical (and thus more valuable) than others, which effectively shaped their arms production and deployment. 1. (most valuable) Crews / Pilots, manpower that require fuel to train 2. The fuel and oil itself 3. Manpower that don't require fuel, aka foot soldiers / Infantry escort 4. Certain metal or alloys, like copper which is essential for electronics 5. Steel, other materials, and labor hours (they use forced labor) As such, it made little sense for Germany to only prioritize quantity (and soon found many of their tank units under-supported and destroyed) and scrap their Tigers (and bleed out their experienced crew that took a LOT of fuel (in training and for battle experience). Perhaps owning to many often "grouping up" any German tanks bigger than Panzer IV as a single group of "big cats" - It would be misconception to see the Panther as one of German "heavy tank design" like the Tigers, when the two had vastly different design specification Compared to Panther tank, the Tiger II had much better survivability on the battlefield from 1944 onwards, the Panther tank armor was only strong at the front - the side armors were still vulnerable like medium tank, without adequate support Panther tanks could failed horribly, such as in Battle of Arracourt in 1944 against US tankers. Both Tigers got 80 mm thick of side armors, giving the Tiger crews room to deal with flanking attempts rather than instantly being shot out from more than 1 km away like Panther crews did. The Germans used Tiger II to preserve a small group of highly experienced panzer crewman for fire brigades purpose - such preservation would be highly unlikely if using Panther or PzIV.

[@selfdo]

A huge reason for the dismal performance of German armor at Arracourt was that their tanks were brand new (an equal mix of Mark IVs and Panthers) and so were their CREWS. Many officers had little armor experience at all. The more senior officers and a few senior non-coms did have experience on the Eastern Front, but they'd been "recruited" from Panzer divisions anxious to rid themselves of them, i.e. the dregs. Given that most of the Panzer crews had but a few days to familiarize themselves with their mounts before going into battle, is it any wonder they were massacred? Never mind they had no air support, inadequate amount of panzergrenadiers, little artillery support, and poor coordination with the artillery units that did participate.

[@LoneWolf-rc4go]

One thing that it is worthwhile pointing out is that, while there might not have been the crew to man all the Panzer IV's, if a tank was knocked out there would be another tank waiting for them. One of the biggest advantages that the allies had is that a Sherman could get hit and, if the crew escaped, they could be back in another Sherman in a very short space of time.

[@sugarnads]

​@@LoneWolf-rc4goand the crew generally escaped.

[@DonnyTheButterlord]

The panther was shit anyway. Broke down more than even the tigers. Fuel was also a problem

[@sthrich635]

@@DonnyTheButterlord However, the actual statistics for late war German tank reliability showed all three main tanks (Panzer IV, Panther, and Tiger) having similar overall reliability at 60-70%, so in practice all German tanks in 1944-45 broke down frequently owning to poor logistics and constant stress of fighting, a major factor that affected all German tank types, thus there wasn't any German tank types broke down more often or less

[@dovidell]

once the mechanical problems were sorted out , the big cats had to deal with the fact that the alloys used to make their armour were progressively inferior due to allied bombing of the factories ( although post WW2 , the Brits did " put together " a few ( new) Panther tanks in factories that had survived the bombing )

[@selfdo]

And loss of critical mining assets in the Soviet Union like Nikopol. Hence why they left so much divisions east of the Dniepr River, even well after the Soviets liberated Kiev and had crossed the pre-1939 border with Poland, to hold onto those mines ,leading to the Cherkassy pocket.

[@lowtech41]

The mechanical problems were never all worked out. The final drive was still a fragile piece of machinery and the poorly trained drivers destroyed them faster then they could be replaced.

[@JohnSmith-ct5jd]

Seriously, the Panther was a greatly underrated tank. Germany was too obsessed with the super heavy Tiger. As this video showed, the Panther only cost a little more than the Panzer IV, and less than half the cost of a Tiger. Its high velocity gun penetrated even better that a Tiger's 88. And its sloped armor-at least in front-actually offered better protection than the Tiger's. Not saying that it would have won the war, but early adoption of the Panther would have made allied victory much more difficult.

[@0Turbox]

Had nothing to do with "obsession". You need to retool your machines to switch from Tiger to Panther production, and probably it wasn't worth it.

[@TP-ie3hj]

There was nothing short of Nuclear weapons that would have allowed Germany to win. There is absolutely no parity in production between Germany and the US/ Allies. Truth is Germany never really had a chance the closest they could have come would have been the Soviets agreeing to some sort of Surrender in 1942, by day 1 1943 the war was over. It just took time to see what was.

[@czwarty7878]

How were they "obsessed" when Tigers were produced in small limited quantities for few small independent tank battalions. This is just dumb myth coming from people who have no idea what these tanks were even designed for Tiger was never supposed to be a line tank for armored divisions. It had same task like KV and IS had compared to T-34, or Churchill compared to Cromwell. They were never supposed to compete with each other. Saying "Germans should build more Panthers instead of Tigers!" shows total ignorance in topic of person saying that. It's like saying "US should build more P-51s instead of B-17s!" like... what? Those are two different units for two different tasks!

[@NevilleWran6666]

@@czwarty7878 I think the point is the amount of resources the Germans spent on their heavy tank variants and development, switching factory tooling alone is not as easy as many assume.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Tiger I hit the ground running and already showing it's worth at the end of 1942 in North Africa . It didn't have any real teething problems. The Panther wasn't declared troop ripe by Guderian until February 1944. The Tiger was the more effective and more reliable tank in 1943. Tiger I production ended summer 1944 anyway, so not long after the Panther was finally declared fully front line worthy. The Panther never had a 12:1 overall knock out ratio like the Tiger did.

[@xavierprotocols]

I think the bigger issue is the King Tiger and JagdTiger never should have been developed. The increased weight, armor, and bigger guns weren't really needed and they used the same engines and suspension as the Tiger and Panther, which put greater stress on them, leading to more breakdowns. They were a complete waste of resources. They could have created more Panthers and Tigers using those same resources.

[@williamzk9083]

The myth that the Tiger I and Tiger II weren’t effective emerges from a number of errors, misconceptions and plain cope. The Tiger tanks cost about 50% more in man hours than Panther which is pretty good. Claims they cost 100 times more than a T34 come from misreading man hours for Reichs Mark currency. Western notions of the tiger tank not being needed come from Western nations not confronting Soviet tanks which has significantly greater armour and firepower than Western tanks. Sherman would stand no chance against an IS-2 and even the T34/85. The tiger III was never actually penetrated from the front during the war. -The claim that the tiger 2 was no more effective than the panther also ignores the fact that these tanks were used in assaults that simply wouldn’t be possible by a panther. The tiger had a much thicker armour and could withstand even the 122 mm of the Josef Stalin tank that would cut like a hot knife through butter of a Panther. The Western Allies dealt with the Tiger tank by avoiding it . That’s only possible with massive superiority and numerical superiority. The jagdtiger gave away of carrying the very powerful 12.8cm PAK 44 gun in a heavy armoured package. Soviet tanks were way ahead of western tanks in 1945.. it’s all well and good to talk of saying a Sherman was adequate for everything. Panther was adequate for everything when there is massive numerical superiority or superiority. When things are evenly matched, the heavy armour

[@lowtech41]

And they would have still lost.

[@lowtech41]

@@williamzk9083 The E8's in Korea ate the 34/85's for lunch.

[@dardo1201]

@@williamzk9083 the Sherman 76 mm was pretty comparable to the T34.

[@sthrich635]

Except Tiger I was obsolete as a heavy tank in 1944, not to mention it was based on pre-war cost inefficient design like Panzer IV, so it would have been stopped being produced in mid-1944 - The thing was, since there were already heavy Tiger battalions in 1944, switching to Panther would be detrimental to its crew and operation due to much thinner side armor, and kept using Tiger I in 1944 meant the front armor would be getting more vulnerable to more bigger Allied guns. As such King Tiger was developed as a upgrade to stay relevant as a heavy tank in 1944-45 Jagdtiger on the other hand was a niche project stemmed from German army troops requesting a German counterpart to Soviet ISU-152, with German 128 mm gun and armored chassis. The project was never in high priority so it was completed late and not much effort - Tiger II was only chassis big enough to have a 128 mm gun castmate, so Tiger II chassis + 128mm gun then project completed - its mobility issue just wasn't worth the extra time and resources, especially in last year of war, given the vehicles would be engaging long range fire support from stationary position most of the time.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Arguably the bigger tanks were a better strategy for a fuel-starved army with limited tank production capacity. The Panther used about 40% more fuel than the Panzer IV, but was significantly more deadly and harder to kill. Producing fewer, more survivable tanks is pretty efficient.

[@jsd795]

"Force Multiplication" The theory on the surface is sound but against a foe that will actually fight and isn't intimidated by the quality factor it is a failed theory. We see it even today as the west which has become way too enamored with the WW2 German model forgot that the sheer quantity of US and Russian material was the deciding factor of that war. The entire west is being out produced by Russia alone and China has the capacity to out produce Russia by several times.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Tiger II was so big and heavy it lost its tactical mobility. It was ok on the plains of Eastern Europe were it could just sit there and pick off the Ruskies at long range. But in Western Europe it was a disaster, at the battle of the Bulge most were abandoned as thay could not handle the terrain.

[@angmori172]

Actually a good point, since Germany never really suffered from a lack of tanks, rather a lack of fuel.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@angmori172 The Germans had large numbers of anti-tank guns, SPGs and Jagd Panzers which destroyed many more Allied tanks than the Panzers did. But didn't look as good in the NAZI propaganda films.

[@spiralwhirlpool2366]

It all comes down to which resource was more scarce: fuel or metal. For metal, all those broken down tigers, tiger IIs and Jagdtiger would have been so important to build more panzer IVs and panthers

[@mspicer3262]

Germany needed StuG's and Hetzer's, not Panthers and Tigers. When the Panther was being produced, the Germans were on the defensive. Their industry was under constant bombardment. Turretless vehicles were technically less-demanding to produce, and could be cranked out in greater numbers as a result. That's what Germany needed, numbers, to counter the tide rolling in from the East, and America's immense industrial capacity. It's all a moot point though, because without a secure source of oil, Germany was doomed anyway. The small Hungarian and Romanian fields were just not going to cut it, it's why the vast majority of the German Army was still reliant on horse-drawn logistics. For the entire war.

[@marcustulliuscicero5559]

Yup, they had to make do with what they had. Goes to show the dedication of a people to a noble cause (the protection of Europe from Judeo-Bolshevism) even to the end

[@jamesflaherty8739]

The guy who invented the Blitzkreig, General Heinz Guderian, told Hitler after Stalingrad that they should only produce turretless assault guns and tank destroyers plus a few Panthers for counterattacks. Hitler said no way we are not going on the defensive.

[@sthrich635]

@@jamesflaherty8739 Except the same general Guderian somehow opposed the Jagdpanzer IV project in 1943 and arguing it was diverting resources of Panzer IV despite being a bit obsolete and taken heavy losses throughout 1943. His memoirs and words were generally self-serving and unreliable, something that should be taken with a grain of salt as most recent historians did with his account.

[@Dreachon]

@@sthrich635 Aye, Guderian hated turretless vehicles, and in particular he hated those vehicles that weren't under his authority as was the case with the StuGs.

[@NevilleWran6666]

The Germans definitely needed a better mix of Stugs, Panthers and Tigers. Lacking effective air cover, the Germans were lucky to last as long as they did. Read Speer's book for a good insight into how close the Allied air campaign came to neutralising German industry.

[@simonfoden1684]

Excellent video. The T34 was superior however simply because of the year it was deployed. The Panther was rather late to the game.

[@boomroyal9424]

Yes panther was late and came at a time when germany was lacking ammunition and fuel

[@overworlder]

6,000 built but the highest operational total on the eastern front was only 522 in September 1944, out of 728. The Germans were never able to build up large stocks.

[@benedictjajo]

If you don't think the Panther is the most beautiful tank of all time, you're clearly delusional.

[@shanegordon694]

Panther was good but the tiger 2 was the best

[@gemmamudd7167]

I like the panther but for me the tiger one is the love of my life

[@jeffchesser4024]

I had the good fortune to have seen and touched one at the American Heritage Tank Museum outside of Boston. Going to see Tiger 131 in April of 2026 at The Tank Museum in Bovington England

[@Charon58]

I don’t usually think of tanks as beautiful but I kinda think the British Mk IV and the M48 Patton both look cooler than the Panther.

[@selfdo]

Ya gotta admit the JS-3, though it didn't see action in the Great Patriotic War, looked BAD-ASS!

[@sskuk1095]

4:00 I love the fact that even the model has moving parts.

[@jagsdomain203]

Got to say that the panther is the most attractive tank in the entire war

[@markaxworthy2508]

I always like the Formula 1 streamlining of the JagdPanther - surely the most aerodynamic of AFVs. It must have put as much as 0.0001 mph onto its forward speed.

[@DubyaDeeEight]

Attractive? Then Hitler should’ve pushed for the Cougar tank

[@jagsdomain203]

@@DubyaDeeEight naa he would have to have waited another 40 years lol

[@paulpowell4871]

In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials (equivalent to $148 billion in 2023):[56] over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[57] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[58] 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 Havocs and 2,397 were Bell P-63 Kingcobras)[59] and 1.75 million tons of food.[60]

[@jimd3001]

Yes. Over one billion pounds of SPAM

[@Zgreasewood]

Studebaker 2 ton trucks totaled 780 000 sent to Russia per their records, no numbers exist has to how many were sunk by U boats on their trip to Russia. The 500, 000 or so that made it, made logistics a war winner for Stalin, horses and trains were the mainstay of the Nazis, bigger tanks were a German Ego trip, when they could not be supported they were a waste.

[@keithplymale2374]

But given the defensive nature of German's war after mid 1943 rather than compare Panther to Pz III you should compare it to StuG IIIG. And in that comparison from a production standpoint Panther loses. And while the 75L48 is not as good as a 75L70 it is good enough against the normal enemy and most common tank encountered, M4 and T-34/76 moving to T-34/85. Plus the Stug uses the same gun basically as the Pz IVG/H and the PaK 40 so you gain ammunition supply commonalty. Plus some parts of the StuG III were in common to Pz III which had been long in production so spare parts were simplified.

[@billballbuster7186]

No doubt the Panhter was the most balanced German WW2 tank design. But it really needed a better transmission than the piece of junk they put in it. Though Panther fans insist the transmission was improved, it never cured the problem and it still needed constant maintenance. The JagdPanther could have done the job of the Tiger II using a lot less resources.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It still didn't have a much lower operational average than the supposedly much more reliable Panzer IV. Panzer IV was 68-71% on east/west fronts 1944/45. Panther was 62-65% Tiger was 65-70%. Source, Thomas L Jentz, Tiger I and II Combat Tactics.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@lyndoncmp5751 You really have to wonder about these figures. As with the King Tigers, combat reports are at odds with modern authors figures, As well as the thousands of pictures of abandoned German tanks. I am not a big fan of books as ultimately they are the opinion of the author and not proven fact. Figures can and are manipulated to support whatever narrative the author desires. All ecpert opinion on the Panther, including the designer, state that the transmission final drives lasted only 150-300 kilometers. Explain how a tank with such a handicapped can rate 62-65% reliability?

[@parker1ray]

The big cats were expensive and accounted for way less enemy tank kills than the Stug!

[@sskuk1095]

I get what you mean, but the StuG was a design with basically no further upgrade possibility. And this is a serious problem with some of the vehicles fielded by the allies towards the end of the war, like the Pershing, IS-series and who knows what would have happened if the soviets had used the T-44 in combat. The StuGs simply couldn't put up a fight against these designs, raw numbers don't tell the full story!

[@fsabot19022]

Stug life

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tiger and Ferdinand had the highest kill ratios of WW2, both over 10:1.

[@tanpham937]

​ @sskuk1095 ehhh .... no, StuGs were equiped with 7.5 cm StuK 40 (L/43) StuG III or (L/48) StuG IV that can penetrate 120mm - 130mm of tank armor at the distance of 1 km with high velocity AP rounds, both the m26 Pershing and IS-2 frontal armor ( the thickest part) is 100mm thick.

[@Peter_Schiavo]

The Tiger I made sense in 1942 and 1943. The real mistake was producing and fielding the King Tiger and it's derivatives (JagdTiger) once it became clear it was too heavy and underpowered to fight. Pz IV, Pz V, and Tiger I was the right mix to carry Germany through to the end of the war. Complimented by the StuG III and the JagdPanther.

[@jimb.942]

Germany had too many different models of tanks and competing fiefdoms. Plus they made them overly sophisticated and not in sufficient numbers. The most amazing part of of WW2 was how long Germany lasted considering the circumstances. This is a tribute to the German soldier of the past. Will Germany ever find their balls again?

[@tanpham937]

As long as the US still stand, the answer is never, Germany is nothing but a vassal state of the US.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The cost of the Tiger programme was a drop in the ocean for Germany. They produced almost as many U-boats as Tigers, each costing 20 times as much as a Tiger. Even a lowly S-boat did cost 10 times as much. Germany also built 30,000 bombers and and heavy fighters, all costing about the same as a Tiger. The Heinkel 177 and radar equipped nightfighters did cost considerably more.

[@JohnSmith-ct5jd]

Applies and oranges. Germany made a total of around 1100 U-boats during the war. That was most of her navy. She had few surface warships by the middle of the war. By contrast, Germany and her enemies produced thousands of tanks. Your analysis is a little like saying a rifle isn't that expensive because a cheap tank is more expensive.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Don't forget the grandiose rocket programmes as well, which made not a jot of difference to the actual war situation.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@JohnSmith-ct5jdHis point was that Germany wasted far more money and resources elsewhere.

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Way easier to transport and puts less pressure on bridge crossings than tigers

[@danielaramburo7648]

Had they focused on the panther, it would have stretched out the war a little longer, but same result.

[@jamesflaherty8739]

If they did that plus had enough gas then that would have been a nightmare for the Allies.

[@Andy-co6pn]

​@jamesflaherty8739 Without enough aircraft and pilots , these tanks were at the mercy of allied fighter bombers . More tank destroyers and towed anti tank guns were what was needed .

[@nicolaijeppesen1528]

I dont think so, cause they still had No fuel. :) but its always fun to speculate on.

[@joshmeads]

The Panther is def the wars best overall tank, at least on paper. The final drive issue was never really solved and plauged it for it's entire life. A good driver could help with this issue, but unfortunately for Germany, good drivers were becoming hard to come by.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I would argue that both the Panther and the Tiger were too late to turn the war round. Germany needed to defeat the Soviet Union within a few months, certainly before the end of 1941. Their failure to do so was largely down to distances, attrition and logistics, as well as mixed and indecisive strategy. If they had a better tank in 1941, it might have made a slight difference, but probably not enough. The chances of winning the war in 1942 with the "Fall Blau" plan were very remote indeed.

[@drewwhite2228]

the only way Germany could have won the war was not more Panthers, it's if they invented the drone

[@raigarmullerson4838]

Stop

[@marcustulliuscicero5559]

Or the SAM and guided ballistic missiles (hit allied airfields and command posts)

[@billballbuster7186]

Germany lost the war because of poor strategy, Hitler ignored the fundamental rule of war, never ever fight on two fronts.

[@JayTide]

​@billballbuster7186 in 1941 there was no threat of the British attempting to cross the channel in 1941, in fact they didn't until 44. It was a huge gamble but had they been able to knock the Soviets out in 43 they'd probably still be a nazi Germany to this day.

[@furious_wrath7079]

Partially right, but the main issue was hitler s ideology and piss poor management skills. Putting buddies in spots of important positions when talking about production of war time materials.Not to mention the wasted man power on trying to exterminate a whole group of people. There is one theory that should be studied more but I know why it's not, is heart of Germany took the initial lands like the rheinlands, Austria etc. Leaves France. Alone and puts his full efforts into attacking Russia. Would the allied powers come running to Soviet Russis aid or very least take there sweet time helping.Then if Germany shows signs of winning, would the allies especially United States back Germany maybe through secret channels letting private companies work with hitler?

[@BruceBailey-b7x]

Great footage!

[@selfdo]

No, discontinuing Tiger or King Tiger production in favor of more Panthers wouldn't have made much difference. Indeed, it would have shorn the Panzerwaffe of a heavy break-through AFV and a superior defensive tank. The "but they could replace one Tiger with two Panthers: argument fails to account for the problem that the Panzerwaffe had in provisioning fuel, spare parts, and trained crews for what they had. In terms of kill ratio alone, both Tiger versions well-justified their worth, never mind the enormous "fear factor". However, Der Herr Inspektor-General der Panzertruppen, GeneralOberst "Schnell" Heinz Guderian, disliked all the "Big Cats" (and the Elefant), deeming them a waste of steel, gasoline, crews, and industrial capacity. He felt that the Panzer IV was all the battle tank the Panzerwaffe needed.

[@jamesflaherty8739]

After Stalingrad Guderian said they only needed turretless tank destroyers and a few Panthers for counterattacks. But Hitler said no to going on the defensive.

[@czwarty7878]

After the war German generals said a lot of crazy stuff just to not take responsibility for defeat. Producing heavy tanks was absolutely crucial for Germany. Every major nation did so too, people are just too ignorant and don't know about that. Soviet KV and IS tanks, British Churchill, US M6 and M26 - why were they designed and produced if it's supposedly better to have higher numbers of weaker tanks, like they already had in dozens of thousands, the T-34, Shermans or Cromwells...? Surely can't be that heavy tanks were indispensable part of armored warfare in WWII, right...?

[@selfdo]

@@czwarty7878 "Indispensable" at the time (WWII), certainly. However, although the Americans, British, and Soviets persisted with heavy tank development into the 1950s, also as a specialized vehicle, the lessons of the war were that the heavies weren't justifying their expense, use of resources, and troubles in combat use, especially in recovering stricken tanks. More Tigers and King Tigers were lost due to operational problems, i.e. mechanical breakdowns, getting stuck in ditches or mud, or simply running out of gasoline, than being destroyed or knocked out in combat. This showed that a company of ARVs is crucial for any tank regiment, and that they're capable of righting and towing off ANY of your beasts. The Soviet Army was likewise disappointed in the performance of its IS, or "Stalin" tanks, finding that their thick hides did little to prevent them from being outflanked and taken out by German tank destroyers and anti-tank guns, or hunted down by Hitler Youth carrying Panzerfausts. What was the American "heavy" of WWII, the M26 Pershing, did OK during its brief stint in Germany in 1945, mainly with the 3AD, but again, its results were mixed, as although its M3 90 mm gun put it on more or less equal footing with the Tiger I and the Panther, though it was still somewhat out-gunned by the Tiger II, which also had better protection. What really doomed the heavies was that a need was seen to up-gun and better armor the medium tanks of the time, to the point where they were heavier than the "heavies" of early WWII. Improved engines and drive trains, especially more powerful and reliable diesels, still gave these vehicles sufficient mobility for maneuver. Once guns comparable in armor penetration to the largest WWII-era weapons were common on what became Main Battle Tanks, the distinction of firepower was insignificant. Armor protection was typically nearly as good. There simply were few, if any roles, that the heavy tanks could fulfill that the MBTs could not. Still, the Soviets kept the upgraded IS tank, designated T-10M after Stalin had passed on and Khrushchev gave that 1956 speech denouncing him, in production until 1966, and in reserve until 1993. Several hundred of them are still in storage yards to this day! The Americans developed the M103 heavy tank with its uber-powerful M58 120 mm gun, with a lengthened hull and a massive turret. Although about 200 of them were deployed to West Germany in the late 1950s, the Army had chronic problems with them, and once the M60s with their 105 mm guns were deployed in-theater, sent them to rear area depots to be largely forgotten. Part of its troubles was that it shared the same engine and transmission as the M48 when it had the gasoline engines, and the M48A5 and M60 with the diesel engine, but was 14 tons heavier than both tanks. It was common to have to pull the powerpack for a rebuild after only about 500 miles of operation! The US 7th Army in Europe concluded that the M103 shared many of the same flaws that had plagued the Tiger and King Tiger tanks, and that operational losses, i.e, tanks breaking down and not being able to be recovered in wake of a general retreat, would likewise befall the M103. With the Soviets coming to a similar conclusion regarding their IS-3M and T-10M heavy tanks, it was figured the heavy tank was not the formidable battlefield monster that legend had made them to be. This was punctuated by the US Army's experience with the M26 and M46 tanks in Korea, which greatly overmatched the DPRK T-34/85s (there's no record of any IS-2s of the PRC "Liberation Army" engaging UN armor during the war), but had huge problems with negotiating the hilly Korean terrain. Breakdowns, especially overheating during the hot Korean summer, plagued the Pershing/Patton. Before being withdraw from Korea in mid-1952, the M26/M46 tanks were mainly used as self-propelled artillery, firing often from positions prepared by engineers, but their 90 mm guns were better suited to destroy enemy armor than as howitzers. A battalion of M45s, the 105 mm howtizer version of the Pershing, was used with some success in Korea. Given that the M4AE8 "Easy Eight" Shermans had an even better combat record against the Communist T-34/85s, especially during the August-September 1950 battles along the Naktong River, defending the Pusan Perimeter, and significantly less operational problems, its was clear that heavy tanks were unsuited for hilly terrain...which is a great deal of GERMANY. Likewise the limited Soviet experience with their heavies, post-war, along with their clients, was not encouraging. Despite going to great efforts to improve the automotive capabilities of the IS-3M and T-10M, they were still prone to breakdowns, cramped, and not easy for their crews to operate. They were used in 1956 in Hungary, and like their MANY "older brother" IS-2s that were victims of Hiterjugend boys wielding Panzerfausts in and around Berlin in April 1945, quite a few IS-3s were knocked out by Hungarian resistance fighters, often with Soviet-designed PRGs! Likewise the Egyptian Army, supplied with them, found them wanting, particularly in an engagement in June 1967, during the Six-Day War, at Rafah, Egypt, where a battalion of IS-3s was wiped out by IDF Super Shermans in only a few minutes. They were in reserve during the 1973 war, and several were lost attempting to counter-attack Israel armor under command of Ariel Sharon that had crossed the Suez canal to cut off the Egyptian Third Army. A commentator wrote: "The engagements of the Six-Day War, especially at Rafah, served to emphasize what the Soviet Army already knew..that the heavy tank had its day."

[@czwarty7878]

@@selfdo Sorry I'm not reading that essay where topic is about WWII tanks and you're delving into 1950s in first paragraph. It's like topic being WWII fighters and someone being like "yeah but in 1950s there were jets tho so prop fighters all suck" Like what the hell does this have to do with the topic, what does it change for topic of 1939-1945 tank design?

[@selfdo]

@@czwarty7878 Indicates the outcome of persisting with heavy tanks. As for the 1937-1945 (the former year being when the programs that resulted in the Tiger I and the Panther began) design cycles, that's more a case study of how design and feature "creep" influence tank design.

[@jonathancathey2334]

The main problem with the Panther tanks, was the Panther tank. It was over engineered, mechanically unreliable ( at least the original version). During the battle of Kursk 1943. The Panther tank was rushed into service, before all of the bugs were worked out. More Panthers during that battle were put out of action, because of mechanical problems. The enemy action. It's over lapping road wheels gave the tank a great ride, but it you had to repair either a road wheels or suspension. The crew had to take off like 6 road wheels to just repair/replace one road wheel. I like the Panther tank. I think it's a great tank for what it is.

[@Dreachon]

Actual documentation from Kursk shows that more were in the repairshops because of battle damage rather than mechanical issues. The Panther's 'unrealiblity' has been severely blown out of proportion these past 10 years.

[@gratefulguy4130]

​@@Dreachon Yeah you really can't take any "historian" seriously about WWII anymore. It's just become an exercise in easing their collective anxiety because they're all communists and still feel scared of/threatened by WWII Germany.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@DreachonYep, the after action report from Von Lauchert showed more Panthers in the workshops with battle damage than mechanical failure, particularly battle damage to the running gear due to mines. This was the biggest problem.

[@geoffreyscheuerman2378]

Usiing the air war, defense of the reich 1943-45, as an example, Germany was able to produce a high volume of aircraft like the Bf-109 and Fw-190, yet they lacked enough pilots and fuel to fly them. The pilot pool of 1944 was less trained and experienced than that of 1940-41. The same is true of the Panzerwaffe, again not as well trained and lacking fuel. It is a good point that Germany could have fielded more numbers of tanks by prioritizing Panthers over Tigers. Would the absence of needing to supply Tiger Battalions allowed for the employment of more Panthers via savings in fuel and other supplie? Possibly yes, but the training of additional crews would be necessairy. On this point, inexperienced crews contributed to more mechanical breakdowns when operating the technicaly complex 'cats'. As far as the Western Front is concerned, the close quarters combat in Normandy negated most advantages of the long range guns of the Tigers and Panthers. These types should have been sent to the east. Pannzer Ivs and Stugs were better suited for Normandy. Whatever your position on this subject, the German fielded some impressive technical marvels which capture our intrest eever more as time goes on, so the debates will continue. One thing most of us can agree on, it's good that they did not win!

[@jamesflaherty8739]

One thing everyone overlooks about the lack of trained tank crews was the Germans lost incredible amounts of them in their lightly armored and inferior non-cat tanks.

[@camelsac]

No. Air superiority also says no. So does shortage of crews, fuel and an unreliable drivetrain.

[@JonathanPan-d8u]

Can't deny the fact the tigers, like the shermans, are some of the most iconic tanks to ever be put into service. I have a little china statue featuring a sherman at home (albeit very misproportionate)

[@simongee8928]

The Tiger was introduced before the Panther anyway but as was often the case by this stage of the war, the Panther was rushed through development and final drive issues plagued it for some time. Hitler's constant interfering certainly didn't help.

[@elessartelcontar6578]

I wonder if “mobility” shouldn’t be replaced with “maneuverability,” since the issue is not only speed but reliability, fuel efficiency, ability to traverse terrain and bridges, and ease of maintenance/repair.

[@Curt-b2x]

😢 The Panther had a better gun than the Tiger 1, but was also more vulnerable from the side than the Tiger 😮 50/50 pick either way

[@terrybangley2281]

But they designed and built the tiger before the panther, there were 1,347 tiger 1’s and about 5,000 panthers but , so they did build more panthers, now if you have said maybe not build the king tiger and more panthers then yes , overall the panther was probably b the best all around tank of ww2

[@erikracz4162]

Germany should never had built the Tiger 2, it was just too wasteful, they should had just keep building the Tiger 1’s, and the Panthers. They should had built a Tiger factory in Romania, and use soviet slave labor to increase production, and have it close to the front.

[@damianousley8833]

The bombing campaign by the allies also hampered German tank production in 1944. The stug 3 and 4 were of emence value to Germany.

[@jasoncrispin2496]

Honestly i'm of the opinion that more Panthers probably would've been potentially better and also maybe they would've fixed it's most damning problem in it's crappy final drive if they focused on building only that tank over the Tiger. But I think the other issue that has to be addressed which was a huge catalyst for Germany's defeat was 1. They declared war against America without giving it much thought. I don't believe they had to the treaty with the Japanese they had didn't require them to do so if memory serves. Hitler was just impulsive on that. Delaying the USA's entrance into Germany's theatre of operations by a year or more would've allowed for more time to focus on their more immediate problems. 2. The losses suffered at the Battle of Britian and again early ini operation Barbarossa to the Luftwaffe and then Germany's lack of commitment to Air power in terms of their production and favoring tanks i think was a very huge mistake that ultimately i think caused them the most damage of the war. Every FW--190 that was not replaced essentially was another hole in the defence a B-17 could fly through with it's payload to destroy production capacity or allowed another Il=2 later in the war to harass and damage a column of German tanks later on. Air power was probably the biggest cause of massive changes in production and material refinement that had the impact. It was absolutely foolish of the Reich to let production dwindle in the early years of the war and not replace the losses aggressively.

[@何岱融-w1c]

I remember when I played in HLL at German side, most ppl usually asked commander for panthers. And if panther is currently unavailable, ppl just say "we can wait for it or just spawn a reccon tank for us"

[@RogerJPhillips]

What isn't talked about, a panther could cross bridges that a tiger or a tiger 2 could not cross.

[@mitchrichards1532]

The Panther was a net drain on the German war effort due to its mechanical issues. For all the effort to build it, train crews, field it, provide maintenance, sustainment, etc. it's mechanical availability was too short to justify the effort. The "juice was not worth the squeeze". In order for the Panther to viable it needed an overhaul of its final drive assembly. It was designed for a lighter vehicle and to be made with better steel, in the end it was a straight cut gear set up made of soft steel and ended up being the Achilles Heal.

[@Dreachon]

It is amazing how people keep saying such utter nonsense things, maybe start reading some books about the subject instead of making things up.

[@mitchrichards1532]

@@Dreachon Like what? Ignore experts like Jentz and read some BS that people like you agree with? Have you ever looked at strength and readiness reports of units equipped with Panthers? They generally hover at 40% or less mainly due to mechanical breakdown, mostly final drive and engine related. Show a source that addresses that and says something different than the original German Army reports from frontline units. Wake up....

[@Dreachon]

@@mitchrichards1532 If anyone here is ignoring what experts like Jentz say its you as it's clear that you have never bothered to look in his book Panzertruppen vol 2. That is your book right there. We can see in it that throughout 1944 the Panther sees its OR figure climb, though anybody who knows a thing or two knows better than to use OR figures as an indicator for mechanical reliability. Panther sits at 52 OR in January 1944, the figures drops in the next few months due to the heavy fighting on the Eastern front in early 1944 If we pull in material from Niklas Zetterling we can see why it plummets during that period. By February 1944 only 7 Panther battalions had yet reached the front. Of these all but one were engaged in the battle to save Gruppe Stemmermann. The idea to place Panthers at the tip of the attack, and use the older Panzer IV to cover the flanks could usually not be carried through in practice, as most Panzer divisions had to rely on Panzer Ivs and StuG III. At Korsun there was usually high number of Tigers and Panther available, and indeed almost all terrain gained by the III Panzercorps was taken with them in the lead. The ligher Panzer IV and StuG III were mainly used for flank protection. The fighting around Korsun was extremely difficult due to weather circumstances and "readiness rates" for all the vehicles was low, and because a major chunk of the Wehrmacht Panthers were in this area this disproportionally affected the overall readiness rate. The fighting was characterized by a switch between snow and mud, both sides suffered under those conditions and supplying vehicles was difficult. Once all of the heavy fighting ies down and the front stabilizes again we see that the OR figures rapidly climb, going from 26% in March to 39% in April and up to 70% by Mai. It stays steady at 80% in June before it begins to drop again because of heavy fighting in Normandy with it going down to 71% in July and 51% in August. So how about you wake up yourself and stop lying.

[@mitchrichards1532]

@@Dreachon For someone apparently well read on the topic you're a complete amateur in pursuing meaningful dialogue. Are you a professional D'bag or do you just have really poor interpersonal skills? Either way, your presentation of supporting statistics falls short of addressing my point which was made in context of the strategic problem set facing Germany. Its about lethality for the resources expended, and through that lens, the Panther is a failure. Jentz, Zetterling, Zaloga, etc. all make that assertion and conclusion, its not just me.

[@-MATER.DEI-]

A combination of speed,power and defence. A great beast it was.

[@paulredinger5830]

By the time the panther was put into service it wouldn’t have mattered how many machines the Germans had. It wasn’t an equipment problem. It was lack of FUEL, LUBRICANTS, and most importantly the SOLDIERS TO OPERATE THEM. No point to have 10,000 panthers if you can only crew 1,000 of them. (That’s just an easy example)

[@johnblasik9647]

Germany should have put all their effort into producing Stugs, Mark 4’s towed artillery, trucks and switched to diesel instead of petrol.

[@andraslibal]

It was mass produced as much as they could. Germany by 43-44 did not have the materials and the factories were bombed but they mass produced it as much as they could. In fact this is one of the statistics stories of the Allied scientists, they figured it out from the captured serial numbers that the Panther is mass produced.

[@wazza33racer]

Panther is a better use of steel, and steel became a very scarce commodity in Germany during the war due to the demand for it. The 75mm gun on the Panther was a better use of material as Tungsten for the AP rounds became scarce. Late war, Germany resorted to using natural Uranium for AP rounds as Tungsten was no longer available. One of the problems with Germany as a whole, across multiple weapons systems and vehicles was a proliferation of different models. This is simply because war planning had not been undertaken previous to 1939, and even the concept of "Total War" was not adopted by Hitler until 1944, which was 5 years too late, for full industrial war production mobilization. Stalin and the USSR by contrast had implemented war planning and full war material production in the early 1930's with full technical assistance from the USA. The US government approved of the presence of the Soviet KGB openly in production plants of latest aircraft production techniques and designs PRE WAR.

[@cheswick617]

You're kidding right??? Stalin purged his entire army and airforce...killed off thousands of the upper & middle command structure of his army & airforce. when war came they had privates giving other privates orders, they had Bolshevek political officers (NKVD or cheka) shooting anyone who hesitated, or even took time to even think about an order.

[@sthrich635]

Germany only entering "total war" in 1943/44 was a complete myth which some believed simply they announced such in that year and looked no further. In reality, going into total war economy was already done in Germany before the war even began - before 1939 all major strategic industries or companies in Germany were already nationalized or sided and ran by the Party officials themselves, strategic materials were already rationed (e.g rubbers for tires), and civilian goods were never taken seriously (the much promised "Volkswagen" car never materialized at all). A very reasonable decision given the Nazis and Wehrmacht were going to war.

[@redjacc7581]

They should have stuck with the later versions of panzer 4's. could have built loads compared to the tiger 1 & 2 and panthers. panzer 4's had a very good record during ww2

[@shanegordon694]

Yes they put too much work in making really good looking tanks instead of like the USA and ussr did with the m4 and t34

[@angmori172]

Tbh the stug performed even better and was even cheaper. On the other hand, Germany never really suffered from a lack of tanks, they suffered from a lack of fuel

[@jimb.942]

I would have produced mostly panthers but a few Tiger 1’s for specific roles.

[@terrybangley2281]

A panther tank didn’t cost that much more to build than a panzer iv, and a hell if a lot less than any tiger version , they actually designed the panther before it he tiger, hence the panther is panzer 5 while the tiger is panzer 6, it they stopped developing it cause they thought begets won the war, and when they realized what was actually happening they built a “bigger and better “ version , but soon enough realized their folly and built the panther

[@joaquintrigueros]

More StuGs

[@Zgreasewood]

Because of air power they were used mostly at night, in night battles it was who came with the most tanks, not the biggest.

[@buckshot6481]

They didn't have a transmission that could move the Panther. They should have built the daylights of Stug III.

[@williamburroughs2273]

I agree that they should have made a ton of Panthers, that should have been the primary tank for the German Army. The King Tiger and the Jagdtiger were half-baked and rushed into production, but I am still a big fan of the Tiger 1. The bigger Stug-type assault guns were also incredibly effective in combat, especially in fast-moving attacks. But I always wonder about the small half-track type vehicles, those small little deals that don't have much weaponry and I can't help but wonder how effective those little machines were in the war. I think the Germans should've made a ton of Panthers, Stugs, and Tiger 1's and skipped the small tanks that don't do anything.

[@Eric_Von_Yesselstyn]

First of all, the Panther was over engineered and underpowered, with a bad, single spline & final drive... Before the Panther was produced, they added tons to the weight, making the engine not the best option, they never changed the engine. Had the Germans addressed ALL of the Panther's significant issues, it may have been viable but remember the Soviets had the IS-2 in 1944. Adding a bigger turret and Gun to the Panther would have been very problematic and again, the engine issue with even more added weight. It's possible the Panther could have been refined and improved, if so many resources weren't lacking and wasted on Heavy Tank designs. BUT... Remember that at least 60% NOT 50% of the brand new Panther tanks either broke down or caught fire before they made it to the battle of Kursk. 60% of the Panthers that arrived, never saw battle... Think about that for a moment. In reality the German War armaments industry was NOT efficient and superior, the MYTH of the superior German quality needs to be forgotten.. Late war tank production was terrible, with the Armor not having consistent hardening on all sides and front and the quality of the steel was getting worse. This is all well documented.. Too many competing designs, catastrophic lack of strategic resources, lots of wasted potential and a mass production capability that was 20 years behind the USA. But for some reason people still cling to the incorrect MYTH that the Germans were superior in all areas, they were NOT. Some revolutionary designs that were produced NEVER performed as they did on paper. In all reality, the war was lost for Germany by mid 1943.

[@KenHeying]

It’s my belief the panzer four would have been better. You could produce them in large numbers and not used so much fuel. The numbers could have been 10 to one in favor of the panzer four. Fuel consumption would be the same and with a 75mm, be a formable foe.

[@Sid-jx4gl]

Paired with stugs and sp artillery

[@andyrew9794]

Man power everyone forgets germany wouldnt have the man power to the tanks

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@andyrew9794 The German Heer had 13,600,000 soldiers. That's plenty of manpower to operate those tanks.

[@sthrich635]

Panzer IV was an often overrated German tank, mostly because in popular image it was seen as “German version” of Sherman/T34, which were seen as “winners of WW2 tank warfare” First, the actual late war German tank reliability statistics, covering Panzer IV, Panther, and Tigers, ALL showed an average of 60-70% reliability with no clear winner. Panzer IV was actually just as unreliable as the bigger Tigers and Panther, though not surprising due to the collapsing German logistics then. Moreover, it showed German logistics simply incapable of running more than 70% of the tanks they already had - making more Panzer IV that its logistics couldn't support would just waste materials and bleed out the already low crew manpower and experience. Second, Panzer IV, while obviously cheaper 1-to-1 than Tigers that weighs around double its mass, was far from a “cost-efficient” wartime design. It was still at its core a pre-war “artistic” design, built with multiple plates and unnecessary complex shapes - a quick comparison of Panzer IV hull and turret shape with Shermans or T-34 and the differences are crystal clear. And the fact the heavier and more powerful Panther only cost slightly more then Panzer IV indicated two things actually - The Panther got mostly right with the crude but functional wartime design, And the Panzer IV was a horribly cost-inefficient design. Third, the firepower for tanks goes a lot further than comparing numbers of penetration versus armor thickness. While the 75mm KwK 40 of Panzer IV was technically capable of penetrating Shermans and T34 all the time, by late-1944 T-34 received 85 mm cannons while more 17-pdr and 76mm Shermans arrived. These cannons could take out the obsolete armor of Panzer IV at the same effective range of its Kwk 40. Meaning the Panzer IV actually had lost its firepower advantages by then. On the other hand, the Panther Kwk 42, could also penetrate both Allied tanks, but with greater accuracy and greater range, amplified by its higher survivability to maintain its firepower on the battlefield as well. In face of Allied numerical superiority such firepower advantages became decisive. Lastly, due to the narrower tracks of Panzer IV, its off-road capability was actually worse than Tigers and Panthers with their overlapping wheels, especially on the softer mud ground in Russia and Eastern Europe. On the Western Europe yes this was less a problem, but the main tank combat was still in the Eastern Front and almost all German wartime AFV designs were made from it.

[@Sid-jx4gl]

@sthrich635 you make some very good observations the panther was a better tank I just feel that the Germans spread themselves too thin with so many different designs being developed at the same time if they would have concentrated on fewer systems they would have been better off anyway no matter how many tanks they had they lost the air war

[@williamboquist4090]

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I would argue that Germany's tank strategy was ultimately inconsequential. Suppose that they had a tank far superior to any that the Allies could counter with. Next, suppose that they had all of the crews, grenadiers, fuel, air cover, etc. that they could ever want. I believe that if their conventional arms made it impossible to defeat them with Allied conventional arms, the US would just have resorted dropping one or more atomic bombs on German cities, even if the bombs could not be built until some time in 1946. The Germans might have progressed further with their Wunderwaffe if the European war had stretched into 1946, but to the best of my knowledge, they were nowhere near producing a weapon that could offset the impact of the atom bomb.

[@petersclafani4370]

My friends father was in the german army in the afrika corp. Serve as tank gunner

[@zemlidrakona2915]

I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure I would consider the Panther the best tank of the war given it's vaunted reliability problems (google " From the Vault: Post War British Report on Panther" ). There's also the fact that the side armor was pretty thin. The Sherman might actually be the best all things considered. But it's all a matter of opinion.

[@shaunholmes9900]

Early to mid Shermans also had problems as well, with fires and ammo cook offs common. Why crews added extra tracks, logs and even sand bags to tanks. they even had to add armour plates to it. Also Sherman US guns could not take out tigers and panther easily. Panthers were great after teething problems and a lot of problems after were due to sabotage and poor quality of martials due to shortages.

[@zemlidrakona2915]

@@shaunholmes9900 Every tank has pros and cons. However in the case of the Sherman they addressed a lot of the cons in the form of things like wet storage, different main guns and improved suspension. Also you have to keep in mind that tank on tank combat isn't the only use for tanks. In addition something like 49K Shermans were built as opposed to 6K Panthers, and in general Shermans had much better reliability.

[@shaunholmes9900]

@@zemlidrakona2915 The Sherman guns were mostly ineffective against tanks like Panthers and Tigers. The British even told America of the panther being widely used and they chose to ignore it, thinking it was going to be like Tiger in small numbers. Why we have Firefly used by all others but not US. Wet storage and armour plates still proved that Sherman was under armoured and could be knocked out easily with chance of fires. Improved suspension only helped it get some where. Yeh and mostly Air force had to knock out German tanks as the Us tanks and tank destroyers struggled to knock out German tanks. Numbers sure when you compare size of US and Germany industrial might it kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Panther was a better tank then Sherman as it was a case of quantity or quality. Only with Pershing was US able to take out Panthers and Tigers. Reliability issue on Panther was final drive and a good crew would have no problem and it only really became a problem with new crews hurriedly trained towards end of ww2.

[@zemlidrakona2915]

@@shaunholmes9900 These arguments just go back and forth. Let's face it, nobody posting here really knows anything including me, and most people that make videos on the subject. Almost anyone with any real experience with this stuff has passed away. It's really not worth arguing about. It mostly comes down to fan-boyism. If you feel the Panther was the best, that's fine. I'd probably go with the Sherman, or maybe one of the Russian tanks.

[@shaunholmes9900]

@@zemlidrakona2915 I mainly go off what i know and Tank museum. You make a fair point. T34 was good for one battle and would brake completely, crew would hop out and just get in a brand new one. I would say best tank of war was panzer 4. Was there at start and finish. Reliable, Gun was ok could deal with most things due to upgrades through war. Armour was ok as was upgraded as well. was used to great effect as Stug, Nashorn, Hummel, Brumbar and Wirbelwind. Panther was it replacement and then we had Leopard tanks.

[@gr8990]

The 17pdr APDS round wasn't used in combat in WW2. It wasn't accurate past a few hundred yards, so the Brits didn't use it.

[@evilfingers4302]

Since mid 1943, around 6,000 were made, and if the Germans had opted to shelve all the other Big Cats, the production number of the Panthers would've increased to probably be around 10,000 or more especially since first half of 1944, Allied bombing raids over Germany were scaled back and this was due to the Allied planning of D-Day.

[@Cwra1smith]

The panther's gun would match the tiger's in armor-piercing rounds but the 88mm high explosive was much better for shelling dugouts and enemy formations.

[@vonbennett8670]

More Panthers instead of PzKfpw IVs....and no Tiger IIs

[@alzaidi7739]

I read the French reported that their post war Panther prizes needed their final drive rebuild after just two full tank of gas usage.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Yes, Panther 4 tanks were more successfully designed. Thanks for sharing

[@rogercude1459]

Good high velocity gun, good armour frontal only! Sides not so good. But that should have been all they made along with long barrel MK4 and stugs.

[@bloodwynn]

Panther technically was more of a tank destroyer than a real tank.

[@Dreachon]

No, it was a tank. The ones calling it a tankdestroyer are those who have an agenda or simply don't understand the thinking behind the vehicle

[@bloodwynn]

@@Dreachon What agenda? Don't get political please... It's just common sense. Panther was disproportionally armored from the front compared to it's sides. Plus it had a very long range antiarmor cannon. There are more parameters which make it more of a tank destroyer but I don't remember from the top of my head - I think it's aiming and turret spinning wasn't as good for frontal charges as well, but my memory might fail me on this one. Graciously I'm not mentioning enormous technical difficulties at start of it's production. P.S. I'm aware Germans classified Panther as a tank, just saying that looking at what it was, I think it resembles more a tank destroyer - to be clear.

[@Dreachon]

@@bloodwynn Agenda isn't political in this sense but rather that the past decade has seen a considerable rise in people looking to bash German stuff simply because it's German, and the Panther gets picked a lot because it is a well-known piece of equipment. It wasn't disproportionately armored, it's still only 80mm at the front hull, the sides go from 40mm on the half to up to 60mm up the upper sides on the ausf. G It's turret rotation isn't bad either, about 3 seconds slower than a Sherman tank for a full 360 degrees which is reality has very little meaning as tanks rarely have to rotate their turret more than 90 degrees. Aiming is no different than any other German tank an the Panther uses optics with the same degrees of fire as found on the Tiger I and Tiger II, and they are better than the Panzer III and IV.

[@bloodwynn]

@@Dreachon I understand your point. I'm not here to bash, I'm trying to be objective. German technologies had it's flaws and they had it's advantages. Overall many impressive designs. I think that "bashing" is a result of previous fetishization of German tanks so now the trend reversed 180 degrees. Btw. I'm not saying "tank destroyer" as an insult. At this phase of war Germany was almost only defending, so tank destroyers made more sense.

[@Dreachon]

@@bloodwynn And yet Germany's armored elements were often on the offense, that is how the Germans operate in war, they have a big fixation on being offensive. They have done so for centuries. No, most German armor wasn't sitting in bushes waiting for enemy tanks to roll in front of them, they were pretty much partaking in counter offenses which is very often where it went wrong for them. It is indeed true that it came as a result of the overhyping we had during the 90's and 00's, but since the overwhelming majority of people in the tank fandom care little for facts and rather want the cool stories there has been an overreaction in the opposite, one that is as equally wrong as what we had before.

[@bluntone2273]

They probably would have been better served to upgrade the panzer 4. Ultimately it wouldn’t really matter since their loss was inevitable with all of the resources pitted against them.

[@John14-6...]

The Panther was a good tank but that weak side armor hurt them in battles even with regular Shermans. I'm a bigger fan of the Tiger. Maybe the Panther was a better tank for Germany in the production department, but if you were a German tanker in WW2 and given your choice between the Panther and Tiger which would you choose?

[@dovidell]

As I understand , and correct me if I'm wrong , there were more Panther turrets produced than tank chassis , so several Panther turrets were converted Panther Pillboxes towards the end of the war , which must have come as a surprise to the allies

[@Betz23K]

the soviets during zitadelle - dug-in their tanks (located for their own offensives/counter-offensives) which seem to have worked very well - even more when the germans couldn´t use their stukas - as the 75mm & 100mm PAKs were not really moveable by the crews - a usage as "maginot-line"-style PAKs it was a rather standardized PAK-bunker ... probably the main reason - instead of positioning of e.g. marders may have been the severe fuel shortage germany faces during the whole war

[@billw7213]

Germany needed loyal officers that allied with Hitler.

[@jagsdomain203]

The main problem is the engine no matter what kind of tank they built they're always going to have the same engine so you might as well build something lighter so you can scoot and shoot I think it was the m10 tank destroyer they wanted to put more armor on it and the people in the field said no because you can't hit something if I'm not there they were able to scoot in shoot a couple rounds and leave because they were so dark on fast

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Breakthrough tanks. Meant to bust through and cause massive havoc and panic in rear.

[@creightonleerose582]

Well done presentations & production quality viewed here FactByte. Right up^ there alongside 'History@War' - "War And History" - & 'Military1945' as to film/narration/editing values. Thank you for what ya do FB! A 20 minute video can often take 8-16 or more hours to render.

[@FactBytes]

Thank you for the visit!

[@Samila009]

Please do not prioritize any one nation , as I saw in many youtube history channel , praising the allies and downgrading germany Present history as it was ... Please

[@patwilson2546]

Tiger came first. It would have cost a lot of money to convert those assembly lines to Panthers. Panthers were the most produced German tank the last two years of the war, so the idea that Germany did not focus on the Panther is false. The could not, however, convert all of the assembly lines at the snap of a finger.

[@corrion1]

While Germany was always going to lose when the USA got involved I believe they had the right idea ,create tanks that can protect crews and take out ten times their numbers, the manpower situation would of made Sherman,T34 like mass production pointless

[@richardmitchell8213]

Neither, more Stug IIIs with the long barrel 75mm should have been Germanys “only” tank in WWII in massive numbers. The other two were great tanks but couldn’t be built in the numbers needed to make a meaningful difference.

[@stwg32]

No tigers, more panthers, stug and hertzers. They could have produced a lot more if they didn't build the tiger 1 and tiger 2. They could have made work of the panther 2 with 88mm gun and better turret armour but good old Adolf wanted big unpractical tanks. Don't get me wrong, a dug in tiger 2 would have been a nightmare to get past without air support.

[@wbwilhite]

The Germans should have built more StuG III, StuG IV, Pz IV and 8.8 cm Flak. This would have increased firepower from defensive positions.

[@Brissebrajan]

Non of the heavy tanks would have saved Germany. The STUG was Germanys by far best anti-tank plattform. Germanys focus should had been on creating more of the later variants of the Panzer 4 and 3 and Stugs in order to be have a fighting chance. But even that would not been enough. Like some have said, chassis and cannons is only parts of what makes a tank work.

[@stig-ovesilverlind8204]

Nope, Stug III

[@wazza33racer]

Everyone needs to read the books about Albert Speer.

[@barrybartos7687]

I will look. Sounds interesting.

[@chiefkikyerass7188]

Saying the Panther was the best tank of the war, tells me your totally clueless about facts and history

[@jagsdomain203]

The original panther tank where the gun barrel sits several shots I don't know how many I know they were at least one there must have been several cuz they fixed the problem with subsequent models but the if you could get around that would shoot just under the barrel the way that the barrel was put in the shot would ricochet right into the tank

[@ludeman]

Germany should have focused on the Panther and ME262

[@long88mm]

panther's reverse speed is the problem.

[@rolandwhittle8527]

But at the end of the day however many tanks Germany built would be nothing against the overwhelming Allied and Soviet airpower. They were decimated in Normandy and operation Bagration. They would have only been effective if Germany had built more air units to have supported armoured attacks like beginning of the war. It was clear that by 1943 the air dominance on the battlefield was defining factor against armoured warfare.

[@nickw2876]

Should have ditched the King Tiger and other Mega projects. focused on PZ4, Stug3, Tiger 1 and Panther. But all irrelevant without air superiority.

[@lowtech41]

You all should read Arthur Clarke's short story Superiority.

[@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg]

Having the perfect tank will not win you the war unless you have air superiority, or at least parity. After D-day, the Luftwaffe was practically absent from the battlefields in the West. Tanks, and more crucially their fuel supply convoys, were exposed to extermination by Thunderbolts and Mustangs. The rest is fantasy.

[@bluemouse5039]

Its easy for us to say the Tiger was a bad idea, only because we have the luxury to be armchair quarterbacks after the war is over and can critique decisions, The idea of a super heavy tank could not have been too dumb of a concept because the allies saw the same virtues in it and began building their own heavy tanks later in the war, and even post war the allies continued trying to keep making their tanks bigger with larger guns, I think if I was in the Germans position in WW-2, the idea of building a tank with armor so thick nothing could penetrate it and a long range powerful gun to knock enemy tanks at ranges they could not return fire and hope to knock my heavy tank out might be a consideration, especially early in the war against French Armor they had the Char B heavy tank that mauled the lighter German armor and during the desert war the British had the Matilda tank that no German tank gun could stop and the British routed the Germans on occasion in tank to tank battles, then later when the Russian unveiled the T-34 for the first time against the Germans , once again a superior tank almost forced the German army to retreat out of Russia, it was only poor tactics on the allies part that stopped the early use of heavy armor from being a deciding factor, so if I was Hitler, I would think my generals using a super tank with superior tactics could do what the allied heavy tanks did to the Germans early in the war, because I know that I could not produce enough medium tanks to match the allies production

[@barrybartos7687]

The Tiger II was a bad idea. They should have concentrated on Panthers and a supplement of Tiger I's for defense.

[@jamesflaherty8739]

I think the Panther with the upgraded gears was the best tank of the war. It is fast and agile and the long 75mm gun had better penetration than the Tiger I's 88mm gun. The sides were vulnerable to a good shot especially up close but even today tanks have weak side armor compared to the front.

[@TP-ie3hj]

Love the Panther, but as others have pointed out its flawed thinking to think 3-1. Yes in the end more of a good thing is a good thing but Germany would have needed a lot more than tanks to have had a chance of winning the war. Besides that the question should be about having simply built more Tigers? What if instead of Panthers or Panzer four the Germans had only built Tigers? Actually would be more probable than the other way round. More Tigers is simply equal to more money... more Panthers or Panzers meant more everything.

[@Khalifrio]

Just my opinion but I think they would have been better off with more Panzer 4's. A more reliable, less complicated, and less costly to build tank. Better yet half Panzer 4''s and half Stugs. But even that would not really have mattered because they lacked the fuel to power said tanks/SPG's.

[@laurentfranco8075]

I would say more Panthers, Stug III's, high velocity anti tank guns and make all Panzer IV's available for conversion to Stug IV's. But that's all conjecture of course. Don't think it still mattered in the end. After Kursk Germany should have retreated to a much shorter defensible line near the polish border and start peace negotions with the soviets while consolidating their assets in the West if the Reich was to be saved in any way.

[@braxxian]

It’s my understanding that Panthers were mechanically unreliable, with many simply breaking down before even reaching the battlefield?

[@kungfuwitcher7621]

It might have been Germanys best tank, but too complicated and over-engineered like the Tiger. Even if Germany had been able to produce enough, they still would have lost the war for many more reasons. The Tiget and the Panther were just sucking resources for very little gain.

[@maurycyj]

the Germans needed more PzKpfw IVs, not Tigers or Panthers (fat cats)

[@rodrigoquiroga8590]

Only few Tiger schwere panzer abteilungs with Tigers for breakthrougs, and massive quantities of Panthers II , Pz IV s, and Jadgpanzers accompanied by a lot of air defence Flakpanzers, would has been decesive, at least in the East in 1943/44

[@seanmalloy7249]

The continual "it's been fifteen seconds; it's time to mention the Panther's lower production cost compared to the Tiger, or the Tiger's higher production cost" begins to wear after the sixth or seventh repetition. It's not necessary to flog the same statement over and over and over again.

[@johnnymcneil1574]

Yes more panthers it was their best tank by far

[@John14-6...]

Why didn't the Germans give names to the Panzer models one through four?

[@AL-zg5jo]

Actually the panther g was very reliable because they upgraded the failing parts On war tunder i prefer the panther G and f over the tiger 1 or 2 The tiger got a really good gun almost shoots in a straight line You dont need the calculate the distance like on a panther

[@stephenbrand5661]

More Jagdpanthers instead of heavy tanks!!!

[@johnblasik9647]

Good looks doesn’t win a war when your opponents out produce you 100 to 1.