Panther Tank Variant Guide

Taken aback by the success of the Soviet T-34, German engineers came up with a brand new medium tank design - the Panther. The Panther served in the German army for over 2 years, and during that time was significantly improved. 3 variants of the Panther would see service over the course of the war, and you could argue a 4th variant served as well. But what were they? And how can you tell which is which?
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
((Like and subscribe))
Credit to these excellent articles:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/ge...
mikesresearch.com/2019/10/27/...

[@michaelnaven213]

The concept of the Panther started long before the Germans were aware of the T-34. The T-34 accelerated and refined the development of the Panther.

[@gmm5938]

exactly he got that wrong, the panther was a war winning tank for sure with really good hard factors, but in the soft factors it failed miserably unlike the shermans or cromwells, and im not a fan of the sherman i think it was an ugly design with a not really surprising gun mostly only to engage fortifications and infantry, and overall poor anti tank capabilities and lacking any decent cross country capability.

[@OTCaptainSean]

You are mixing a misconception up with a fact. 1.The common misconception is the Germans or really anyone else didn't understand or know the benefits of angled armor until they T-34 came to the battlefield that is false and a common misconception. 2. The Facts are the German did develop and built the Panther in response to meeting the T-34 in 1941 with the first Panther porotypes being made in 1942. They had been working on the Tiger since 1939 maybe that's what you are thinking of? After study of T-34 at the front the Germans threw away the replacement designs for the Panzer IV and III and started new with the Panther "Sebastian Fichtner was opposed to starting development on an entirely new tank, as the VK24.01, the fruit of the previous VK20 project to replace the Panzers III and IV, was nearly completed. However, the Reich Minister for Armaments and Ammunition, Fritz Todt, disregarded Fichtner’s concerns and gave the go-ahead to start work on a new tank. Wa. Prüf. 6 therefore put forth a design competition on November 25th, 1941, issuing contracts to the firms of Daimler-Benz and M.A.N. to develop a new tank with the following parameters"

[@davesherry5384]

1942 isn't late war either.

[@davilioses8225]

Shitfest

[@somehecucunt3194]

@@gmm5938 a single type of vehicle can't win a war.

[@parrot849]

Outstanding video. There are many Panther videos out there, but your video is the first, I’ve found, that simply breaks down the main variants understandably. Did they ever find an explanation to why the developers started with “D” then back to “A” when assigning the Ausf. letter designations?

[@bjboss1119]

iirc the D was just a lot easier to produce while the A was having problems with its turret drive, so they made the D and got any panther out as soon as possible, then once the issues with the A and other models were somewhat resolved they went into production

[@tvexpert_xd2388]

I agree with you Gary W Also the videos very entertaining and straught to the point

[@gunner678]

Good video. The exhaust manifold was the culprit in the panther fires, rather than the engines per se. Another issue was the vulnerability of the weld seams on the hull corners. Even a 2 pounder could split the welds,when struck on the corners, leading to structural collapse. All that said, it was a formidable tank and continued in French army service post WW2.

[@razor1uk610]

Initially... ...the manifolds were more a source of carbon monoxide leaks into the crew compartment, if the crew heater was enabled; as a centrifugal fan system driven off the engine & prop shaft also doubled as a cooling unit for the manifold of each bank of cylinders. The engine fires was as much or more from the rubberised engine compartment sealing liner trapping gases and specifically heat very well, and the poor quality metal material used for the fuel feed pipes and fuel lines from the fuel booster pumps to the carburettor fuel jets; ..thus becoming porous at elevated temperatures within the engine compartment, also that the clamps for the flexible fuel hoses to the fuel lines also were made of poor material for their design with not enough synthetic rubber of the hoses to allow additional clamp to be fitted to the line, and so weakened over time - with operating engine vibrations helping to loosen anything that wasn't tight. Many of these faults also plagued the Tigers (1 & 2) in some ways, as they shared many component sub-assemblies - such as the fuel lines, hoses & clamps. Eventually longer hoses with space for doubled (if/when needed) clamps (of an improved design for their materials quality) and enforced higher spec recipe of alloys/metal was arrived at to replace the porous fuel line pipeworks. But not all in service vehicles received all of the retrofittable kits at the same time, or in some cases, at all; as the logistics, the railways were getting regularly bombed, disrupted, delayed or destroyed - both raw supplies going towards the many manufacturing hubs, and of produced material & equipments coming out from them.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

what a funny comment!

[@davesherry5384]

Most likely it was poor armour face hardening that caused that problem.

[@forestgaming3993]

Hey man, great videos. The little of highlighting and pointing to what you are expounding upon is really helpful. Thanks a bunch!

[@InTTruder]

A nice concise AFVID summary. Well done.

[@ianbell5611]

Thank you. A great video. I always learn something new. Have a Great Christmas. All the best for 2023. Cheers

[@TallDude73]

Very well-researched video. Thank you.

[@iformaddox3652]

Good video, keep them coming

[@MGB-learning]

Another outstanding video and presentation.

[@jimmylight4866]

EXCELLENT WORK! 🏆 The photo timing with the audio was perfect.🏆 Great pics I had never seen before.🏆 Concise explanation of each variant and their differences.🏆

[@erikmann3640]

Very nicely done. Very informative and well done. I look forward to many more videos.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thank you kindly!

[@amptechron]

Excellent!

[@angelsone-five7912]

Excellent video. Anything Panther related will be welcome here.

[@basfinnis]

Interesting stuff. Thanks

[@shadowderper8930]

nice one, i still remember your t26 video!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

My OG fan

[@shadowderper8930]

I always wondered what happened to you, because I remembered giving a tip like the audio and stuff, and I never saw you in my recommended again. and then reddit shows me this and i HAD to see this vid

[@martinbaumgardner4432]

The Panther II was moved to Fort Benning in 2010-2011 and if I am not wrong has not been on display since

[@xxkrazykrewxxl6254]

Its now in a museum but for most the time at benning it was in a motor pool full of other ww2 and cold war tanks, when i was living there they had it next to a jagdtiger

[@martinbaumgardner4432]

@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 a museum open to all or only by appointment and normally only Army classes? If open to all please share name and address

[@xxkrazykrewxxl6254]

@martinbaumgardner4432 the musuem has what they call open house days where you can come and see the tanks is called the armor cavalry collection if i remember right

[@martinbaumgardner4432]

@@xxkrazykrewxxl6254 so after all these years it is still not open to the public

[@tiagobarassi6758]

Please make a video of the other Panther variants!

[@rc-panzerschmied-e2718]

Great Video thank´s

[@bigbob1699]

Makes you wonder how they made all that steel while being bombed.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

The answer is "Not very well"! Late war German armour was incredibly brittle and would shatter when hit by shells that shouldn't be able to do much damage.

[@CZ350tuner]

@@RedWrenchFilms That's because it lacked chromium & molybdenum, both essential ingredients in rolled homogeneous armour. The Germans lacked supplies of these metals.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@RedWrenchFilms according to various authors like Spielberger and Thomas L. Jentz they stated that they saw no discernible lowering of quality of the armour. Easily seen by late war photos, compare them to the early variants. The only tank that virtually destroyed the tank to pieces was when hit by the IS-2 with the 122 mm gun called the "smasher".

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Late German armour was infact less hard (and thus less brittle) than early War german tanks and equaled British and American tanks in quality, according to wartime and early post war allied testing.

[@Renosen]

Low quality metal or sumn, Tiger II frontal armor could literally be destroyed by spamming HE on it

[@WOTgameplaychorantauluka]

Nice video... I love it

[@McRocket]

Great video, imo. And I am interested in Panther derivatives. Thanks. ☮

[@erickrapa7939]

you forgot to mention about the sideskirts on the Panthers used to mitigate anti tank rifle rounds

[@schmiddy8433]

Sideskirts were added to panzer IIIs and IVs long before the panther was commissioned for that reason because their side armor was very easily penetrated by AT rifles at only 30mm.

[@erickrapa7939]

@@schmiddy8433 true

[@brucelamberton8819]

German tanks catching fire? No, never! Well, not according to all the "experts" who claim that was a fate reserved exclusively for the M4 Sherman.

[@darioscomicschool1111]

Thank you!

[@stevemercer952]

A very well made and informative video. I would be interested to know if the apparent Panther F shown in the abandoned vehicle yard at 7:10 with a schmallturm is just a very cleverly doctored picture? It certainly shows how the F would have appeared in use. Thank you very much for a great video!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks Steve!

[@executivedirector7467]

I agree. I've seen that photo before and I don't recall a Panther F.

[@davidtorre7370]

I think three turrets were mad, none of which saw action.

[@dauga40]

Hello. really good and pleasant. Photos and videos are top. May be a guide on the E serie soon ? Cheers from a modeler.

[@George_M_]

Having seen one in person, it's really honking big. The upper side armor is at head level, the weaker lower side armor is as high as the bottom of a Pz4 turret. Very hittable.

[@Madduckk]

When your heavy German tank doesn’t catch fire or breaks down before reaching combat: 😮😮😮

[@bulldozer99]

Thanks ma'am, the guys aka men are most definitely interested

[@harlech2]

One minor correction. The Panther 2 is NOT at Ft. Knox anynore and hasn't been in over a decade. It is at the National Armor and Cavalry Collection at Ft. Benning and has been since 2012. (although it was at the restoration shop until the NACC was finished)

[@ninoangelojoson7132]

Can you please a video on the other panther based vehicles, I subbed!

[@Hello_there_obi]

Common misconception: the panther was in development before they encountered the t34. They accelerated it because of the t34 though. And the panzer3s and 4s were actually still effective against the early t34s

[@gerardandrew4820]

Could you make a video on a very interresting tank? namely the other Panther candidate, the DB design, the 42 model but also the 41 model. Personally i think that the M.A.N design should not have been the production model. As Guderian tought also.

[@CoreMaster111]

VK 30.01 does not mean that the vehicle was supposed to be 30 tons. 30 tons is just the weigth of the automotively operational chassis without turret and gun. Turret and gun added another 10+ tons which is why it ended up 43-44 tons. Same goes for VK 20.01, VK 45.01 etc.

[@dd-gl2qf]

The image you used was of the VK 30.02 M and not the Panther D while talking about the differences between the D and later versions lol.

[@blakepeel5076]

My personal favorite panther is the command variant with the Panzer IV turret mounted instead of the standard panther turret

[@samuelsokol60]

1:36 T-60 designed in two weeks: Hold my beer

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

Enjoyable succinct video! 0:44 because Germany based size on gun size not weight and 75mm was medium

[@dangrafart]

Cool

[@parker1ray]

I read somewhere that the operations manual instructed the driver to only run the tank up to 80% throttle because of the weak final drive!

[@andyc3088]

Another big problem of the Panther and the Tiger series of tanks is the number of road wheels. To replace one at the back 3 or 4 other wheels had to be taken off. It was a design dead end. There was a Panther that had a Panzer 4 turret used as a field conversion. Krupp proposed using the Panther F turret on the Panzer 4 H chassis.

[@KG-li7kg]

Das das Design des Panters eine Sackgasse war, ist völliger Blödsinn. Der Panter war der beste Panzer des WWII. Das Fahrgestell war das beste, das bis zum heutigen Tage überhaupt produziert wurde. Das Schachtellaufwerk hatte einen Federweg von 550mm, und ist in dieser Hinsicht , sogar dem des Leopard überlegen, der es "nur" auf 500mm bringt. Der Panter ist der Panzer, an den sich jedes Panzer produzierende Land, nach dem Kriege orientiert hat.

[@5RndsFFE]

The interlocked wheels of the Tiger and Panther series tanks actually allowed for reduced ground pressure. In many respects it was superior to many Allied and Soviet designs, it’s just that it came with a more complex mechanical maintenance requirement. As for the Panther using a Panzer IV turret, these were never considered for production and were only ever produced as ad hoc field modifications for command tanks, there’s little evidence the gun was functional. As for the Panzer IV Schmalturm, the Panzer IV chassis was already taxed by weight on the Ausf. H and Ausf. J. The extra 7.5 tonnes of the Schmalturn would have put the springs and final drives into palliative care. Not to mention the Ausf. J didn’t even have a powered traverse, to try and reduce complexity and cost.

[@executivedirector7467]

@@5RndsFFE Bottom line is that interleaved and overlapping road wheels were more trouble than they were worth. yes, they aided flotation, but at a cost that was too high. This is why no postwar tank went into production with this sort of wheel arrangement. On balance it simply wasn't a good idea.

[@5RndsFFE]

@@executivedirector7467 Oh I absolutely agree it was unnecessary over engineering, which seemed to be the Germans creed for WW2 vehicles by large. The benefit just didn’t outweigh the extra maintenance load.

[@HaVoC117X]

​​@@executivedirector7467 The designer Dr. Lehr came to total different conclusion after comparing different approaches. Not only limited the double torsion bar the actual stress on the suspension system by 20%, in long endurance test it also proved to have twice the expected service life to a single torsion bar. Furthermore with quantity comes quality of its own. The Panther could easily lose some roadwheels and torsion bars and still be operational, which enhances its endurance in battle, with out the need for spare parts or time consuming repairs during the heat of a battle. The interleaved roadwheels together with soft suspension also increases service life of the roadwheels and tracks. So less basic maintenances, most parts of the running gear outlived the tanks service life anyway, the torsionbars were maintenance free. Only tough battle damage had to be repaired, hhich saved a lot of man hours for the maintenances crews. Different story on the sherman so, because of its very short suspension travel the springs in the bogies were the spare part with the highest demand in US repair shops. During oscillation and vibration test, it was proven that you could drive over ruff terrain, in this case wave track (washboard track) with 30 cm high waves with 40 kmh and you could be standing in the turret with out the need to hold onto something. The same test was done with shermans and panzer IVs. At 20 kmh you have to clinge to something to remain seated in your seat. The hull of the Panther doesn't even move more than 2 degrees out of the horizontal plane while doing that, both gunner and commander were able to spot and track targets at 40 kmh. In a sherman the gunner was not able to keep his eyes on the gunsight at 20kmh, which made it's stablizer useless at higher speeds and in ruff terrain. The double torsionbar and interleaved roadwheels disappeared because tank engines became much stronger, and reducing driving resistance became less important. But the double torsionbar suspension together with the good spread of interleaved roadwheels only needed four shock absorbers/dampers to get rid of oscillations. Modern tanks have one for each roadwheels which also increases complexity. It wasn't until the late 70th when newer mbts matched this damping level of the Panther.

[@crossbowsmania9627]

please tell me where did you find ..the photo of the panther with the geese *-*

[@michaeld2622]

Awww those ducklings.. 😍

[@blaulichtwasser]

Great Video 🔥🔥🔥 but I have to „complain“ about one photo you used at 4:17 the left photo is in fact not the panther D it is the Vk 30.02 (Versuchskampfpanzer 30.02) the prototype version of the panther but as bad as the Ausführung D (thanks War Thunder)

[@SyedFaizalAlYahya]

when r going to cover the new panther of new era? KF51

[@trolski1618]

Good video but I have to point out that the tank on the left in 4:08 is not a panther d but a vk 30 02 M. One of the last, if not the last M.A.N. prototype, that's the reason why the turret shape is different from the tank on the right.

[@user-bf2dk5co1f]

1:12 This is a VK.3008 it had 60mm in the hull front and 90 in the turret front

[@davidtorre7370]

I think only twenty were made with steel road wheels. Problem was that it lowered the hull an inch. I think the one at Fort Knox is a Panther G hull with the new suspension system, of seven interwoven wheels per side.

[@Mattamaza]

Theres a lot of compomises in the design of the panther due to the material shortages that germany were facing. 1. Double torsion bar was due to them not being able to manufacture the right alloy of spring steel that could do the job with 1 length of bar. 2. L70 gun, The propellant that the germans had was not as quick burning when ckmpared to the british or the americans which is why they needed such a long barrel to achieve the same muzzle velocity. The 17 pounder and us 76mm gun are shorter and lighter and just as effective. 3. Germany did not have the machine tools to make helical mesh gears. So the final drive and gearbox were weakend because all the force is pushed through a aingle tooth which could break off.

[@garysparks-td5pz]

Imagine if it did come in as 35 tons like how fast of a hard hitting tank it would be is crazy

[@gheetza14]

I thought there were 2 confirmed Panther F hulls with Panther G turrets? I once read about one that got sent back to the US, and the one the Soviets destroyed. Apologies if I am wrong.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

You may be getting confused with the Panther II hull that's now at Fort Benning - it has a G model turret mounted and was captured late war. I'm not 100% sure though!

[@DarkestVampire92]

Chieftain would like to have a word with you about why Panther was developed, and a few other, smaller mistakes with this video.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I went with the much simplified explanation for this video - wanted to spend the majority of the time on the nitty gritty of variants!

[@victoriaevelyn3953]

Did they ever mount a panzer 4 turret to a panther hull making a panzer IV/V?

[@gheetza14]

1 field modification. It was a command vehicle, the turret could not rotate. It is unclear if the gun was functional.

[@darkmathsamport3694]

8:58 man if this is added to the german tech AA in WT 😂 would have been happy they did.

[@WildBillCox13]

What in the world is that Autocannon variant at 9:00? Is it a 2cm FlaKPanzer? It has no bell at the muzzle, so it's not either of the 3.7cm FlaKs-I think. The 3cm MK101? And is that a fold down plate covering the forward hull hatches? And one on either side? Utterly fascinating.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It's a 3.7cm FlaK 43 stuck on top of a Bergepanther chassis!

[@WildBillCox13]

@@RedWrenchFilms Wow. Thanks for the clarification.

[@martinbaumgardner4432]

My first thought was someone dropped a picture of a Marder in by mistake

[@thegulagspeak]

The Soviet Ivans "Well, the German can use 1 Panther to destroy 9 T-34s, but we only need 1 T-34, the 10th one, to destroy that Panther, when another 10 T-34s prepare to roll-in"

[@shawnkelley9035]

Great job. But all I know is I wouldn’t want to go against anyone of these guys in a Sherman or T-34.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Hahaha absolutely not - scary machines

[@samuelruetz5175]

As someone who was introduced to the different Panther models in Warthunder, I had always assumed the D was a degraded late war version, not what should have been the preproduction run.

[@robertharris6092]

Thing is the panz 4 J is after the H.

[@Pilipineyoutuber]

Idk if the panther train was exists Soviets:wut iz dat? A panther in a armoured train!?!?!

[@Pilipineyoutuber]

Panther A moms: WHY U HAVE F F means FAILURE!!!!

[@AFT_05G]

5:40 Umm Panther weighed easily over 45 tons when combat ready.Panther II if i'm not mistaken was close to Tiger I in weight.

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

Excellent work!

[@daniluk1997thebest]

About Panther II... Its armour increase was dictated from the thin side armour of Panther D and Panther A. The main goal of P2 was to increase thickness of side armour to protect side projections from Soviet anti-tank... rifles like PTRD and PTRS (because armour behind the chassis was so weak that it could be penetrated by 14,5mm bullets, not to mention 45mm 20-K and 76,2mm ZiS-5 guns). Yeah, the Germans also tries to make so-called "tank platforms", unifying everything they could (eg, P2 tracks are actually the "transport tracks" from Tiger 2), but, as story of scaling in tank development tells us - it's a bad idea (Americans don't argue with that argument with their attempts to scale Harry Knox's designs (M2 LT, M2 MT, M3, M4, M5 LT even M6 HT), and later trying to scale more modern design in the 50s).

[@RedBloodedAmerican59]

You might wanna recheck your references. As there are quite a few combat photos of the time, with the steel roadwheeled panthers in action. Just saying.

[@Myriip]

03:48 - It's called "Ausführung", you missed the h.

[@AFT_05G]

5:41 Umm Panthers definitely weighed more than 40 tons,easily over 45 when combat ready.

[@mugbug5]

3:53 what is that other tank there?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It’s an M3 Lee! Captured and compared with a Panther for a propaganda film/trials.

[@mugbug5]

@@RedWrenchFilms I see, thank you but didn't the M3 Lee have the hull mounted 75 on the right not the left side of the tank?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@mugbug5 Yeah - the footage was clearly flipped at some point. Maybe even by me!

[@mugbug5]

@@RedWrenchFilms gasp! Thanks for clearing that up

[@plasot]

According to Doyle Panther II was meant to improve protection against PTSD and other anti-tank rifles (50 mm of side armor was vulnerable to such fire), adding skirts improved situation.

[@Darilon12]

PTRS and PTRD.... PTSD is not a rifle ^^

[@mt1885]

GREAT video - QUESTION why did the GERMAN tanks have FLAT turret armor more so than than Soviet tanks?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Not sure exactly why the Germans chose the flatter armour but a big trade off for sloped armour is that it greatly reduces the space inside the turret, so it can be very cramped! If you look at the Sherman/Cromwell/Churchill you'll see they have very flat turrets as well.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Sloped turret armour isn't really possible without drastically reducing inturnal space. Yiy need rounded armour which requires cast armour or you are stuck with flat armour. The germans had limited casting technology, which is why it was limited to gun mantlets.

[@mt1885]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Makes sense was wondering why it seems like Soviet Union had developed advanced metal workings.

[@5co756]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 The round gun mantlets were shot traps like Panther A and Tiger 2 p , so they make flat ones . And it's way easier to produce than this round Russian ones and I don't think this cast ones are that strong . There can be much done wrong in casting steel .

[@executivedirector7467]

@@5co756 Armor plate can be manufactured in cast form just fine. The evidence is plentiful. The Germans just couldn't do it. The USSR, France and USA could manufacture large castings.

[@jerryudonneedtoknow3903]

Great video, however there are incorrect details. Ausf. G The order in which you label the changes is off and thus leads to an incorrect answer in what these changes were for Firstly the panthers roadwheels utilized rubber, there were three issues, the rubber shortage was one, but mainly the original plan was for all-steel roadwheels yet rushed production and design would force the used of rubber rimmed one. Now the rubber ones were rather weak, the rubber broke a lot, and once the rubber broke, the wheel needed to be replaced. The G introduced the all-steel roadwheels, however they chewed through the tracks like it was butter, thus new thicker and stronger tracks were designed for the use of these roadwheels. This new track design was much higher, thus the rear sponson overhang on the D and A models would interfere with the track. Thus the G had the rear sponsons flattened and made to the simple downwards slope. Next we have the transmission. The transmission housing was thickened and strengthened late production on A, this larger housing thus forced the lower glacis armor plate to be reduced in size due to both size and increased frontal weight, thus to reduced a frontal imbalance, it was reduced from 60mm to 50mm. to redistribute the weight and to permanentally deal wit the issue of soviet PTRD and PTRS anti-tank rifles, the side armor was thickened. While steel roadwheels were used, they chewed through even the new tracks quickly, it would be rare to see a full set used often, in many cases, mixes were used, often the case, one or two steel roadwheels were specifically used either in the first frontal or last rear roadwheels, precisely where the most sressloads be taken and received. At 6:36, you will notice that the rear wheel is an all steel while the rest are rubber rim. Basically combining the strength of the steel wheels while the reduced wearing affect of the rubber rims. The pattern would vary but I'm too lazy to go into detail unless asked. Ausf. D The Panther D, many issues were already spotted, the main thought process was the hammer the issues out as they go as time was of in urgent demand. The one issue not really spotted was the rubber engine deck sealing originating from the tanks original design to be an amphibious tank, the aspect remained for deep wading due to not being able to always be supported by bridges. Specifically the german had issues with a lack of space in the engine compartment, this prevented adequate air flow, even with good radiators to cool engine, inadequate airflow (due to inadequate empty space) retained heat more easily. Pair this factor with the rubber sealing keeping heat inside the engine compartment made the engine get overheated extremely quickly. Additionally the firs 200ish engines were Maybach HL210 P30's these had engine blocks made of cast aluminum, aluminum has a high thermal conductivity making it gain heat fast and keep heat for longer periods of time, add all these together and you have engine fires because the excessive heat its too much for the piston head, piston arms, carburetor and other components. In the case of piston arms, because of how narrow the HL210s piston arms are, the excessive heat warps them, this can really screw and engine over, cracking the engine block, breaking the carburetors, etc, thus engine fires. Besides that other issues were known. Fuel leaks were an issue of factory fitting, due to high demand and rush in production, not all fitting are properly tightened and a fuel leak may occur and lead to a fire. One unknown reason for issue was with the automatic fire extinguisher, in some cases, it would not detect fire, especially ones from fuel leaks, thus it would not engage. The transmission issue was know from the start, they had a better and more functional transmission design as well. The main issue was making it, it was a shortage of raw material, it was the lack of industrial tooling machinery to make a necessary part critical for the transmission to be made in mass numbers. This good transmission was the Daimler transmission, the one we have is the MAN one, the MAN transmission, I can go into detail if asked, but to simply put, the final drive two straight cut spur gears, they were simple, too simple, this simple design could not handle the load. The Daimler design used a Inner cut planetary gear system for its final drives (Teeth on inside not outside). The issues was its production, not with resources but with the industry, Germany lacked the machinery to make inner slotting cuts for these gears, many were put into the production of the tigers (Also why the Tiger I can handle its weight, good enough design and parts), they were also in use for various other things such as StuGs and turret rings. IF the design was put into production The germans estimated they get 1/3 of what they'd get with the MAN transmission So they chose quantity instead of quality Make and rush out transmission, hammer its flaws, send into fight, continuously hammer out its flaws over the course of production until its perfect while they did hammer out some flaws the key issue of the final drives always remained, it could not tolerate the stress The designers and engineers are not stupid, it feels like an insult when people put it in that way Germany had many gear slotting machinery, its just what type specifically was needed, in this case, the ones to make inner slots were lacking, they seized many for the french factories too if I recall correctly, the start of the Panthers production, 1/3 of the gear slotting machinery was taken from France others seized form the panzer III production and some from panzer IV. There was testing and trial phases, but what was priority was time, time was not on their side for design, production, or so forth.

[@luvr381]

The steel road wheels weren't actually all steel, they used a steel rim to encapsulate the rubber to protect it as Germany's synthetic rubber didn't stand up well to exposed use.

[@executivedirector7467]

Right. The 'steel' road wheel design was copied from the KV-1.

[@MacCoalieCoalson]

Why would they replace the MG34 with an STG44 in the F model?? That's incredibly bizarre, I can only assume it's because they were running out of MG34s at the very end of the war?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

To be honest I'm not 100% sure. They'd stopped producing MG34s by that point in the war (the co-axial would be an MG42), and maybe it was an attempt to standardise around the STG44. Another slightly stranger point could be that the STG in the hull may have used a bent barrel, so it could fire on infantry that got close to the vehicle - www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Bilderseitenneu/Krummlauf.htm

[@ryleeculla5570]

Could have told about the tiger H1 variant

[@RedWrenchFilms]

...it's a Panther video?

[@ryleeculla5570]

Sry I should’ve been more specific it was an idea for a future video just a recommendation sry

[@nomore9458]

It only took 20 secs to get something wrong, actually impressive

[@RedWrenchFilms]

You mind elaborating

[@HaVoC117X]

​​​​@@RedWrenchFilms First there was no t34 shock among the German troops, in 1941 because the numbers were limited and the performance of t34 were very poor. German combined arms was more than capable to deal with it. The problem with the t34 was recognized much later when they don't stop comming and they don't stop comming in greater numbers through out 1942. And even than, the Upgraded PZ IV and III were more than a match for T34s. The Panther was not a reaction to the t34, the program was already running for years. You don't develop the transmission, the double torsion bar suspension and the kwk 42 in 14 month. There were years of basic research ahead. The final drives had issues in the beginning in Ds and early As because the housing of the drives was to weak and the gears could be pulled out of alignment and destroying itself. The lubricant in the bearings of the gears was thinner than expected (war time production issue) and the seals of the bearings could not keep the lubricant where it belongs. Both issues were fixed in early 1944 along the production run of the A model. As well as the overflowing carburetors, which led to engine fires, by adding atomatic fuel shut off valves. Between spring and fall 1944 these newer Panthers run with much fewer issues and achieved 1500 to 2000km between overhauls (same as Panzer IVs, Churchills= 500 to 1000miles or IS2= 1800km) . There is even an report of a Bergepanther covering 4200km without any problems in spring 1944, despite pulling other Panthers for 1000km. Which indicates that the final drives were generally not to weak as many claim. In Oktober, November 1944 the shortage of Chromium and Manganese affected final drive production, by Dezember this issues manifested itself at the Frontline and affected all german tanks (Hetzer, PZ IV chassis, Panthers, Tigers) . There is a great report by general Thomale of January 1945 addressing this issue. Along with the quality of the metal, which affected all bearings and gears, the quality of the engine oil also dropped (discribed as cold coffee by witnesses ) and hence reduced engine service life once again. The the final drive story of the Panther isn't just black, its also white. The claim that they only last 150kms doesn't represent the full picture. Because serval thousand Panthers achieved much greater distances, and were quite reliable according to Jentz and Doyle. The Panther achieved the same combat ready rates as the Panzer IV throughout 1944. You over simplified that in the first 20 seconds of your video.

[@ariamperez6823]

Comment war speedrun

[@davidtorre7370]

I wouldn't want to try to stop a T-34 with a 37mm. Combined arms isn't desirable. You need a tank to stop a tank, or you're fighting at a disadvantage. Yes there is airpower. The Germans didn't have panzerfausts at the time of the appearance of the T-34. Not fun trying to stop it with a Molotov cocktail.

[@andrewwood6285]

How many vids have you produced?

[@Hatypus]

Why did the naming of the Panthers go D, A, G, F?

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It’s pretty funny but nobody seems to know! Some people think that the original A designation was given to the first 10 or 20 pre production vehicles and then they were renamed D vehicles later. Not many technical documents from Nazi Germany survived the end of the war!

[@Hatypus]

@@RedWrenchFilms "Hey Dietrich, let's name this variant after you" "Only if the next one is after you Anton"

[@paoloviti6156]

@@RedWrenchFilms very true because so much technical documents was destroyed so perhaps we shall never know the reasons why the variants of the Panther was named this way. In my opinion, knowing the rigid German nomenclature of the other tanks it could be possible that it was due to the hectic schedule of proposed variants that overlapped each other but I'm only guessing...

[@gunner678]

@@RedWrenchFilms there is a reason, which eludes me right now. I have a copy of the panzer production logs specs and journal from WW2. I will see if I can fathom the reason for the bizarre nomenclature.

[@gunner678]

@@RedWrenchFilms nope, you are right, nothing recorded that I can find. Just one of those things lost in time. I suspect it's something to do with planned variants being built subject to availability of material/time. For example ausf D possibly being a planned 'Ersatz' version (in the event of shortages) and ausf A being the ideal. They went with what they could achieve for the sake of expediency, and introduced the 'Bells and whistles' A in the fullness of time. It's a theory lol.

[@sebastian-FX357Z1]

The panther II display in america is not a panther II. Panther II (E50) hull was practically identical to Konigstiger in overall dimensions excerpt the front glacis plate has a more pronounced slope. For panther II design the waffenprufamt 6 completely removes the torsion bars connected to both sets of wheels. The steel rimmed wheels was reduced to only 6 per side & was mounted on geared swing arms suspended against hydraulic shock absorber. The six suspension units were simply bolted to the hull. Germany wanted to standardise on part & equipment with the Konigstiger, Jagdtiger, Panther 2 & jagdpanther II sharing the same hull & parts. Many of the the models kits has the correct rearmed schmalturm (kwk L70) but wrong hull.

[@Kalashnikov413]

No. The Panther II WAS NOT the E-50

[@AlexAlex-gm1uy]

Это самый лучший танк. Доработали , устранили недостатки и неизвестно как пошла бы дальше война.

[@niclink1030]

It was a bad tank

[@jurispurins8065]

The Soviets felt that it was not a Tank, but a Tank Destroyer In the last years of the war it was what the Germans needed However the reliability issues were never fixed

[@wotblitznoob]

Bro did u forgot the jpanther

[@spaceartist1272]

Panther D commander cupola out of turret. Panther D2 commander cuppola in turret. Panther A new Commander cupola. Panther G early with Panther A machine gun in hull. Panther G new gun mantlet. Once prototypes where perfected it was build more then 4.000.

[@johnwelch6490]

Give tbe Panther a train all the way to the battle because the transmission will only last 30 kilometers before replacement.

[@glennmcquoid9652]

Well how many red tanks did they wreck

[@executivedirector7467]

There is no way to know that.

[@TheYamR6Sp]

45 ton in Germany "mittel schwere panzer"

[@Tyber_gsk]

Thank you so much for highly detailed content.. Sub from me. Regards..

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Thanks Cezary!

[@bjboss1119]

*"under repair"* In how the germans catalogued losses, "under repair" meant that there was probably a 50/50 chance the vehicle would either take a long time to repair somewhere it couldn't be used, or it would be sitting in a field destroyed, but in one piece.

[@krany_]

Hahahaha tank this tank that say hello to artillery and infantry

[@the_mississippian_railfan]

The T34 would have dominated to war scene but the real fact is tho the T34 should have been the bast tank ever on paper the real war production T34 was rushed to make production quotas making the T34 prone to having mechanical defects that are often glossed over and while the armor should have been some of the best the Russian's over heat treated it making it very brittle

[@niclink1030]

It whould ben maby about as good as the sherman and a acctual therat to german tankers

[@Jadg.pz.kpfw.CC64-2M-Jumbo]

Helo

[@MrSKY29]

Why didn't all Panther g have not chin mantlet..... Only some of them had it...

[@DS-wl5pk]

How many panthers were lost to frontal penetrations? If “worlds greatest tank battles” is to be believed, the regular Sherman’s went through the front ALL THE TIME

[@klaus-peterborn1370]

If they are Fireflys, the british variant, the regulars, nope.

[@S1nwar]

the best panther was the jagdpanther^^

[@m36489]

Thats a tank destroyer

[@lorddestructive]

panther. is. not. ever. a. medium. tank. even german documentation states it as a heavy tank. the plan was to make it a medium 20t tank as you said but it endet up heavier and was stated a heavy tank

[@m36489]

All panther variants where medium tanks

[@lorddestructive]

@@m36489 source: trust me bro... dude i have read the original german documents where its clearly called a hevy tank... just look at its weight compared to a tiger and pz4... its thicc like a tiger... so stop telling bs bec all ppl say it. sometimes "most ppl" are just as stupid as it gets

[@m36489]

@@lorddestructive american 🤡🤡🤡

[@m36489]

@@lorddestructive in germany they where medium tanks The true heavy tanks where tiger H1 and E and tiger 2 ausf b and h

[@lorddestructive]

@@m36489 thats just wrong. come to germany, we can go through the documents together...

[@sturlajonsson8992]

Imagine if the germans had just developed their tanks and tech for 3 more years before starting the war. Im like 90% sure they would have won with the new tech, rest of the countries didnt take the threat nearly as seriously as they should

[@RedWrenchFilms]

They would still have had absolutely no chance!

[@kanash8851]

just because they have a good tech doesn't mean they can sustain it. a good vehicle doesn't mean shit when you have no fuel to power it, no ammo to fire from it, new crews to operate it, and nothing to maintain it.

[@flare9757]

One comment. The Panther was technically a heavy tank. It is only classified as a medium tank because it was put in medium tank units. So it was ultimately a weird heavy tank pretending to be a medium tank.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

It’s bizarre isn’t it? All the hallmarks of a great tank destroyer, classed as a heavy tank and used as a medium tank.

[@flare9757]

@@RedWrenchFilms It gets even weirder when you bring in the M10 pretenders. You get a potentially great Tank Destroyer that is a heavy tank, that is classified as a medium tank, that is dressed up as a tank destroyer. I think this is a peculiar case of, quite literally, circular logic.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@flare9757 just late war Germany things

[@startingbark0356]

In that regards its more like a MBT, due its much better mobility then heavy tanks

[@5co756]

@@flare9757 German classification was not by weight , it's by gun caliber . It still has about 14hp per ton and a 8 gear transmission . A M4 has 11hp per ton and 4 gears , so it's not as agile as a Panther . You always see the weight and think its slow , there are way more tanks that have less hp per ton than the German heavy cats .

[@Cavethug]

Who told you that the Panzer IV couldn't compete with the T34? That's absolutely false. The initial PIVs with the short barreled 75s couldn't. Later varients, starting with the F2 had basically the same gun as the Panther, and could effectively engage T34s with the same result as a Panther. The Panzer III on the other hand had a bit more difficulty, but could still engage once they were upgunned with the later models 50mm guns albeit as stated with more difficulty, but it was a massive upgrade over the 37mm guns on earlier models. The Panzer IV was the most common German tank of the war, tens of thousands of them were made, and they were employed in frontline units until the end of the war. The Panther and especially the two Tiger tanks weren't even close to existing in the same numbers the PIV was. It's speculated that anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 PIVs were produced throughout the war, many of which were provided as hulls for other projects.. Of course some of them went to allied countries as well. The Panther on the other hand numbered less than 6,000 while the Tiger less than 2,500 and the Tiger II less than 500. I'd take a Panzer IV H or J over a T34/76 any day. Also... saying the Panther was rushed into production as a result of encountering the T34 simply isn't true. It had been a tank they were designing for years prior to seeing the T34 in combat. If any tank was rushed into production as a result of the T34, it would be the Tiger, which the T34 wasn't even in the same league as. The Tiger could take out a T34 before they could even see it, while the T34 had to get pretty close in order to take a Tiger out. Not in the same league. The Panther wasn't deployed until two solid years after the first T34 was encountered. The Tiger on the other hand was deployed less than a year later. If any vehicle was "rushed into production" it would be the longer barreled stug variants which were deployed as tank destroyers, and were the most efficient and cost effective armored vehicles of any combatant of the war.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I'm really not sure where you've got any of this from... Firstly, the KwK 40 on the PzIVs had nowhere near the performance of the KwK 42 on the Panther. They had significantly less muzzle velocity and penetration and are not even in the same ballpark. I also actually say that it was EXISTING models of the PzIII and PzIV could not compete with Soviet tanks, so even the KwK 40 is irrelevant as it didn't appear until 1942. Secondly, where have you got 20,000 to 40,000 PzIVs from? I've never seen an estimate go higher than 9,000 vehicles and even then that is incredibly unlikely. The PzIV was also NOT the most common German tank of the war, the StuG III was, with just over 10,000 vehicles produced. Lastly, the Panther project was ABSOLUTELY impacted and dramatically changed by German encounters with the T-34 in 1941. The "Pz V" project had been in the works for a while, but it was all pretty much thrown out the window in 1941. Just look at the VK 30.02 (D) prototype. It's essentially a copy of the T-34. To add to this, the Tiger was influenced significantly LESS than the Panther, not more as you suggested. The VK 45.01 (H) was essentially a fatter VK 36.01 (H), and while it did get thicker armour and a bigger gun due to experiences in 1941, the base design was not radically changed.

[@rolandhunter]

Please no. Why are u not made a deeper research about the final drive? Only the post war French reported that 150-160 km. The germans are NOT! "He further noted a specific instance of mechanical reliability: From 6 March to 15 April 1944, the 1.Abteilung/Panzerregiment 2 (1st Battalion, 2nd Panzer Regiment) reported a distance of between 1500 km to 1800 km. Four of their seven Panthers was still combat ready without any transmission or engine failure.[130] On 22 April 1944, the same battalion reported how a good driver and commander can improve reliability: This kept in mind, the battalion reported PzKpfw V Chassis No. 154338, Engine No. 8322046 reading 1,878km with driver Obergrefeiter Gablewski, 4.Kp/PzRgt 2. The vehicle was still totally operational. All items were in great condition but the tracks. The consumption of the engine has been 10ltr per 100km. The vehicle was still operating with its first engine and transmission.[131] After that report from the units, the Inspector General of Armored Troops acknowledged this in a report, at 1944.05.06.: Der Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen -Leitender Kraftfahrzeugoffizer- Bb Nr. 3177/44 The report confirms the opinion that thanks to the continuous improvement of its components, the life of the Panther tank has increased. The average lifespan of a Panther can now be roughly equal to that of a Panzer IV with around 1,500 - 2,000 kilometers between two major repair and maintenance processes. And, gearboxes also have a longer life. Even so, in several cases, at approximately 1500 km, the gear has broken down and the boxes have had to be replaced.[132][133] An example of Panther reliability appeared in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (Armoured Troops Bulletin), from a Panther-recovery tank driver's report: Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km until 3 May 1944 without any needing to replace any parts. About 1,000km of this was made towing another Panther tank. The vehicle and engine are still in great condition and operational.[134][135] On 28 June 1944, Guderian reported: Regarding the experiences in opposing the Allied landing in Normandy: The Panzer IV, Panzer V Panther, and Panzer VI Tiger have proven to be successful. The Panther is inclined to catch fire quickly. The lifetime of the Panther's engines (1400 to 1500 km) is much higher than the Panther's final drives. A solution to the final drive teething is immediately needed.[136] In September and October 1944, a number of modifications were fitted into the final drives as countermeasures to the reported problems including worn gear teeth, parts, bearings, and insufficient lubrication.[137] "

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Sounds like Guderian agreed with me? - Engines catch fire quickly - Final drive lifetime much lower than that of the engine - "A solution to the final drive teething is immediately needed." I'm inclined to believe the French testing on this one, especially as none of the sources or quotes in your comment contain any information to the contrary. A few examples of Panthers going long distance and lots of quotes about how long the vehicle/engine could last before a refit was necessary. Starting to improve the final drive in October 1944 is just too little too late. Also, requiring a skilled driver for your frontline medium tank in a war of attrition isn't ideal.

[@rolandhunter]

@@RedWrenchFilms Guderian said 150 km avg? Where? Still, 150 km avg is only reported by the post war french, they used "fixed" panthers. So its not true on the German panther, and in the late war, all germany tank had problem with the final drive, because the Germany had problem with the steel strengthening. "Meeting of the Entwicklungskommission Panzer(Tank Developmental Commission) on 23January1945 in Berlin W 8, Pariser Platz 3, large conference hall Date: 23 January 1945 From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the .38(t). Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther .370 and from the Tiger roughly 100. General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tanks is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situations, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem. He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation. Direktor Wiebickeclaims that the Heerestechnisches Büro of the Waffenamt had for its part rejected the sun-andplanet final drive and demanded the spur wheel reduction drive. This claim led to a confrontation between Oberst Holzhauer and Oberbaurat Knönagel. Oberingenier Wiebicke clarified that for the past one-and-a-half years there has been ongoing discussion regarding the introduction of the planetary gearing but as of yet nothing significant has been accomplished. Whereas during this entire time attempts have been made to improve the final drive, with only minimal improvement being noted. lt must, however, be kept in mind that MAN, as the responsible manufacturing fir1n, cannot now hold other companies responsible. MAN has availed itself of all offices which have the prospect of providing a way out of these difficulties with the final reduction drive." Panther and its variants by Spielberger page 259. The centurion using the same method in the final drive(spur gear) as the Panther, with the same weight, still it had no problem with the final drive.

[@rolandhunter]

@@RedWrenchFilms "French experience with the Panther were put to paper in the report "Le Panther 1947°, publiabed by the Ministre de la Guerre, Section Technique de L' Arm~e, Groupement Auto.Char, which was graciously made available to ua. The following are aome exceipt.s from the report: - The parts of the power train (with the exception of the final drive) meet the planned fatigue life. The replacement of a transmission requires less than a day. - On the other hand, the engine was not operable over 1500 km. The average engine life amounted to 1000 km. Engine replacement accomplished in 8 hours by an Unteroffizier(mechanic byoccupation) and 8 men with the aid of a tripod beam crane or a Bergepanther. Main gun can be replaced using the same equipment within a few hours. The German maintenance units performed their work remarkably well -As a result, the Pantherisin no way a strategic tank. The Germansdid not hesitate to economically increase the engine life by loading the tank onto railcars - even for very short distances (25 km). - Tbe truly weak spot of the Panther is its final drive, which is of too weak a design and has an average fatigue life of only 150 km. - Half of the abandoned Panthers found in Normandy in 1944 showed evidence of breaks in the final drive." same book page 161. The french forgot to mention many things: -german steel hardening was bad -german training was NONE -germans had no spare parts. -With NO training in 10 min I'll break your modern car final drive. This is why I mentioned the reports, when the panther was in good hands, they could achieve 1800-4000 km without FINAL DRIVE replacement! What this mean? The final drive was good enought, but sensitive!

[@rolandhunter]

@@RedWrenchFilms Can u imagine what hard it could have been in 1st gear with the panther with no exp? 45 tonn heavy and 700 HP in your back. What do you think, why the shermans , t 34 had not many fault with the final drive? Less HP, less weight-->Less stress on the Final drive. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. With this 150 km avg, everbody will believe after 150 km every panther was broken, while the Panther combat readiness was always around 65-70%(in early 1944 82%) depending on fights and spare parts, front(west or east) and ofc 1944 or 1945. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability

[@RedWrenchFilms]

That’s what I’m saying! It was poorly designed and unreliable, even when compared to other German tanks like the Panzer IV (which it was meant to replace) and the Tiger (which wasn’t meant to be reliable in the first place). >50% of panthers were consistently under maintenance and not combat ready until April 1944. Imagine designing your medium tank to be 45 tonnes and then being surprised when the engine and final drive can’t cope with the weight. There’s good reasons for why the Sherman didn’t have >100mm frontal armour and a huge gun. As well as being a sensible weight, the Sherman used double-herringbone gears in its final drives which can handle a lot more torque. And no, the quoted “1800-4000km” is between major refits, not final drive replacements.

[@waynepetralia8105]

Lots of functionability problems plagued the Panther, especially with the engine fires and brittle armor, but ultimately, a tank is judged on its ability to deliver a penetrating shell down range and it's ability to stop same. Also, it's mobility on the battlefield. The Panther more than held its own frontally until the war's last months, and with few exceptions after Kursk, it spent most of its time locked in small to moderate scale defensive battles that neutralized it's speed and manueverability. Add 150-200HP to the engine and 25-35mm of armor all around and it would have been the perfect replacement for both the PZ IV and the Tiger I, operationally as well as financially. If that occurred, it might have meant the end of the Pak 40 AT gun, with full production being devoted to the Kwk 42 L/70 in both mounted and towed form to standardize 75mm ammunition production. Since the Panther was seen as more bang for the buck in terms of production than the PZ IV, and most certainly would have still cost less than a Tiger I with the upgrades I proposed, plus, factoring in the total replacement of all 75mm AT guns with Pak 42's, the resulting numbers of both tanks and towed L70 length guns probably would have been significant enough to slow the Allied advances on all European fronts at least a few weeks, if not longer,.imo. Especially in the east.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

Not sure I agree with you at all to be honest Wayne! Having a big gun and lots of armour is nice if you're playing War Thunder or WoT but vehicles need to be logistically sound as well. The Sherman, for example, was cheap, easy to make, easy to transport, adaptable, reliable and survivable. An excellent tank despite not having the biggest gun or the thickest armour. Similar could be said for the T-34 or even the Panzer III and IV. In a long range tank-on-tank engagement the panther may have came out on top but it was incredibly lacking in most other aspects. As for adding 25-35mm armour all round to a vehicle that's already 45 tonnes... not sure if that would really solve any of the vehicle's problems. Especially with a dodgy engine and a terrible final drive.

[@waynepetralia8105]

@@RedWrenchFilms The Panther wasn't a lot more expensive than the PZ IV from all accounts I've read, and Germany's needs from a territorial point and keeping with production limitations were different than the US and the USSR. I understand your comparisons but they didn't take any of this into account. An up-armored Panther with a reliable engine and transmission produced in the manner I suggested would have been nasty for the allies. Producing with it's problems without corrections would have been fruitless, as you stated.

[@Dreachon]

@@RedWrenchFilms The Panther was also easy to transport, it fitted perfectly on the German railway car and unlike the Tiger I and II it did not need to have change to narrower tracks.

[@rolandhunter]

@@RedWrenchFilms A Sherman was everything but not cheap. A sherman was 50-60k dollar, 1 dollar was ~2 RM. So a sherman could be more expensive than a Panther.

[@RedWrenchFilms]

@@rolandhunter Direct comparisons are essentially useless in this context but I've read that a Sherman would cost around $48,000 1935 Dollars whereas a Panther would cost $60,000. Wikipedia puts the Sherman at around $55k and the Panther at 143k RM, which is about $70k. The fact that German tank factories were getting bombed non stop means that the effective cost is much higher. Especially when maintenance is taken into account.

[@taylorbrain8023]

IT WAS NOT A RESPONSE TO THE T-34!!!!

[@RedWrenchFilms]

I think it was. Why don’t you agree?

[@Yuri_Bodlovic]

on 1:06 is a british made panther

[@xaver_zundwerk6893]

Didnt the Panther f get a 8.8 cm gun and the type D A G a 7.5cm and the panzer 4 type f2 G and H with the 7.5 did kill the t34 but Not at the Range as a Panther and the t34 could kill the panzer 4 easy as the panzer 4 the t34 but yes most of the Panthers Was a Mix of All u never knew really what Panther it was at the end of the war cause the used what the got left

[@Genirc]

What kind of grammatical nightmare is this?