Panther: Wartime Reports & First-Hand Experience

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Sponsored by World of Tanks! Register here ► tanks.ly/2Wc49lo to receive a T-127 Premium Tank, 500 Gold and 7 days Premium access with the code TANKTASTIC. Applicable to new users only.

[@dmontpelier]

Military History Visualized sellout

[@HiTechOilCo]

@@dmontpelier - What a nasty, inappropriate comment. You'd prefer there to be *no video at all*? When you get older and have to pay bills to survive, you'll, "sellout", too by getting a job in order to pay your bills, like for food, clothing, heating your home, a car, etc.

[@66numero]

Hi in your presentation of world of tanks, you mention many things we can do in the game, but you forgot the most important: camp in bush. Thanks for the video anyways, whoever sponsors them they are always great.

[@francopvf]

Could you do a video like this with the Tiger pls

[@mr.coffee6242]

Just gonna drop that right here. Gotta love tanks. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWq0gauGeZxmbdk

[@dylanmilne6683]

I really like the idea of using modern day perspectives to compliment period reports, it's quite innovative.

[@The_Real_Maxajax]

Vice versa, investigating the perspectives of past generations helps us to better understand contemporary thought on similar subjects.

[@johnfisk811]

'complement'. Sorry. I can't help myself

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Tanks are best suited to undulating open country with trees for cover. Hard work steering out there is not much of an issue. However following roads means big problems for drivers as the route is cluttered.

[@mattropolis99]

The best history lesson I ever got was actually firing WW2 guns. In the US, it is relatively easy to still get and shoot these weapons - even German and Russian ones. I was astounded how good and accurate the German MG’s were, but how amazing the garand was compared to the German counterparts. Experiencing accuracy and usability firsthand made me realize just what the differences were and how one could use those strengths/weaknesses

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It may be worth noting that some modern tanks do still use a compressed air bore exacuation system... look at Leclerc.

[@chuggon7595]

It's always good seeing the Irish cowboy having a thing for tanks even after all these years of dealing with em.

[@5678sothourn]

good to know

[@performancepursuit]

I had no complaints about the HP gas ejection system of the Navy's 5" guns. Good system when properly executed.

[@imperiumbrittanica8414]

Nice memory

[@stuglife5514]

Thank you for the info tank daddy

[@adamalton2436]

When talking about the hatch and fire issues, I keep hearing Chieftain saying, “Oh bugger, the tank is on fire.”

[@pRahvi0]

And then spend half a minute or so screwing the hatch open.

[@adamalton2436]

pRahvi0 or getting stuck in the hatch that was clearly not designed for a human to get in and out through.

[@awkwarddoggo05]

I remember that video where he reviewed the Panther lol

[@Phantom_Aspekt]

That could become a significant emotional event

[@UserUser-ei9fb]

Better than History channel. Impressive what level of quality one man can do with internet today. Love your work.

[@frankmiller95]

This channel is good. The "History" Channel sucks.

[@eddierudolph7694]

That is not a high bar now days.

[@kratzikatz1]

@@eddierudolph7694 but it is a shame for history channel that the bar was now Hanges so high!😉

[@elpatrico2562]

It's not so hard to be better than History Channel in terms if accuracy.

[@pflernak]

Last I took a look History Channel was all about Pawn stars and various auction shows. They should change the name.

[@MJKarkoska]

I tried to take a closer look at a panther once. A hospital visit later and all I really learned is that a panther does not respond to "kitty kitty."

[@gawdsuniverse3282]

It was probably a Nazi, they're famous for being angry bastards.

[@Jakezillagfw]

@@gawdsuniverse3282 😂😂

[@gawdsuniverse3282]

@@Jakezillagfw 👍😁

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

Did not learn to scream 'help' in 20 different languages? Or how to keep pressure at a torn jugular?

[@randallcase1009]

I find that the 17lbr does a fine job sorting out big cats.

[@magr7424]

Die Interview Einschnitte mit den Franzosen finde ich sehr gut

[@gomezgomez6299]

Ma Gr es war gut

[@riccardosalardino9643]

Ja, auch mir

[@TheLeonhamm]

This is one of the main reasons why we keep coming back to update at MHV .. you are part what makes You Tube a useful resource (and indeed enjoyable/ tolerable). Thank you so much for all the hard work.

[@jameshenderson4876]

Another excellent video, thank you. Bringing new info from either original German reports or people with real hands on experience. Tremendous. Such a good channel.

[@danielt6856]

"Tres complique" translated to "very complicated and difficult" is a good translation. The French tend to attach a slight negative connotation to the word "complicated", given the depth of understanding one might need.

[@adventureike]

This is a completely valid translation, yet as a native (US) English speaker I'd say that "complicated" almost always also has a negative connotation.

[@WildBillCox13]

A worthy piece. Getting the French to talk about Panther in context with contemporaries represents a perfect presentation idea* for the many armchair armor enthusiasts among your subscribers. In this wise, the "feel" of the beast is better communicated. A few questions: 1) Did the colonel mean switching to a Diesel motor for better mileage? 1a) Or was the HP-230P30 a disproportionate gas guzzler? 2) I understand the later G model had gearbox coolers for a (I think) reinforced AK7B transmission**. Did that, perhaps, reduce some of the reported issues? *Shout out to the Chieftain for his comprehensive Panther familiarization video series. **An ID feature for the G is the tall stack fan housing on the engine deck, I believe. Another is the 90 degree (vertical) mantlet bottom.

[@HBK-6S]

There were Ausf. Gs built with non-chin mantlet turrets.

[@WildBillCox13]

@@HBK-6S Thanks for the addition/correction.

[@TheNorthie]

I don’t think they would have switched to a Diesel engine as no other main German tank had a Diesel engine. No point in screwing up logistics with petrol and diesel. What I want to know about the German designers is if they acknowledge the bad drive wheels that broke after 150km. They fixed everything else on the tank, aside from this main flaw. I’m guessing they couldn’t redesign the entire tank in time but it’s something I haven’t been able to find

[@rolandhunter]

@@TheNorthie Again that 150 km myth...Chieftain what have u done...

[@TheNorthie]

RolandHUNter it’s in the French report itself it mentions this a few times and even has designers come in and try to fix it. They just couldn’t do it without redesigning the whole thing.

[@bigorcbigorc4316]

The July '43 reports have to be tempered by the fact these were mostly engine fires, most likely gasket failures. The factory that produced these gaskets was bombed by the allies a few weeks prior to the tank's deployment (see: Spielberger's "Panther"), so not only were the Panthers deployed with "old" gaskets, but there was a shortage of these for some months afterwards. Notice how the spontaneous "engine fire" problem disappears from literature by the end of '43. The Panther, imho, was better than its main rivals, but for its weight was under-gunned, and under armoured. At 43 tons it compares rather unfavourably with the 46 ton IS-2.

[@sherlocksinha2435]

Well the is2 is cramped as hell so one penetration kills most members in one go. The 122 had too much penetration (the only thing it would have difficulty dealing with would be a tiger 2 or jagtiger both of which were rarely encountered) and its rate of fire was slow meaning it couldn't engage multiple targets effectively. Yes its armour was better than the Panthers especially side armour and it had a lower silhouette with better reliability but worse visibility for crew members and worse cross country mobility. It kind of depends on what use case u were looking at and for the intended cases both tanks were excellent

[@CrniWuk]

@@sherlocksinha2435 The IS2 however was not strictly meant to fight enemy tanks however and was much similar to the Tiger I and the KV-2 in concept and operational doctrine. The Soviet designers had a choice between the 100 mm naval gun or the 122 mm artillery as the main weapon for the IS2 when they designed the tank. They decided to go with the 122 mm even though the penetration with high velocity armour piercing shells was better with the 100 mm. Their decisions was mainly based on the idea that the 122 mm was available in larger quantities and thus more readily available particularly the ammunition and the high explosive shell would give the IS 2 a better chance of fighting soft targets like infantry and anti tank guns which have been present in much higher quantities. The fact that it could also penetrate the Panther and Tiger I from quite some distance was a bonus. The anti tank gun the Soviets favoured with their tanks in 1942 and 43 was the 85 mm gun which was first used in the SU 85 tank hunter and later also the T34 85. The IS 2 was like the Tiger I actually meant to be a brake trough tank with the intention to breach enemy defences while being heavily enough armoured to withstand most enemy fire like the various 75mm anti tank guns for example and the capability to fight against most enemy armour if it was required. What people often have to remember is that actaul tank to tank engagements have been still relatively rare in WW2. The enemies tanks would often face are anti tank guns, enemy infantry and defensive positions with machine gun nests and bunkers. Particularly the fact that a tank was a mobile unit also meant that it could actually avoid enemy tanks and perform flanking maneuvers basically negating the tanks frontal protection. Something which was also often done in combat. This was the whole concept behind vehicles like the American M 36 and M 10 tank hunters for example which have not been designed for extensive engagements and trading shoots with the enemy. A tactic which is often described as shoot and scoot in the artillery. What ever if the Panther was better than it's rivals? I would say. It depends. It depends on what you value more. When it comes to the numbers on paper and direct engagements the Panther had some very great advantages. But it had also some serious flaws. It was a vehicle which required extensive maintenance and was relatively complicated in manufacture compared to the T34 and Sherman and its mobility over long distances was somewhat limited due to the mechanics. A factor that has proven to be very crucial in WW2. Because a mediocre tank present on the front line is still better than none. The role of the medium tank in particular was not even to engage enemy armour but to penetrate weak spots of enemy lines as whole unit and wreaking havoc behind enemy lines disrupting supply lines attacking rear units encircling troops and so on. Firepower and protection are just one aspect of the whole task a medium tank had to fulfill in WW2. The Germans made great use of this kind of tactic with their Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs particularly in France. The Germans managed this particularly against enemy forced which outgunned them in terms of tanks! But they had a good doctrine and most importantly reliable armour. The Panther was by no means a bad tank. But I would not be so sure if it was the best medium tank.

[@Grendel757]

How so? The Panther offered superior mobility, firepower and frontal protection compared to the IS-2.

[@xavier4519]

@@Grendel757 frontal protection was pretty much the same If we're talking early IS-2s but the firepower was definetely worse if we don't account for rate of fire, even though i think the firepower it packs is absolutely fine and better than most tanks of ww2, and that is extremely impressive coming from a 75mm

[@Electronick7714]

I'd disagree. If looking at panther from a heavy perspective, then yes it seems a tad weak. But if viewed from a medium perspective (as Germans saw it) its quite a beast. I'd personally call it a Heavium (heavy medium). Now on comparing with IS-2, this is where my disagreement comes into play. IS-2 was a huuuge gas guzzler. It was also, I'm told, surprisingly cramped for its size, and the 122 took about 30 seconds to reload given its multiple piece ammo. It was also extremely loud due to its all steel tracks (much like t-34)

[@mikebalis9963]

I really enjoyed the inclusion of the crew reports to better understand the Panther's operational challenges. Modern museum comments were also very enlightening. Excellent tank video. Best I've seen.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Warriorcat49]

I find it interesting that the chief mechanic considered the vehicle generally easy to maintain, whereas the curator contended that it was overly complex. I'm curious to know where exactly that difference of opinion comes from.

[@jamesricker3997]

It was easy to maintain by German standards.

[@Wien1938]

I think the Lt-Col said that the engine itself is sophisticated and complex in design, which also means that it's inclined to be temperamental (which fits the German reports). The driver said that the whole engine pack lifts straight-out and the rest of the tank was easy to access and replace parts.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

Future German plans for the panthers Maybach engine was direct fuel injection similar to the DB605 to increase power to 860hp. Final drive was to switch from straight cut to planetary. There were plans for a gas turbine engine based on a scaled down BMW003. The simplicity of making synthetic fuel was a motivation. I have read that some panthers (Ausf G?) had a halon System to extinguish fire.

[@Wien1938]

I knew about the dfj plans and I knew that there had been discussions about switching to planetary gears but I did not know about the gas turbine version! Fascinating. :)

[@scottcampbell2836]

I am surprised all did not make all tanks with diesels. More torque to move heavy things and less fire hazards. Both are plusses!

[@MatSpeedle]

Absolutley loving this channel since I found it. So much time and effort put into the research to provide unbiased and tangable data about so many subjects! Superb video sir!

[@alhesiad]

The curator, as a trained officer, probably notices that the fuel consumption and unreliability of the engine are the most problematic elements at an operative level. At that scope guns, visibility and armor are tiny details if you can't put enough tanks in the field.

[@RouGeZH]

He never said that the engine was unreliable.

[@SlavicCelery]

@@RouGeZH He said it was overly complicated. That's standard speak for, too many little things go wrong. And they go wrong a little too often.

[@MaxCroat]

@@SlavicCelery He also said "high quality" and "sophisticated". I think the biggest issue was probably maintenance. As the driver said, even though the engine is very accessible for regular maintenance, if you have to take it out for maintenance that is quite a big job which also requires some serious equipment, as the engine is quite large and heavy. And things are bound to break with such heavy machinery, especially when it is used in combat conditions. I'm not saying that the engine wasn't unreliable, I'm just saying that even if it was more reliable than other tanks, just the sheer size and weight and complicated design make it harder to maintain.

[@mountainpass4255]

2:18 That is why we don’t use Roman numerals anymore.

[@blackedelweiss601]

took me 0.00000000001 seconds to read.

[@gdbalck]

XLVIII. Would be more accurate but your point's well taken.

[@SNOUPS4]

My thoughts exactly H Balck, I wonder why such a mistake was made...

[@thhseeking]

There was no hard and fast rule for numbers like 4 and 40. IIII and XXXX were perfectly acceptable. Even "weird" combinations like XIIX for 18 as for Legio 18 by some officers. The 22nd Roman Legion used IIXX.

[@SNOUPS4]

These were indeed present, but deviations from the classical system. The problem was most Romans didn't get to go to school and learn those stuff in a proper centralized way.

[@SNOUPS4]

8:49 What he exactly says, seems to be that the steering settings are modifying themselves with time and should be checked and reset regularly... (I'm french, however it's just part of the sentence, so I could be wrong)

[@eurasianlynx5584]

Franz: "Hans, we have problems wit ze reliability." Hans: "Don't talk so loud Franz! Ze Panther might hear you!" Panther: **TRANSMISSION BREAKS**

[@rolandhunter]

Chieftain myth.. I ll copy paste my comment for you aswell: "1 report said 150km. Others aren't. Just some example: www.panzer-elmito.org/tanques/panther/documentos/Leistungen%20Bergepanther-Fahrer.jpg Bergepanther drove 4200 km without new spareparts and 1000 km from 4200 was towed another panthers. (same from a book): "There is an article on this subject in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (News sheet: Armoured troops): Performance of a Panther-recovery tank driver. Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has up to 3 May 1944 driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km without an engine change or damage to the transmission, including the final drive units, gearbox and drive shaft. Approximately 1,000km of this was made towing a Panther tank. The vehicle and engine are still in excellent condition and continue to be operational."Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55. "Many kilometres without a breakdown is the hallmark of a good driver and commander. In that respect, the battalion mentions PzKpfw V Chassis No. 154338, Engine No. 8322046 reading 1,878km, driver Obergrefeiter Gablewski, 4.Kp/PzRgt 2. The vehicle is still completely operational. With exception of track, all other items are still in very good condition. Engine oil consumption has been 10ltr per100km. The tank is still running with its original engine and transmission." Panther - Thomas Anderson page 177. "To repair the Jagdpanthers, Abteilung 654 requested seven Maybach HL 230 motors, five AK 7-200 gearboxes, 23 complete sets of tracks, and 23 drive wheels. A report stated that the normal Panther final drive, as well as the newer, reinforced version, failed quickly - especially because of the addition weight and the noseheaviness of the Jagdpanther. The normal Panther final drives lasted an average of 35 kilometers before the driveshafts gave up. On Octover 28, 1944, the problem with the final drives seemed to be solved. The 654th reported that Jagdpanthers with reinforces final drives had already covered 400 to 500 km without damage. To be sure, the drive wheels had been stressed more than normally." Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development - Production - Operations by Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz. Schiffer Publishing Ltd page 24. etc. Need more?"

[@owenlewis1314]

@@rolandhunter Yeah, that's how averages work... A good chunk of panthers broke before 150kms and some after but the average ended up at 150kms. Those outliers are usually thrown out because it causes the average to be a number that really doesn't make sense. I'm sure there were outliers on the other side of the bell curve that were thrown out too.

[@rolandhunter]

@@owenlewis1314 in 1944 the Panthers combat ready percentage(avarage) was 70-78%. You think that mean 150 km was the real? ANd still:1 french report saying 150 km. Nobody else said the same. The lowest avarage number I read from the germans and british aswell was 500 km.

[@rolandhunter]

@@owenlewis1314 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability

[@owenlewis1314]

@@rolandhunter Yes and in that very same book it says the Germans used railways to transport the panther at a distance any greater than 25kms. The final drives were woefully unsuited for the panther.

[@katrinapaton5283]

I am a little surprised that the French Army's many years of experience with their own Panthers post war wasn't referenced for this clip. After all, they used it for far longer than the German Army.

[@personhuman2239]

It would be interesting but the video is explicitly concerning it's wartime performance, and the French Panthers were drastically improved upon to such a degree that it wouldn't be reasonable to use their postwar performance as apart of the same analysis.

[@adlerarmory8382]

@@personhuman2239 in interested in what improvements the French did for their Panther fleet, if any metallurgical testing was done of the final drive and transmission gears, to evaluate for poor heat treating or slave labor sabotage. Example I heard was slave laborers dumping metal shavings into the final drive and transmission fluids to break the automotive upon receipt by the field army, after each passed inspection at the factories.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@adlerarmory8382 Or just improper quality of final drive to begin with, like on T-34, where it wear down quickly and prone to breakdowns.

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

Well tbh the majority of their panthers were war worn tanks repaired with used worn parts that only amplified the issues of the tank, so the reports they made on it are somewhat flawed, the British reproduce quite a few of panthers post war using left over unused parts as well as freshly made parts and did their own test, their results were far better than Frances and showed the panther in a better light then France did

[@katrinapaton5283]

@@c0ldyloxproductions324 I did not know that, thanks for the info.

[@JuergenGDB]

The cool thing is, is that while Kursk was still raging, the Panthers that were disabled, shot, etc were entrained back to Germany and repairs and updates were made. (Because they listened to the crews) Jentz (Panther Book). Ausf D and returned to the front as Ausf A versions.

[@amerigo88]

An Austrian interrogates his two French prisoners about their tank.

[@66numero]

I disagree, the Austrian was the POW from the French.

[@jayalbertcastigador9274]

@@66numero r/whoosh

[@enjibkk6850]

His 2 french prisoners and their B1 bis ?

[@amerigo88]

@@66numero Really? Who is asking the questions about the Pink Panther?

[@Mitaka.Kotsuka]

@@66numero the why is he interrogating?

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

Maybe it's because I'm American but I find it somewhat humorous thibking about an Austrian speaking with a Frenchman in English. Here in the US we are so unilingual/monolingual (for the most part) that we are amazed at the ubiquity of the English language in Europe amongst non-native speakers. *And then I get to the part where French is being spoken. That is almost more impressive for some reason!

[@vaclav_fejt]

Well, in major European countries like France, Germany, or Spain, you can fare way better using their respective languages. France stands out, as I've heard. But for the rest...thanks to the British Empire's and later USA's economic and cultural influence, English is the lingua franca in Europe.

[@atzuras]

Well let's not make the mistake to think that every single person is exposed to foreign languages as the common youtuber.. For the sake of the fun, French people are quite bitter when approached with a poor French level and ignore you in any other language. Unless they are to surrender...

[@RedbadofFrisia]

@@vaclav_fejt france isn't what it used to be in that sense, some places maybe still, but if you speak a little bit of french to them they will be much more willing to speak english with you, though sometimes you still need to play charades.

[@kireta21]

English is very easy to use, as long as you're not a grammar nazi. "Proper" English is bitch to learn, sure, but reaching just communicative level is simple enough, even more now when it's unofficial language of the internet.

[@johnkendall6962]

@@atzuras Ouch.. And then you have the French tank . 1 speed forward 6 speeds in reverse.

[@sbeckmesser]

This is an excellent video, perhaps the single most interesting video on the Panther on YT. I especially liked the marshalling of various sources: archival documents, Herr Doktor Töppel, interviews with very well-chosen questions yielding fascinating answers, and of course the HD live action footage. Very well done!

[@crouchinghamster6407]

The quality of this video is just astounding. Awesome work!

[@johnlansing2902]

A thank you to those who work so hard to keep history alive in the form of the equipment that they work on and to the great people who keep the memories alive.

[@rpgta]

I was waiting for such a video for ages. It would be great if a similar video would be made on the Tiger Ausf. B. Thank you so much MHV!

[@_kommandant_3055]

You should do a video on the Panther G since that's the one that is supposed to be the best performance and reliability wise as well as the most produced

[@SNP-1999]

@Military History Visualized As an expatriate Englishman living in Hamburg, Germany since 1970, I had many ex- Wehrmacht veterans as colleagues during the 1970's. One was a former mechanic of the Maintenance and Repair unit of the 116th Panzer Division, the "Windhund" or "Greyhound" Division. He told me once that greatest problems the German repair units had wasn't the recovery of damaged or broken down tanks, which was highly organized and typically efficient, it was that the Panzer Divisions had so many different variants of tanks that it was practically impossible to have the adequate amount of spare parts for all the types, and more importantly, the spare parts were not universally compatible. This was the strength of the Red Army and the Western Allies, of course - lesser versions, more compatibility. He said, basically, that although the production of tanks was first class in Germany, it was from about 1943 onwards far too complicated technically and logistically to fight the war with. 😜

[@seandelaney1700]

Thank you for the great insight! It would seem it was a large often underappreciated benefit of Soviet and American armor. However if the war was going the other way or lasting a lot longer, at least for the Sherman, they Americans too would have likely needed to rush new technology to the war.

[@Nemothewonderfish]

@@seandelaney1700 no as tank in tank isn't how you fight wars. USA used overwhelmingly numbers and airpower with air superiority.

[@seandelaney1700]

@@Nemothewonderfish Agreed.

[@jrd33]

In the late war, I believe it was common the the Germans to cannibalise damaged tanks for spares, due to the feeble state of their supply network. Also a lot of extra work compared to just fitting a factory-fresh spare part.

[@JT-gq8wv]

SNP1999 _@Military History Visualized_ _...practically impossible to have the adequate amount of spare parts for all the types, and more importantly, the spare parts were not universally compatible._ *I read in the literature that production of spare parts for the PANTHER was minimized in favor of meeting completed tank production goals.*

[@ProjectFairmont]

From what I understand, the Panther transmission replacement necessitates removal of the upper front superstructure, while an M4 Sherman for example, front mounted transmission can be removed by unbolting only the very front plates, making this operation account for a fraction of service time. The M4s main attribute was the ability to recover and maintain a constant supply of operational units.

[@Dreachon]

It took about 2 hours to replace the transmission on a Sherman, for a Panther it was between 6 and 8 hours nor did it require the removal of the upper front superstructure.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I'm sure the infantry would prefer the support of a tank which was present over the tank which is still in repair though. The chap going up against an enemy machinegun position probably has little sympathy for the tank crew who thinks that 60mm of armor is inadequate given he's wearing 1mm of cotton...

[@Frserthegreenengine]

@@Dreachon 2 hours is miles better than 6-8 hours. Makes a huge difference.

[@philipprucz3099]

Great Video but I have one more point. After the second World war the french adopted the Panther for 2 of their Regiments (503 Tank Regiment and 6 Cuirassier Regiment. By this time alot of other surplus WW2 should have been available, so some in the french militaty must have come to conclusion that the Panther was more suitable than those other Tanks. Would be interessting to find any sources on why they made this desicion.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thx, that will be covered in another video. It did not fit in here, since this is more of a "first-hand" experience, whereas the other stuff is more a "long-term evaluation" / more distanced view.

[@Dreachon]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized If you do manage to find more information with regards to the actual report and its background I'd love to hear it. I've been trying to find out more about it but so far I've come across nothing concrete but some discussions with other people who have also been looking for the full report have noted that there was quite soem background to the report.

[@katrinapaton5283]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized then please ignore my previous post!

[@ewc58]

Fantastic presentation, thank you

[@Idahoguy10157]

The Panther is a visually striking tank. Even beautiful

[@TheNorthie]

In the French Panther there were a few lines about the engine and drive wheels and how they were trying to redesign them. The drive wheels broke after 150km on average which really killed the tank at times. The French when redesigning these parts realized they would have to redesign the entire tank at one point as the parts were meant for that spot and it would mean redesigning everything around it as well. The report itself gives a great outlook on the tank and what its positives and negatives were.

[@firepower7017]

So it preformed great but breaks easily and badly.

[@TheNorthie]

Fire Power701 I think it performs well when it can get to the battlefield and uses its strengths to its fullest. That being it’s extreme range and it’s powerful gun. If on the defensive or set up in an ambush it can be devastating to enemy tanks. But the problem it has likes it’s range really killed it in the long run. But if it can’t reach the battlefield why have it?

[@firepower7017]

@@TheNorthie But here's the thing, the Panther wasn't really meant to become a Tank Destroyer. Even though it can look and smell like one doesn't mean it was one

[@TheNorthie]

Fire Power701 If you look at where Germany was heading to by the Panther’s deployment it makes some sense. It was increasingly facing more and more tanks that outnumbered their own tanks, so to compensate they had a larger gun and more armor. And with them on the defense they didn’t really have to move too far and could use internal railroads to transport the tanks as close as they could to the front. But when they went on the offensive with this tank, god help the tank battalion commanders. I’ve seen mention on forum boards and comments of another Panther tank in development and it’s supposed range of the drive wheels was around 450km though I can’t 100% confirm it ever existed or was ever designed.

[@firepower7017]

@@TheNorthie I already knew why the Panther was made. And what it was supposed to fufill

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

This was really good. Not only the reports from the WWII Panzer crews but those of the people who have restored the tank and are operating it and maintaining it. There's nothing like the voice of experience. .

[@Thoradim]

Talking about the early panther is sort of redundant when they became the backbone of the "firebrigades" of the wehmacht during '44 and '45, if you read "History of the Totenkopf's Panther-Abteilung" (2015) or "The sword behind the shield" (2016) you will get a much better picture of this vehicle and what it was capable of. (and many many other eastern front essays and books based on war diaries of the Panther equiped units).

[@yashkasheriff9325]

This is an excellent video that reveals particularly what gripes the end users - the Germans and French - had with it which are not as widespread and popular as what the people in many internet forums, and especially in the comments section of KZbin are too biased to address over the great aspects of the Panther that they tend to promote in an unbalanced manner. I appreciate your video for adding to the current revolution that you and Nicholas Moran have begun to sway significantly about dispelling myths and highlighting flaws, as well as keeping a holistic view by pointing out what good things German tank design accomplished and what contexts did these design choices make sense. To me however, the idea of a final drive system unsuitable for 28 ton tanks being used on a vehicle ending up at the end of it's design process weighing 45 tons significantly negates the good armor and great gun. What use are those two aspects when the tank can't even get to the front? Not to mention that the trend of Panthers catching on fire often and breaking down more than that despite improvement up to the Ausf. G is absolutely hilarious to me. In short: Panther - a great idea, executed poorly. EDIT: Minor corrections in language and grammar.

[@Ninnoa]

Battle of Kursk cannot be good indicator for how efficient something was because Russians knew about all plans of Germans, first they knew that they will attack, where they will attack and finally exactly precise day and hour when attack will begin. Thus Russians placed mines and defenses that no army could break at that time.

[@katrinapaton5283]

Not entirely true. I can't, off the top of my head, remember which prong of the attack was which but one commanding officer actually bothered to change his codes prior to the attack and not only gained some element of surprise but was making good headway prior to the offensive being called off due to the allied landings in Italy.

[@Schimml0rd]

@@katrinapaton5283 interesting o:

[@kkrummelrhs]

@@katrinapaton5283 The attack from the south was the front that achieved some level of success. A plan centered around a pincer attack was doomed on arrival by the battle's start. This tactic lost effectiveness on a large scale by Spring 1942. The north flank made little progress and stalled under relatively higher casualties vs the southern flank. Kursk is remembered as a tank battle, but the minefields and artillery were similarly decisive

[@jspirmann]

Wow, I have been watching you for years now, and I had absolutely no clue you spoke French. A true polyglot, nice job!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Hey, thanks, but I don't speak French, Phil and Chris helped out.

[@grantreichel6870]

MHV: Basically WWII Mythbusters but less explosions.

[@russwoodward8251]

Thank you for the research. I appreciate that you site sources. This is a fantastic series.

[@sleeperawake9818]

Beautifully researched and presented! Thank you!

[@monstrok]

An excellent video on my favorite WW2 tank! Really enjoyed this one.

[@NeightWolf49]

Great job on the video. Very comprehensive!

[@visari4461]

This is something I have to note is the panther did suffer with combat readiness issues up until 1944 with the panther bing noted to have nearly the same combat readiness issues as a panzer iv.The panzer iv being noted to be 75% battle read and the panther being 70% battle ready. just something interesting I found recently, if anyone has any specific information as to this please do add

[@hbecker123]

Sometimes i read : Vs the Tiger the Panther was the better option, because the same firepower, lower costs, higher production rate, more stable system.

[@Keatononame13]

When a Lt. Col. can get beat in an arm wrestling contest against the historian he's being interviewed by, you know you're in the french army. Nonetheless great content keep it up!

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

You outdid yourself with this one mate. This video was a pleasure to watch, perfectly made. Content was easy to grasp, easy to understand, order of discussion points was top notch, had no redundancies, and I could keep on going, but not without forgetting to mention how much it shines in its technical sides as well - camera & audio clarity and quality. Should be a staple example in any journalism course. Thank you very much, must've been a huge effort to make.

[@rollwax2646]

Thanks for this video, very interisting ; the tanks of Samur Museum were really well restorated, great work, The Panther "Bretagne" in particular, a real masterpiece ! Thanks to World of Tanks too, I've been playing since 2012 and I bought this beautiful tank in the game. This game is very realistic on the historical characteristics of the tanks and interesting by modeling prototypes and projects.

[@troelsmogensen7259]

Interesting that nobody bothered to mention the interleaved road wheels, since those appear to attract a lot of criticism elsewhere. Maybe in reality, they also fell into the not terribly bad or good middle ground.

[@atzuras]

Yes many sources pinpoint that interleaved wheels were hell to repair. However, repair cost and time were not into the combat statistics at that time and nowadays TankFestivals are not using real mines, so they may not add any first hand facts about it.

[@benjammin3381]

Theres a video from the late 1940 where the swedes tested the panthers mobility vs other allied vehicles like the sherman and churchill on different terrain and climate(woods, hills, ditches, snow). The panther was a clear winner on almost all tests done. Just though i should mention it since theres no report on the panthers mobility.

[@JohnSmith-qv6hp]

Panther was unstoppable but they lost ww2

[@JohnSmith-qv6hp]

@John Cornell the Germans never had a chance in 1939 why invade Russia England undefeated Hitler believed his empire had to be made during his lifetime everything was rushed and the game was played badly he lost the allies had many superior weapons but not tanks maybe Russians that's another story

[@JohnSmith-qv6hp]

@John Cornell interestingly.usa now primacy is on.having the best tank possible upgraded Abrams could be that they never want to have another Sherman haunting them like in ww2

[@2adamast]

They adopted the Centurion.

[@Nemothewonderfish]

@@JohnSmith-qv6hp Soviets had the oil. They had to invade in 1941 or lose the war. GB was a side issue.

[@xillerrz7328]

I have read armored thunderbolt and panthers where not really a threat as a lot broke down or they were not mobile in snow, relying on roads which are perfect for ambushes, also the m36 made a appearance with its 90mm gun easily penning the Panther, Shermans also used white phosphorus smoke rounds which can make the crew get out of the tank because there are no filters on the panther.

[@xillerrz7328]

@Carnivorus there was a air filter in the panther, it was not ventilated so 75mm Shermans used the smoke round which then make the phosphorus gas go inside the panther which made the crew feel uneasy and gagged a lot, abandoning the tank. I do apologize if I did do this mistake as I have read armored thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga.

[@JT-gq8wv]

*ARMORED THUNDERBOLT* BY Steve Zaloga. A MUST READ. A book on Sherman Tanks but a BOATLOAD of PANTHER info.

[@burkinafaso64]

I assume the report from the 9th June '44 is from 3./SS Panzer-Reg. 12 at Bretteville/Norrey ?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Unit is correct, location I can't confirm.

[@burkinafaso64]

Then the place is probably correct too. Ribbentrops company was nearly annihilated that day at its baptism of fire, when they recieved flanking fire by Canadian Fireflys whilst attacking Norrey.

[@colinkelly5420]

@@burkinafaso64 There is a report from a Churchill unit in Normandy that says something along the lines of "when hit the Churchill burns quite slowly. In comparison when a Panther hits it blows up." The tendency for the Panther to catch on fire was noted by the Allied tank crews that fought them.

[@jambyjameson1380]

@John Cornell mate the sherman was more survivable than a panther or tiger. The sherman had springloaded hatches while the panthers commander cupola hatch had to use a hand crank to open the hatch. Plus the sherman and panzer iv had baisically the same burn rate.

[@jambyjameson1380]

@John Cornell oh and a panther can be knocked out with a 105 sherman and repeated 75 mm HE shells can kill the crew of a tiger

[@WarReport.]

I wish you had covered the Panther to the end of the war with newer models and updates through 43 to 45.

[@voidvoid4066]

Absolutely. It is common knowledge that the D variant was a mechanical disaster. Would have been more interesting to dive into the G variant which was manufactured in the largest volumes and was the model where many issues had been ironed out and was cheaper to manufacture. Including the mantle shot trap

[@mako2350]

A late Panther G would have been a great substitute for the D used...

[@utzius8003]

Danke dfür dass du die Quellen in der Beschreibung aufgelistet hast. Mein VWA Thema is die Effektivität des Panthers an der Westfront und da hilft sowas sehr. :)

[@robgraham5697]

Fascinating and complete analysis of one of my favourite tanks. I very much like the interviews with people that work on and with the Panther. Most informative. Danke.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

Impressive research... as a kid my father drew a profile of the tank they fought against while he was in 3rd Army under Patton. It was the Panther.

[@visi7754]

Innovative and Different video on my Favourite WW2 tank backed by hard,good facts - Cheers Cracking!

[@hollin220]

Love the source material. Cheers as always!

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

My prediction before watching the video: The tankers who fought in Panthers probably felt about them the way that enthusiasts of vintage British sports cars feel about their own vehicles -- That it was unreservedly magnificent... on the days when the stars were aligned and the gasket and wiring gods were feeling unusually benevolent.

[@JT-gq8wv]

_JohnnyWishbone85 "The tankers who fought in Panthers probably felt about them the way that enthusiasts of vintage British sports cars feel about their own vehicles -- That it was unreservedly magnificent... on the days when the stars were aligned and the gasket and wiring gods were feeling unusually benevolent."_ *I get You - I owned MGs, Austin Healeys and Spitfires* - *I probably spent more time under them than in them, and would do it all over again.* *Cheers !*

[@frequentfiler]

Well done. The point about the high velocity gun being easy to hit with certainly makes sense tome. When I was a gunner on the M1, hitting with APDS (sabot) was much easier than the slower HEAT. I read somewhere that the first mark of the Panther could not be turned when reversing because it would break the transmission. Field Marshall Guderian himself said that too often, the designers pay too much attention to the gun, and not enough to the engine. The great strength of the Sherman and T34 was the reliability of their engines.

[@michaelbevan3285]

the Sherman had either a radial engine from an aircraft, a multibank made from five V-8s or a diesel,so clearly they were trying their best to give the Sherman a good, reliable powerplant. The radial and the multibank were finicky creatures and took a lot of time to get right. The Sherman was also well designed for ease of replacing major components as the entire front bottom plate could be unbolted to change the gearbox and final drive and the engine could be taken out horizontally, which is still the preferred method today. Panthers suffered from fuel leaks and were not helped by having no means of draining the engine bay. Access to the infamous final drive was not easy but the mechanics got good at changing them quickly. The Germans were always reluctant to engage in long road marches as they knew that they would lose tanks along the way.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

I absolutely love the Panther, it's an iconic tank that had some serious plus points. But it's bad points, were pretty bad. It's the same story for much of the best of the German military equipment. Amazing potential wasted by a few crap details. Such as the Panther not having a loaders hatch or the gunner lacking a periscope sight. Also....changing the transmission in nearly any German military machine. The stuff of horrors.

[@sctm81]

I think the Panther worked for the Germans since they were fighting a defensive war from 43 on. For offensive operations the Panther didnt have the fuel, would have less bridges to cross and didnt have the reliability or numbers.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

@@sctm81 the lack of a periscope sight in defensive/ambush fighting is a major problem. It really limits your ability to shoot from cover. And if you are trying to retreat and your transmission blows up cause its unreliable, that's better for the enemy cause he didn't need to use a shell to do it.

[@Romanov117]

John Cornell Shermans have visions slits like the view blocks that you see on the Sherman Cupola. Just Google it. And second, German Tanks like Panthers, that have a poor field of view and lacked Unity sights, they relied on Infantry that spots Allied Tanks for them because Infantry can see some bigger vehicles that is moving than the Tankers inside their Tanks. In a Tank combat in Arracourt. After a small squad of US infantry reported that the Panthers heading to their positions into an area, the Sherman Gunners used their rotating periscopes to see their movements quite easily.

[@JugheadJones03]

Thank you. I like how you focus on equipment quality videos. Seeing how things really stacked up.

[@viarr2893]

Excellent video. Would love to see a similar video on the Tiger B from Saumur. Primary sources and empirical data on this vehicle that I've read tend to give a generally positive impression in stark contrast to the overwhelmingly-negative impressions given by other works. Would love to hear the thoughts of the Saumur employees that take care of what is currently the only running example (there is a Tiger from h.S.Pz.Abt.506 being restored by a team in Switzerland). Another question; I've seen it suggested that it was common practice for American tank crews to remove/disable the RPM governor from their vehicles. Is there a reputable source to back up this claim? I'm also very curious if this was common practice for German crews.

[@cullenseago1519]

Supposedly but many people forget that shermans werent that heavy, had great gear boxes and great motors. If anything they could have been faster but american designers wanted the tanks to last so they governed them at RPMs that would allow them to survive more miles.

[@sepulture777]

wie immer eine durchdachte, und auch auf Quellen wertlegende, Darstellung

[@mt1885]

GREAT content!!! 👍👍👍

[@rwool53]

Love your channel and the information you dig up and present. I use your videos and channel as a reference as a battlefield guide.

[@atzuras]

Well I would buy it. Hit hard with a 75mm and don't show your flank. With a 3-year warranty and full refund if it sets on fire the first month.

[@22steve5150]

apparently try not to drive it too much either since they suffer breakdowns so easily. That one poor unit, losing nearly half their tanks to mechanical breakdowns in a 4 day span, the mechanics must have been some real miserable, real busy dudes.

[@atzuras]

@@22steve5150 yes. or real dead buddies if tank stops moving on the battlefield. And if survived, each tank crew was supposed to repair it themselves. A real bad day.

[@frankmiller95]

Warranty valid to be at any authorized dealership.

[@Hanfgurkenhasser]

You're gonna burn through a lot of tanks then. Get it...burn? Because it caught on fire easily? ...I'll see myself out.

[@T4nkcommander]

@@22steve5150 A poor driver can break the most robust vehicle, and a great driver can keep a temperamental machine in check. The problems with the Panther extend to all German tanks of the late war period, and seem to be a combination of decreased production quality and crew experience.

[@Splodge542]

Thankyou so much, my friend.

[@panzerfaustin]

*War Thunder has entered the chat*

[@cnlbenmc]

The Virgin World of Tanks vs the Chad WarThunder

[@abigasswave3000]

That game is falling off a cliff

[@HiTechOilCo]

I have screen shots of a War Thunder screen name in the World of Tanks General Chat attempting to tear down World of Tanks and then promoting War Thunder. That's about as low and dirty as it gets. I hope Wold of Tanks sues them! With conduct like *that*, I will never have anything to do with War Thunder!

[@HiTechOilCo]

World of Tanks is the 14th most played game in the entire world now, moving up from 18th last year. :) War Thunder didn't even make the list! There's reasons for that. --> newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-20-core-pc-games/

[@cnlbenmc]

+@@HiTechOilCo+ WarThunder has its own "Special" community. Though I doubt most players would even bother going through the effort you described. There's plenty of opportunities to rag on CAS spammers, the quirks of the Battle Rating system and the ever present Russian Bias in the general chat.

[@yernestofly]

well made content backed with serious academic studies. keep up creating positive contents :)

[@juanzulu2755]

Wasnt there even an official Wehrmacht doctrine to use, if ever possible, Pz IVs at the flanks to protect the vulnerable sides of the Panthers? Anyway, once again one very interesting topic. Thx, great channel.

[@juanzulu2755]

@John Cornell they are cheaper, worry not! The panzergrenadiers will take care.. :)

[@domaxltv]

the doctrine was to keep the heaviest tanks in the middle to soak up shells from the front while lighter tanks trail behind them to the sides in basically a V formation. that applied to both tigers and panthers, but panthers were notably worse for offensive opperations due to vunrability to 7.62cm guns

[@mbr5742]

Teamwork, V-Formation etc. where standard stuff for Tanks. In real world they operate in teams

[@colinkelly5420]

@@mbr5742 In the real world the Germans split their Panthers and Panzer IV's into separate panzer regiments, so they would not normally fight together. The only time you'd get those mixed formations would be in kampfgruppe or other adhock formations put together in an emergency, or Kursk where the Panthers were in their own separate regiment that was attacked to other units. I doubt there was any kind of doctrine for Panzer IV's to cover the flanks of the Panthers, rather that was just a formation that was used in certain circumstances.

[@austriad9574]

That kind of doctrine only exist in dumb computer games. IRL, most panzerregiments had the panthers in its 1st battalion and pz4s in its 2nd battalion

[@russianbotfarm3036]

I normally don’t like in-video ads, but WoT can sponsor you any time they like as far as I care. I don’t play anymore (though many good times were had), but the footage is nice to look at regardless.

[@Elc22]

The panther has a special place in military history, many would argue that it's design set the standard for modern MBTs, even if it was a "medium tank". very interesting to hear the view of the driver and the curator. it makes sense that it would be great to cut some power and complexity to get more fuel efficiency, as Germany was always short on fuel. Its also well known that most German tanks were notorious for being unreliable, even if extremely effective in combat.

[@katrinapaton5283]

I would be interested to know how many of those sixty tanks mentioned were repaired and returned to combat and how quickly that was achieved. I know Carius had similar problems with his Tigers during route marches but his repair teams usually had the tanks running again fairly quickly.

[@gravitatemortuus1080]

@@katrinapaton5283 Well the USA reported German repair teams were very fast on repairs. The problem is did this talk on the tank or the skill of the repair crews.

[@kieranh2005]

I've never read reports about the PzI, PzII, PzIII or PzIV having reliability problems. Change the line to German big cats and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.

[@johnnieangel99]

Thank you. Well done

[@cnlbenmc]

Panther; good armor, mobility and firepower with relatively low production costs. Has horrible mechanical reliability issues, including but not limited to; transmission breakage, final drive failure, engines often broke down and caught fire easily.

[@yinranzhang1908]

The battlefield awareness is also lacking.

[@Bird_Dog00]

Production cost could have ben lower even if there hadn't been an insistance of making it dive-capable. Allthough this feature was afaik omited in later variants, adding it to the design in the first place required a number of design elements that increased cost, without this feature ever being used... Also visibility, especialy for the gunner was rather poor. The gunner only had the coaxial gun sight. No observation sight with wider FOV, nor a periscope gun sight, that would have enabled him to observe a target from a turret down position.

[@sctm81]

Kinda like German cars today. Expensive, complex, undeniably great engineering but poor reliability and high maintenance.

[@MEGATRYANT]

"relatively low production costs" is directly related to the horrible mechanical issues. They cheaped out on many of the parts for cost reduction, wich only got worse as the weight went up.

[@yinranzhang1908]

@John Cornell Well unlike sherman, panther's gunner only has gun optic, he cant see shit

[@mochithepooh5368]

I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that Panthers have surprisingly good cross country capabilities. A group of Shermans(forgot the exact size) was following Panthers to ambush them. But as they pass through a muddy terrains, their Sherman got bogged down while the Panthers went through them.

[@Dreachon]

They are, the wide tracks combined with the interleaved roadwheels provided the Panther with very good cross country crossing capablities. A US wartime test deemed the Panther to be faster and more manouverable, both on- and off-road than the Sherman with its VVSS tracks. An improvement in its cross country performance came for the Sherman when they received HVSS suspension in late 1944.

[@hoodoo2001]

The Panther should not be judged as an individual tank when everything was working but how the tank operated in groups, single surviving tanks might run up scores but groups of tanks win battles. Technical complexity and an increasing number of ill-experienced tank crews hampered the number of tanks in any group in battle, the Panther needed an experienced well trained crew. Additionally the Panther was designed for one thing and this was shown over an again in battle, it was a long range engagement tank with poor visibility to the sides and rear and very vulnerable to flanking shots. Most Panthers that were killed were shot through their rather ill designed mantlet or on the sides, in most cases they never saw the tank or tank destroyer that killed them. The lower number of Panthers in any group meant less protection form teammates who would have your back and also see potential threats. The Germans could have made the Panther better, it's not hard to improve visibility, but they focused on frontal armor and big guns. The Panthers got forced into attacks in which allied tankers could kill them with flank shots even at long range and even when fighting defensively the Panther could not see flanking tanks who did not have to get close. The Panther looked fearsome and looks go a long way when a bureaucracy like the Nazi Bureaucracy is involved. The Panther was a 2 dimensional tank in a 3d war.

[@furtivedig]

I would imagine the eastern front to be more 2D than the western

[@burre01]

you forgot to mention the excellent suspention, and good performance on soft terrain (snow/mud/marsh etc) the swedes that did trails after WW2 and did direct comparisons vs the sherman firefly made that part very clear. (panther A from france, recorded 1947)

[@ManicMoran]

The bit apparently that most people missed in the Swedish report was that although the Panther had better floatation, the Sherman was more likely to actually get to where it was going, even if it needed to take a slightly more circuitous route.

[@TheStugbit]

The biggest issue with tank mobility I think about when looking at the Panther it's the intercalated wheels, I guess. Getting over a mine and damaging one of the wheels it seems to me that it would be quite of a problem to make the repairs. The T-34, on the other hand, I have seen images of it running with just 4 wheels.

[@amerigo88]

I thought about the "schachtellaufwerk" (overlapping road wheels) issue also. Given the minimal operation of this historical Panther, I doubt they have been through the misery of changing an interior layer roadwheel. Even if they have changed one, no doubt they had plenty of modern, hydraulic tools at hand, unlike some poor tank repairman in a cold maintenance tent on the Eastern Front.

[@TheStugbit]

@@amerigo88 but all those tools you said, they need space and time to work. When you're in the middle of a battle, among enemies firing at you, it is needed more simpler, pragmatic features to work fast and safe. And the Panther arrived at the late war, when time and space for repairing vehicles were like luxury for the Germans.

[@mr.coffee6242]

The tiger had the same design. It has advantages but is really fragile

[@TheStugbit]

@@mr.coffee6242 of the big German tanks (Tiger, Panther and King Tiger) the King Tiger had the best wheels and suspension, isn't it?

[@jonathangriffiths2499]

It's significant that the over lapping wheels are not a feature on modern tanks , even German designs . Evolution eradicated it.

[@Tallorian]

I'm glad that your further videos on Panther clarified about it being a heavy tank and a very specific (originally designed) role more of a tank hunter than a Pz.IV replacement, since in this vid it's somehow subliminally compared it to much lighter Sherman and T-34, American and Russian MBTs. Nevertheless, a very interesting video, and it's nice to see a working Panther footage.

[@edward9674]

Why didn't they put the transmission in the back of the tank like on the Cromwell or the T-34? It'd allow for easier replacement of the transmission and allow for a lower profile of the crew compartement in the front hull.

[@shocktrooper2622]

That would help, but the tank was also 42 tons on a 30 ton rated transmission. It's like the Sherman Jumbo's reliability, but instead of being 2 or 5 tons heavier its 12 tons heavier

[@Anlushac11]

@@shocktrooper2622 That is not true. The Waffenamt request for designs specified a 30 ton vehicle. MAN designed a 43 ton vehicle partly because they felt they stood a better chance of winning the contract if Panther standardized parts with Tiger. The Panther was as tallThe VK30.02M weighed 42 tons. Its not like the Germans were so stupid to design a 30 ton vehicle and decided to add 13 more tons which is what your implying. There was a VK30.01M designed earlier that looked like a PzIVD with Panther suspension.

[@shocktrooper2622]

Initially four companies, Henschel (H), Porsche (P), Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg (MAN), and Daimler Benz (DB), were requested to build prototypes with the requirements for a fast heavy medium tank able to defeat the Soviet T-34 tank on the Eastern front. Henschel's design, the VK 3001(H), was considered outdated, with only a 7.5 cm (3.0 in) Kwk 37 L/24 short howitzer-like gun and resembling an enlarged Panzer IV, but with the overlapping and interleaved Schachtellaufwerk roadwheel system coming from their half-track designs. The Porsche entry, the VK 3001(P), developed at the same time as the VK 4501 (P), was withdrawn when the Tiger I went into production. This only left MAN and DB as contenders and so they were ordered to construct improved models, VK 3002(MAN) and VK 3002(DB). The original request was for a 20 ton tank to replace the III and IV, once the T-34 was encountered the requirement when up to 30 tons. MAN and DB's designs both came out ot 32-34 tons which is good for both tanks as one was basically a German T-34 (in looks not actual design) while MAN's was what we know as the Panther. Now the issue is looking at these two tanks and the fact that the 3002(DB) wasn't suited to being up scaled with armor. MAN's however had armor added to the tank that frankly wasn't needed at the time. 85/40/40 was the MAN's designed armor and 80mm sloped at 55 degrees woulda still been as good as the 85mm at 55 the Panther G had, and the 100mm of Turret armor was still under armoured considering the 40mm sides on both the turret and hull never got increased. (doesn't matter cause that 100mm turret still was at combat ranges on the western front was still to little) and on the eastern front 80mm turret was still perfectly fine for dealing with 76mm and the few 85mm guns the russians had. By slapping 100mm of armor on the turret, and changes in the final drives the Panther became 45 tons, when the transmission was still rated for 34 tons. The Jadpanther in the most hilarious way was 54 tons, but actually got improved transmissions and final drives, to the point where it was still heavy (quite so in fact) but not to the point of subpar reliability.

[@thomaszhang3101]

I have done quite some “researches” on the rear drive vs front drive, so let me have a word here: 1. According to German studies pre and during the war, front drive offers better much better traction than rear drive. 2. The same studies also concluded that rear drive frees up the frontal space for fighting compartment, allowing for better crew efficiency, more ammunition, and possible steeper angle on front glacis (so more frontal protection). 3. The studies also concluded that transmission is better protected in rear drive configuration (never mentioned whether crew is better protected in front drive configuration). 4. Rear drive is possibly easier on the transmission as most of the tank’s weight rests on front due to frontal armor and gun. 5. There is NO maintenance benefits to rear drive compared to front drive - it all comes down to individual design (see front drive Sherman, for instance). Finally, the Germans did agree that rear drive offers more benefits than draw backs compared to front drive, NOT on maintenance grounds, but on the free space of fighting compartment. (Ik, those Germans have no hindsight for logistics :)) The reason why Germany did not switch to rear wheel drive was because of experience and production line. Germany had no experience in building rear drive tanks but has probably the most experience out of any country in building front wheel drive. Secondly, they don’t want to change to rear wheel drive in the middle of a war to complicate the production line.

[@thomaszhang3101]

Kendall Scott one thing to point out was that VK3501(DB) had a smaller fighting compartment than VK3501(M), or what would become the Panther. Panther was chose because German military wanted the vehicle to be spacious and upgradable in the future (larger gun, range finder, stabilizer, IR devices, etc). Personally I love the VK3501(DB), so did Speer and Hitler, probably because it really was the better short term solution, but Panther turret does not need redesigning (so can enter production faster) and is better long term in terms of upgrades.

[@pzakp311]

Gut gemacht, sehr informativ, wie gewohnt.

[@michdo23]

So, according to the comments, the Panther broke down coming out of the factory, was going up in flames randomly, was neither "fish nor meat" and overall a piece of crap tank that just got lucky once in a while. And yet it is to many people who actually know their stuff one if not THE best tank of WW2, has an amazing kill-ratio and was used up to the 1950s outside of Germany.

[@Chopstorm.]

According to whom was it the best tank? It seems to me that they all agree that the Panther had amazing benefits, but also severe draw backs.

[@zeitgeistx5239]

@@Chopstorm. wheraboos and children on the internet. Germans themselves admitted their armor design signalled their own defeat. German armor doctrine was maneuver and of course they designed heavier and heavier tanks as they were on the defensive. They designed tanks that doctrinally they themselves hated but had to do it in response to the reality of the way the war developed. Wheraboos think their geniuses when they themselves bemoaned these tanks doctrinally. To a certain extent you couldve just replaced some of them with anti tank pillboxes as such as their roles. They were no longer multi role tanks but more and more specifically anti tank designs.

[@fishbmw]

@@zeitgeistx5239 Wehraboo

[@fatmanbatman9374]

Kill ratios dont win wars

[@rudymalmgren9469]

@Dwarov 1 Then why of 60000 t-34s built were 50000 destroyed? Which t-34 killed 56 enemy tanks before it was destroyed?

[@jackobrien47]

I've read that due to the wider tracks the panther had better off-road performance than the Sherman even though it was much larger and heavier.

[@enjibkk6850]

The pronounciation of these french guys names was a bit approximative :P

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

well, considering my pronunciation skill tree, it was ültra-precision ;)

[@mr.coffee6242]

Ehh... close enough 😂

[@King.Leonidas]

Finally a good video. This reinforced my views about the Panther, The Panther was Pretty Much the First MBT Alot of Front Armor Pretty good Mobility And a Powerful gun. i think if the Panther haven't been rushed to production and its teething probelms removed it would have been a great tank as it cost about the same to make as a Panzer 4 H

[@MEGATRYANT]

Why is the Panther the first MBT when we had tanks that would do pretty much offer the same combination of features in the earlier years of the war?

[@thegoldencaulk2742]

Another reason mobility might not have been mentioned much is because the Panther was primarily being used defensively, where high mobility was not relied upon as much. But as you said, it would only be talked about if it were extremely good or extremely bad, regardless of if it were being used defensively or offensively.

[@charlesc.9012]

It was always important, because every successful defence included a counter-attack to regain breathing room, and you needed mobility for that

[@scottcampbell2836]

I really appreciate your vids and discussions. Thank you

[@astrorick2910]

Yo you don't use 4 "X" to make "40" with Roman numbers

[@StrohmaniasFlyingCircus]

The Romans used XXXX and XL. The XL is just the later era usage.

[@kubajackiewicz2]

Actually it depends on the period, for example in the middle ages italians often used XXXX, IIII, VIIII and other simmilar combinations

[@VRichardsn]

Oddly enough, some clocks use IIII to signify IV. I could never figure out why.

[@DevilDaRebel]

Richardsen Because there are four l? Thus llll would equal 4? Pretty straight forward.

[@astrorick2910]

@@kubajackiewicz2 this is weird, I'm Italian and I didn't know that lol, I feel so fucked up

[@adlerarmory8382]

I'm curious as to the "measurements" or is the translation "gauging" the must make prior to every drive of the Bretagne Panther. Do they check the final drive fluid dipstick and track tension? Or are there other areas from transmission to the drive sprockets that must be inspected? My experience was 10ys on the M113 series vehicles from M113A2 to M125A2/M106A2 Mortar Carriers to M577A2 Command Post Carrier we used in the Mortar Fire Direction Center. In the field Drivers' Preventive Maintenance Checks & Services was a daily task. In garrison was usually once per week, normally first task after Monday morning PT unless the tracks were scheduled for annual interval services, in which case we could have the track partially disassembled in the Maintenance bays for up to a week or longer. Especially if you had to replace the Detroit Diesel engine.

[@keithplymale2374]

I used to play WoT but got out because of the attitudes of the players on the US server. This was several years ago.

[@jambyjameson1380]

What do you think about panzer elite (1999) if you have never played that how bout your thoughts about war thunder

[@keithplymale2374]

@@jambyjameson1380 I am not able to play anything but turn based games because my net is a satellite up link.

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

Interesting take in the conclusion of the Driver and Mechanic of the French Tank Museum, "(...) for the most part the Panther has only good sides." If you read some takes on this matter from some people, you imagine the Panther not being able to function at all.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

It is always a point of view! The driver said "...has only good sides.". His commanding officer immediately says he would change the engine because it is to complicated! He also noted the fragility of the drive train and steering system! So for example, maybe the driver really likes to drive the Panther AND to work/craft/repair it. The he wouldn't see the manhours as a problem (same with my sports car, my wife always says I spend to much time working on it...i always think "that was just a few minutes!") The commanding officer maybe sees more of the money and effort they have to spend to repair it or keep it running. At least he has to justify the money and manhours they spend to his superiors!

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

@@papaaaaaaa2625 You are right about the point of view, maybe that's just that kind of situation Steven Zaloga described in his book Armored Champions, which he split the choice for best tank in determined periods by Tanker's choice and Commander's choice. I would totally see a Tanker (especially a veteran one) choosing a Panther Ausf. G Late version because It was already very reliable like Hilary Doyle says, and its firepower and armor were great, but a Commander choosing another one maybe, because of the money spent to make it (less than the Tiger I, but I guess still more than the Panzer IV) and more complicated to mantain.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

@@eliasmiguelfreire8965 exactly. I think german Army Commanders would have loved to field a tank like the Sherman. Easy to maintain, reliable, only low manhours needed, available in large numbers and good enough for the task. A German Tiger Commander would have a different point of view. But not every German Soldier was a Tank Commander and even less were Tiger Commanders. One of my Grandfathers fought in the Wehrmacht as a young boy at the end of the war. He said that he rarely saw german tanks. He even told me that they lacked the basic support. He once told us that thin, watery soup seemed like a gift if it was still lukewarm. He later deserted with a few comrades and surrendered to Americans. He told us that he never had a meal as a German soldier like he had as a American prisoner of war!

[@SouthParkCows88]

Tanks all had issues when introduced even Sherman's and T-34, but it's funny how only Israel actually goes to there tank crews and asks them questions when designing the tank.

[@LowStuff]

Yeah. People make fun of the Panther transmission, but the T-34s that saw battle in Barbarossa were utter garbage. Somewhere around 60-70% of them were destroyed without german interaction. They broke down and/or burned out due to mechanical failures, often the transmission. The tank also often detracked itself. The KV-1 was also an example of poor reliability. And again, the transmission was the major weakpoint.

[@amerigo88]

Tanker friend of mine from Army Reserve days (about 1997) said when he went through Armor School at Fort Knox (about 1990), a Sherman veteran who had been a designer of the M1 Abrams spoke to the young lieutenants. He told them how his Sherman ambushed a Tiger from the flank at close range in a French village and was then destroyed by the Tiger after the Sherman's shell(s) bounced off the Tiger. The man speaking had only one leg from that incident. He said he had decided no American tank crew would have to go through what he had been through. If you watch a couple of The Chieftain's long form videos on American tanks and tank destroyers in WWII, the support and design people from the US frequently visited with soldiers in the field and then rolled improvements into the Sherman production lines. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqisnaV3pNiMn68

[@rudymalmgren9469]

@@LowStuff T-34s often went into battle with an extra transmission strapped down on the engine deck.

[@blaircolquhoun7780]

The problem with American tanks like the M4 was that they weren't developed for antitank warfare, They were to find the 5qnks and let the M10 and M18 tank destroyers finish off the German tanks, This was the American antitank doctrine ad it delayed the introduction of the M26 Pershing tank,

[@nikodemdyzma9330]

Panther was great tank against obsolete crap PzIV but side armor was to weak. Dozens of Vs destroyed due to side shot...

[@nattygsbord]

All tanks have bad side armour. In my opinion should this tank rather have lost some of its side armour, and its frontal armour was already so thick that is was overkill - so also that could have been reduced a bit. And with a lower weight would the panther become easier to transport, use less fuel, use less materials to build and becoming easier to produce in large numbers. And if the need for a 40 tonnes tank would arrive one day, then the germans could only switch over to the heavier version of this tank that already existed.

[@nikodemdyzma9330]

IVs is 20t light medium tank while t34s and m4 were appx 10t more armor...

[@MEGATRYANT]

​@@nikodemdyzma9330 Side shots were the main cause of destruction for all tanks. Most tank combat was opportunistic flanking, frontal engagements were relatively rare.

[@josepheastham9717]

Cool that World of Tanks supported the restoration of the Tanks and the spread of this knowledge.

[@VT-mw2zb]

I will have to commend you and all the Internet history (among other academic fields) communicators who summarise and make these topics accessible to the average person; otherwise, these will just go into a book to collect dust on library shelves. Many of these knowledges have been known in academia for decades but the average dudes still have the Cold War era misconceptions,. Many Institutes these days are putting out full lectures and conferences on many obscure and interesting topics. Do look for them and we can all skip over quite a lot of shit on YT.

[@johndowe7003]

honestly its not useful information, just mildly interesting for some folks

[@VT-mw2zb]

@@johndowe7003 this goes into philosophical territory. What you said might be true, but it's also a very neoliberal capitalistic: that you should monetise every single of your waking hours and all you should learn are "useful things" that makes money. Is it really the way to live? Why do we enjoy arts? Movies, novels, films, or reading?

[@1SaG]

Hard to imagine a better method of assessing an 80 year old piece of tech. Contemporary reports from actual users of the tank in combat or in "front-line conditions" are still the most valuable, I believe. Contemporary evaluation by the opposing force are also useful, but these are usually based on a very small sample size (sometimes just one example of the weapon in question) and done by folks who don't have access to official documentation, training or proper spares and consumables. For example: I remember that famous case of use of improper spark-plugs by the RAF when they did their evaluation of a captured FW 190 A-3. And also getting the opinions and experiences of one of the few places that still has experience with servicing and operating a Panther (albeit not in combat, of course) is also quite interesting. Especially since these guys at Saumur do have years of experience with other common tanks from the period and thus probably have a much broader view than any of the experts from the period. It's also interesting to hear the driver and the curator, for the most part, talk pretty enthusiastically about the Panther - which leads me to believe that all the bad press the tank is getting from some armchair tankers these days isn't *really* deserved and it was indeed one of the best (probably *the* best) tank-designs of the period. We mustn't forget that it was a brand new design *and* a war-time design, brought from the drawing-board to the front in an astonishingly short amount of time and, from all I've read, that it was constantly improved. I would imagine that an early production Panther from 1943 would've been more problematic WRT maintenance and breakdowns than, say, a model produced in mid 44. Lastly, I think the sheer numbers produced (under deteriorating conditions I might add) speak in favor of the Panther. If the Army had thought the Panther to be failure, would Germany really have built ~6,000 of the things in roughly two years?

[@zulubeatz1]

Really interesting that so much seems to have been exaggerated about this Tank.