The Panther: Hitler's (Terrible) T-34

[@mcmoose64]

The fact that slave labour was used in its production may also have affected its reliability. Production line sabotage was not unknown. I watched a restoration video of a panther. When the final drive housing was disassembled , a number of "spare" lose bolts were found floating around inside the assembly. It was believed that this was the first time the assembly had been opened up since it left the production line.

[@kaltaron1284]

That and declining quality control due to lack of resources. Esp. for component under a lot of stress tiny impurities can be all it takes for failure.

[@thelordofcringe]

That's a vastly overtalked argument for issues it had. The actual prisoners forced to work in these factories said that suspected sabotage resulted in Gestapo visiting, quietly observing them all day, then right before the end of shift, pointing out a worker or two at random to drag outside and execute. There was no more sabotage after that. It's likely they didn't even pick the right guys but it's even worse: you might be willing to pay the price, but what about getting your fellow prisoners executed?

[@bluesrocker91]

I don't know if it's the same one you're referring to, but I remember a TV show about a bunch of tank restorers on the Isle of Wight many years ago... When they stripped down the Panther they had, they found every oiling point had been blocked with cigarette butts, and on one of the final drives, two teeth had actually been cut off and then glued back onto the gear. Which would inevitably fail after very short time.

[@williampaz2092]

@@thelordofcringeIt was the only way any of them had to fight back. Everyone knew they could be the next ones shot, so why not strike back now?

[@thelordofcringe]

@williampaz2092 because they werent going to be shot. They were selected for the assembly lines for a reason. It was a vastly safer job than almost every single other one given to prisoners. Well, besides the allied bombing but that was dangerous anywhere.

[@Unb3arablePain]

Bro hated the Panther so much he not only included it in the other day's "Overrated WWII Tanks" video, he made a whole MP video just to slander it even more.

[@oxcart4172]

It's not him. It's his writer!

[@4362mont]

It's partly resentment over the name.

[@trainmanroysmodelrailroadh7686]

Why when showing how bad the panther suspension was..did they then show tiger tanks..lazyness!

[@4362mont]

@@trainmanroysmodelrailroadh7686 Oh, dang.

[@ricktaylor4789]

Your writers need to do their research. Everything you said was wrong about the Panther was wrong with the Tiger. The Tiger suffered far more mechanical breakdowns than the Panther. The Panther was all around a superior tank to the Tiger, T-34, and the Sherman. Try making a video with real facts next time, and for Christ's sake, label the Sherman and T-34s CORRECTLY! Don't spout off about things you don't know anything about or understand! For the record, the Panzer IV was an average tank at best. Get your shit together.

[@stiimuli]

Which German tank was the best? The Luchs. Why? Its adorable.

[@AlphaHorst]

ah a man of culture

[@smalltime0]

What does the Luchs have going for it? 1. Mechanical Reliability 2. Wicked suspension 3. Great tracks 4. Sloped armour 5. Range and Speed Main issue with the Luchs is that is was easy to confuse the main and secondary guns in the turret. They're basically the same calibre.

[@brendenrathgeber998]

Tanks are not cute. They are killing machines

[@MrBoombast64]

Yea, It Luchs good! :)

[@nickjancha6979]

Did the luchs have sloped armor? I thought it was boxy like the tiger...​@smalltime0

[@ChristopherHartman1]

At 10:03, you reversed the Sherman and T-34 images.

[@RaymondTracer]

haha! You know what that means, right? Factboi doesn't know what he's talking about! Every tank must look the same to him!

[@184Kitkat]

There were a lot more such errors, esp the first 5 minutes

[@in_absentia]

14:35 the right side tank is never a Panzer IV, looks like AI made this thing.

[@ImpalerVladTepes]

Beat me to it

[@mikeclendenin6407]

Does things like that all da time.

[@thomasarens8296]

This comment section is about to get rowdy 😂

[@mpersad]

😂😂

[@Adelina-293]

Wehraboos and teaaboos on approach vector.

[@prussianhill]

@thomasarens8296 oddly enough the comment section has been surprisingly quiet sofar.

[@thomasarens8296]

@@prussianhill agreed a little perplexing!

[@pavelslama5543]

Well what do you expect, considering the clickbait video title?

[@KPW2137]

Panther was not THAT bad and it could be quite capable. However: 1. Problems with the final drive and overall unreliability were a very serious issue. The fact that they were not really rectified is just mind blowing. 2. The tank was never really optimized for mass production: a lot of elements, like application of Zimmerit was taking time and resources without any real improvement. 3. Gunners sight was great for engaging targets at range, but not ideal for the situational awareness. 4. The mass of the tank was an issue on its own as it made any repairs and evacuation that much more problematic. On the other hand: 1. The gun was very good for its role. 2. The tank's armor was not bad. The side armor... can we talk about the side armor of pretty much any other tank of the war, with an exception of a few HTs that were supposed to be impenetrable from all sides? 3. The ergonomics - provided nothing broke down - were very good and that's one of the important characteristics that get often overlooked. Also, let's not forget that the Panther, unlike Pz III for example was rushed and a lot of issues that should have been ironed out were never addressed. The tank had its issues, but from the German point of view it had one advantage: it was OKish and available at the same time. Frankly, and on a very personal note: the German tank development during the war is a fascinating topic as on one hand, the Germans got a lot of thins right, for example the commander's cupola, overall tactics and importance of effective radio communication. Yet in the same time they were coming up with real disasters and bizarre projects.

[@dragonbutt]

Imagine if german wartime development was focused on improving existing designs and logic instead of having to appease the Fuhrer and his high ranking lieutenants. No supertanks or superplanes, actually funneling funding and materials into good ideas and not the grandiose ones. It would have been insane.

[@Dreachon]

Actually the Panther was far more optimised for mass production than other vehicles like the Panzer IV, III and StuG III. A report from personnel at the Daimler-Benz factory showed that in the same time it took them to build 5 Panzer III they could produced 4 Panthers. That is not bad given that the Panther is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the Panzer III. We also see it in the monthly production out of the Panther compared to the Panzer IV, as by March 1944 it the monthly production of the Panther begins to outpace the output of the Panzer IV.

[@sthrich635]

Just because Panther is much heavier and bigger than Panzer IV doesn't mean it was that much difficult to produce - many tends to get tank production wrong - mass and size are just one of many factors affecting production, simplicity of design, shapes, and details also played a major role, and one could say the design simplicity of Panther did well to offset many of added cost due to its larger and more powerful specifications. Take an example, a Panther turret might be a bit heavier than a Panzer IV one, so the Germans simply switched to a heavier duty crane, and still just lift the turret once, no additional steps here despite larger and heavier, no? On the other hand, Panther's simpler shape, and reduced armor plates, plus fewer holes on plates to be cut, and not to mention not needing to attach multiple railings for armor skirts unlike the Panzer IV, meant Panther production took fewer steps than Panzer IV's, this also allowed factories worker to learn its production and improve efficiency much easier compared to Panzer IV, despite Panther being a newer tank.

[@infobeam1902]

It was a great tank. It was thrown into the mix just as it was being built. Of course it’s not going to be good from the get go due to teething issues.

[@armandolimon7465]

Nothing matters without a reliable power train system. No more than a third of the Panthers in a Panzer battalion were operable. If they can't even get into battle, then the tank is worthless.

[@cawimmer430]

Huh? Once the issues were fixed the Panther was actually a pretty good tank combining excellent mobility with strong frontal armor and a lethal gun. It was a balanced design and unlike the Tiger (which was designed a breakthrough tank and to be used in a specific doctrine) was designed to replace the Panzer III and IV and be used in rapid Blitzkrieg warfare. The main weakness was the final drive but the later Panther models received important fixes here which did improve its durability and reliability. I believe it was Guderian himself who mentioned that Panther units reported an average of 1000-1500 km mileages with Panthers before any serious maintenance had to be performed. That’s pretty good. Of course maintenance is something that can’t always be performed in a war of rapid movement leading to the inevitable failure of parts which then result in a potential breakdown. As the war situation deteriorated for Germany fuel, spare parts and basic maintenance couldn’t be performed on their tanks in the field leading to breakdowns or abandoning the tanks.

[@johndough1703]

He's just found a hate-niche that accelerates his clickbait numbers. I don't know why people still watch him, then I remember how dumb most people are, and it makes sense.

[@bluesrocker91]

​@johndough1703 Which begs the question, what are you doing here?

[@johndough1703]

@@bluesrocker91 I predicted your comment, almost verbatim, and almost addressed it. I clicked this suggested video to see if his shameless money grab had backfired as I hoped it would. No, I didn't waste time watching much of the video.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

German tanks and supplies were targeted by allied air right from the factory and all the way out the front. The all-important workshops were high priority targets as well. The Allies had a long, but also very safe supply line.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@johndough1703 "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe". Albert Einsten (supposedly).

[@slashteam8440]

I feel like the writer didn't do the cost benefit analysis for the stug because it would have proved the stug life is the best life🎉

[@dragonbutt]

Memes aside, for its cost and versatility and ease of manufacturing, the Stug is more or less on par with the M4 sherman for "Most useful tank".

[@pavelslama5543]

Calling Panther "terrible" is just straight up a clickbait. The tank had serious issues, especially the early series, but overall worked rather well, offered almost a heavy tank protection with a light tank mobility and medium tank firepower, while also retaining a sensible production price and mechanical complexity. All in all, if it wasnt rushed (it had to be, there was no time to finish it), it could have been an excellent tank. But still, I´d call it at least decent.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Terrible has several meanings, including "fearsome". I.e. Ivan the Terrible

[@Dont14-r4k]

Right, terrible is an overstatement, it was "bad" or decent. Nothing to speak home about but not a complete waste of resources. Honestly had they gone full in with the Panther program it could have been the first MBT, heavy tank penetration and armor with medium mobility, and of course that never would have happened because it would require the no-no Germans, well, to not be no-no Germans. So much potential wasted simply because the Germans were idiots, and stil wouldn't have won them the war, they needed diversion points way before 1943 for a victory to be plausible.

[@sapiensiski]

It was okayish, nothing more

[@slopedarmor]

​@sapiensiski not trash like the t34 tho

[@DanBray1991]

@@Dont14-r4k I mean in Hilary Doyle's opinion it *IS* the first MBT. It had the capability and was intended at one point to replace the vast majority of German tanks apart from the extremely niche vehicles.

[@Schattenspieler1982]

I may be wrong, but to me the pictures and masses @10m08s do not match - T34 and Sherman swapped places.

[@badgers1975]

No you're right

[@Sticks04]

Yep... noticed that myself. Mistakes happen.

[@ericfelegie6371]

100

[@cheechwizard7564]

I actually had the chance to talk to someone who crewed panthers in the last part of WWII and later went into the US Army. He told me the Panther was generally hated by crews and was a nightmare to maintain in the field. He said his battalion had more tanks down for mainenance than were available to fight. He also told me that in '45 his battalion CO finally said "screw it" and surrendered enmass to the US Army.

[@robertpullen3726]

Not really. I have met a few tankers mainly ex ss and they told me that they all loved the tank. I did have its problems but it could still take anything out that got in its way.

[@barrywood7234]

I spoke with a WW2 American armored infantryman who praised the Panther in this way. He pointed at an approx. 3 to 4 Foot wall alongside a road and said, " that damn thing could cross a field faster than you could aim at it and climb that wall there without slowing down, it's wheels and tracks just flowing up and over and it would just keep right on going".

[@rolandhunter]

Nice anecdote.

[@sthrich635]

That guy probably was just "picked up" and thrown into a Panther battlegroup with zero tank experience. And by that stage of the war it likely was severely undersupplied. No crews would appreciate a broken tank with no spare part available to fix, just as no soldier would like a rifle without bullet. Again logistics let the tanks and crews down, not the tank itself.

[@lddcavalry]

They weren’t surrendering because of the Panther just nonsense.

[@DanBray1991]

"All Serious Historys speak of the Panther as a monumental heap of Junk"....... I think Jentz, Zaloga and Hilary Doyle would like to have a word. Seeing the most casual say the tank was amazing, amateur historians refer to it as a piece of junk, while the serious historians refer to it in a mixed manner. Not as unreliable as people often claim, but not some miracle weapon either. Sure it had it's problems and was rushed into service, but I think this video goes far too far on the opposite side of bias. For example after numerous improvements, by the end of the War it was almost as reliable as the Panzer IV series. It's also fairly well known that the standard variants of the Tiger I and II actually had higher reliability rates than both the Panther or Panzer IV, mostly due to it's more expensive and high quality parts. I honestly expected better from Megaprojects.

[@die1mayer]

The middle ground is the reasonable position, but it has become popular these days to whine about german military and wehraboos.

[@morstyrannis1951]

This seems like a click bait video. No one disputes that the earlier versions had major problems. But everything I’ve read states that fixes were made such that even the weakest components were at least in the last incarcerations . Issues of deliberate sabotage by the slave labourers involved in building the tanks coupled with shortages of rare metals definitely had a role, but likely impossible to quantify.

[@cyberleaderandy1]

Think the Chieftain would like a word as well

[@Andy-co6pn]

​@die1mayer Balances out those who point out everything German was brilliant and the allies just produced trash. Did the Panther have any effect to prolonging the outcome of the war ? No. Would all the industrial effort put into its production have been more valuable being used everywhere else ? Almost certainly yes. Germany was on the retreat everywhere by 1943. Panzer spearheads and breakthrough tanks were just a luxury that Germany couldn't afford. This belief by the maniacs in Berlin that new weapons alone could turn the tide and even win the war for Germany was what lead to its ultimate destruction.

[@JohnGaltAustria]

Cue in Lazerpig's video on the T-34. It is actually a massively overrated piece of crap.

[@prussianhill]

@@JohnGaltAustria Even Chieftan was less than enthused about the T34/85.

[@AviRox1154]

The T-34 was a reasonably decent tank on paper. The problems often arose during the actual production of the tank, largely thanks to rushed processes, inferior materials, and a general lack of QA. Post-war T-34s were a lot better, while wartime models were a lot more sketchy.

[@EverettGajerski]

So is lazerpig and almost every take he spews on AFVs:)

[@YouCaughtCzars]

​@@AviRox1154honestly the T-34's wartime production is interesting. They were rolling off lines as fast as possible in factories that were in cities under siege in some cases.

[@davemcduckful]

T-34 had innovative design and was vastly more reliable than the Panther. As Stalin said, "Quantity has its own Quality".

[@danielshegog4811]

Good job Simon. I know there are a lot of fans of the Panzer but as a retired Army tank guy myself, I know that the crews absolutely hated that tank. On paper it's a beast but because the initial issues were never really addressed,it broke down 75% of the time. They spent more time repairing than actually shooting. That's why a lot of Panzer battalions ended up surrendering to the Allies. If the engine or transmission of an Abrams breaks, we can have it swapped out in less than 30 minutes and the tank can be back in the fight. The Germans had not learned, that logistics win wars yet. By WW2 we had.

[@ukasz-zm9qc]

Don't exaggerate about the failure rate. The British used captured Panther A ,,Cuckoo,, for three months and only after that time they abandoned this tank because they had no spare parts.

[@mikect500]

Actually the last Panthers built were after the war. The French put a bunch together from parts in the factories and on the battlefield. They actually were going to open a factory in France and use it as their first post war tank. They even rebuilt the transmissions with better internal parts. Needless to say the program was a bust.

[@peterbrown3608]

I also read that the British did something similar, they found several unfinished Panthers in a factory, so they got the workers to come back in and finish building them. These were just for evaluation and testing purposes, but they didn't do anything with them from a production point of view either.

[@johnburns4017]

If I recall, they were recondition existing tanks, not build them new, as they inherited many.

[@mikect500]

@@johnburns4017 actually a combination of a lot of things to get a decent amount going. Then an hour later they all broke.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

It was the British who built a few Panthers and Jagdpanthers out of existing after they overran the factory. They seem to have been built to Ford Cortina 1962 quality standards. The French took over some 40 Panther A and G. May were combat damaged, and many showed clear signs of extensive sabotage.

[@sapiensiski]

They only used it as a training vehicle though

[@anathardayaldar]

I have sentimental bias. The panther was the first plastic model kit I "built" as a kid. Good times.

[@MartinChadwick-xe7gh]

He omitted that the circular gun mantlet created a major shot trap so if hit the lower part a shot could be deflected through the hull roof armour. The so called "Henschel" Tiger II turret went back to a flat face to avoid this issue. The Soviet 122 mm shell was so big that even a non-penetrating shot that hit here would disable the tank. Though 5 Panthers for the price of 6 Pz IV seem a good deal. I think the fact that there are far more references in just about every battle to Tigers when only 1300 were produced does suggest that a lot of Panthers spent most of their time out of action. The mechanical unreliability was probably less of an issue on the West front where distances travelled were smaller. I feel I have read somewhere that Panthers were generally railed to within 25 km of the front line to avoid moving under there own power which must have been limiting in Russia.

[@modero6370]

Tanks were from all sides preferable moved by rail to the front as close as possible for a lot of logistic reasons.

[@gordonbennett835]

I heard that the panther was the best tank Germany made with slopping armour and a good gun but it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Init

[@donwalsh4445]

NO IT IS IN THE 13 TO 1 KILL RATIO OF THE PANTHER

[@donwalsh4445]

10 to 1 kill ratio is not ART ......eye of the beholder what kind of fool are you

[@CarolynAnneRayner]

I've heard ww2 veterans say panther was Germany's best tank, they eventually fixed the teething problems, it's because Hitler wanted them out fast so quality suffered at first, it has a high velocity 75, enough to deal with Sherman or t34, it did the job it was intended for but there weren't enough, what's the army saying, if it gets projectiles down range it's not useless

[@TheSpinkels]

Eeh, be careful around vets and memoirs who play the blame game on Hitler. When the war ended ALL of them wanted cushy new advisory positions in the new European and United States world order, and to not get thrown into prisons or just a ditch. It wasn't THEIR fault they lost all those battles and had shit equipment, it was all the mustache man! All those German wonderweapons you've heard of like ray guns and UFO's? Pretty much all of them came from ex Nazi scientists wanting spots at US science and engineering firms and made . There is a loooot of BS when it comes to WW2 weapons.

[@cgo225]

Agreed - contemporaneous records clearly show that once the initial teething problems were ironed out, the Panther was a truly lethal beast on the battlefield in the hands of aggressive, well-motivated crews (of which there were many)..... Panther was feared on all fronts from late 1943 onwards but, by then, they were too few to swing the balance.

[@Jdsofar]

He needed them fast for an important reason. They were desperately needed on the eastern front where the soviets were planning a major offensive. He had to rush them out to face the overwhelming amount of t34s. They were first used at the battle of Kursk which was Germanys last major offensive in the east

[@otfriedschellhas3581]

At Kursk they were not ready, mechanically. Most tanks, most everything were rushed in war time, on all sides. I have heard that even the Sherman's had teething problems, and my dad of 2. SS Das Reich knocked out T34'swhen they first appearing front of Moscow, and found the driver had a heavy hammer to knock the gear lever. Talking about design flaws...

[@otfriedschellhas3581]

Further, the celebrated T34 had no turret basket, only enough room for a 3man crew, atrocious optics, mostly no radio., and as mentioned, severe gear shift problems. Soviet tanks incl T34 were knocked out at a ratio of 3-4 Soviet to 1 German Panzer right up to 1945, according to Soviet records. The average T34 lasted about 7 days and usually ended up destroyed or broken down before the first tank full was used up. Some record, some tank. All this info per Soviet records btw. The Panther was difficult to maintain, but generally good enough to outmatched the enemy- what counts most?

[@chrisvanlaarhoven2722]

Oh wow. The first picture of the Panther on the little pedestal with the plaque in front of it is actually the one in my city! It’s at General Maczekstraat, Breda, Netherlands. After WW2 it was given to the our city as a present by the Polish army who liberated Breda.

[@STHV_]

It is also the last surviving Ausf D

[@chrisvanlaarhoven2722]

Well, depends on how you define “surviving”…. Internals such as engine and most other parts as have been stripped to restore other Panthers. The external parts are pretty well kept though. As for battle damage, yeah, it survived unscathed. =p

[@Sticks04]

Awesome connection. 😀

[@Erevos85]

"General, a Panther broke down in Breda and we have no parts to fix it" "Strip whatever parts can be used and leave it there" "But General, the locals will complain" "Then tell them that it is a gift for the liberation of the city"

[@STHV_]

@@Erevos85 It's engine and transmission were removed in 2004 in exchange for a simple cosmetic restoration, these components are currently fitted to Kevin Wheatcroft's early Ausf A that is currently being fully restored.

[@1Reddd]

The only reason any of those problems are actual problems is because of the situation the Germans found themselves in during that time. The lack of materials and time forced the Germans to cut corners and rush the tank into production disregarding any problems that may come because of it. Reliability, logistics, cost, all could have been solved given enough time and resources. The design was solid, if they had the manufacturing might behind them equivalent to that of the USA or USSR there's no doubt that the Panther would have been the tank everyone thinks it is. However, given the situation they were in I absolutely agree that they could have used what little resources they had left to produce cheaper tanks in a higher volume.

[@somaday2595]

If the design was solid, why the constant problem of the engine overheating? And then there was the problem of the interleaved road wheels. One plus for the Panther- 79 rounds of 75mm storage capacity, which was appreciated on the Eastern Front.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

The political structure of Germany meant that those problems were *never* going to be fixed because they were never going to get resources to fix them. Fixing problems is fundamentally unsexy work that doesn’t look good in propaganda videos, and it requires admitting that a mistake was made. The German leadership therefore didn’t care about it and didn’t want to do it. And Germany was never in a million years going to be able to have the industrial might of even the USSR, let alone the USA. Germany was far too small, and the country’s bigoted grievance politics and conspiracy theorist leadership meant that they forced out many of their best and brightest scientists and engineers. So Germany wasn’t really *capable* of fixing the issues even if they wanted to.

[@1Reddd]

@@somaday2595 If you read my comment again, you'll get the answer to your question.

[@cawimmer430]

@@somaday2595, The engine overheating issues were mainly limited to the first Panther Ausf. D models and were quickly corrected. In fact most of the issues which affected the Panther Ausf. D were fixed as soon as possible so that the later models (A, F & G) weren’t really plagued by them. The main and most serious Panther issue was the weak final drives, but even here an effort was made to correct them on the later models and it worked since late in the war the Panther at times had even better operational reliability rates than the Panzer IV.

[@geralddrake3002]

I've read elsewhere that part of the reason it caught fire so often was because the manufacturer decided that the hull should be water proof even tho it wasn't in the requirements this led to fuel and oil collecting in the hull due to the constant leaks and then when the engine started to overheat it would cause them to combust.

[@clintonbock9976]

Horrible... implying it was extremely bad? Putting the points outlined in this documentary to one side for a moment, I didn't hear any first hand accounts about the Panther from either perspective? Listen and read a few of those as well examining the Panther from a purley technical perspective. To put it bluntly German tank crews loved it, Allied crews feared it. So it broke down... nearly all vehicles during WW2 broke down as the technology wasn't nearly as refined as modern designs. Battlefield recovery and logistics were key here, not so much the tank. There were issues with the road wheels but the pertinent point is it gave the Panther superior off road performance. The chances of damaging a wheel behind others which were in effect shielding it were few. Watch the testing video on cross country comparison with the Sherman. Final drives were an issue but mainly due to poorly trained crews and failure of quality control near the end of the war. Engine overheating, a product of being rushed into service were practically resolved later in the war due to redesign. The Panther was an evolutionary next step to defeat the threat as discovered in the east re KV-1 and T-34 as it was realised that at some point the Pz4 would reach an evolutionary dead end. In war you evolve, and evolve fast or you perish...Sure it costs more, but that's what arms races in modern wars are all about, they are more about economies and industrial capacity. The T-34 and Sherman also evolved to survive with T-34/84 and M4A2 and costs went up, but this is rarely discussed in the Panther argument. Also regarding evolutionary change, if the T-34 and M4 designs were able to accommodate so many upgrades, look at the result of a Panther upgrade, the Jadgpanther, a truly superior tank destroyer that was able to deal with every single tank on the european battlefield. Fact was, the Panther was an evolutionary step higher than the rest right upto the end of the war.

[@donwalsh4445]

you are 99%correct there are too many fools on these chats the panther was the BEST medium tank of ww2 even the U.S. knew this

[@braxtonmoore9246]

Wehraboo alert ‼️

[@levethane]

My great uncle told me how in late 1944 his division of Cromwell's and Churchill tanks were held up on the outskirts of a small town for many hours as a Panther was hiding in the middle, it was only after a brave scout discovered the tank was abandoned and the Germans had fled the previous day. No one wanted to attack the town because of the token tank. He also said he came back through the town a month after the war finished and the Panther was still there, it's transmission was locked up and they could not move it.

[@gooberfishin]

General Guderian thought the Panther and Tiger tanks were a complete waste of time and money. He believed Germany would have been better off with more Panzer 3’s and 4’s. History agrees with him.

[@brick2skull]

Great vid. Cheers to the loud "mom driving minivan to get groceries" music during the explaination of the armor thickness. (~9:00)

[@gordonbennett835]

At the end of the war the Royal Engineers built a Panther when they captured the factory and it is at Bovington Tank museum.

[@patreilly1458]

There was also a problem with "Shot Traps" on the first Panthers. One was the drivers vision flap on the sloped front. This would open upward to allow the driver to see where he was going when the access hatch was closed. When in combat the driver closed this flap but if a round hit that point it would go right on through into the drivers compartment. Later versions had this opening welded shut with a thicker piece of steel and in the last versions that opening was removed and a better periscope was put into the drivers hatch. The other shot trap from the front was the bottom of the gun mantle on the drivers side. The original mantle was a half round surface above and below the center. Some Sherman gunners would aim for the space between the bottom of the mantle and the top of the tank deck above the drivers hatch. The Sherman 75 mm round would bounce off of the mantle if it hit straight on but if it hit in the lower part of the gun mantle it would ricochet down ward and go through the driver access hatch killing the driver. One Sherman gunner knocked out 4 Panthers in one week using this tactic in Normandy.The Germans started making the mantle in later versions with the bottom of the mantle straight from the bottom of the gun to try and eliminate this shot trap.

[@sthrich635]

The shot trap tactic on gun mantle was actually rarely performed, and usually in absolute emergency being forced to do so. NO Sherman or T-34 tank commander in the right mind would drive and position their tank right in front of Panther's deadly Pak 42 gun, and such tactics were generally only reliable at close range, much less than 1 km, as the short 75mm gun of Sherman lack first shot accuracy to hit such a small and specific area. For Allied tanks, the default way to dealing Panthers was always advancing quickly and flank their thinner side armor, not taking any chance with the shot trap stunt.

[@bluecedar7914]

In France, the low countries and western Germany it was rare to get a clear shot more than 500 metres distant unless holed up in a commanding static position. In the bocage around Normandy 80 metres was more the norm.

[@MartinSparks-ef9gr]

Very few t-34 ever took out 15 panthers on it's own . This was common for panther crew's. It had it's flaws , many were fixed in the panther G . Late war german armour was not carbon face hardened like earlier armour was and as a result , even the increased side armour on the G was not enough . It was good enough the French army used it directly after ww2 .

[@joelex7966]

The Chieftains Hatch covered the Panther and found that ergonomically the Panther was a nightmare. The gunners sight had a very narrow field of view, the loader was constricted and the ability to see out from the inside was limited for the entire crew.

[@krasavchik8714]

Panther was a great tank. What is this guy talking about? It was only slightly more expensive than late PZ-IV but a lot more powerful in every aspect. After 1943 it was perfectly fine in terms of reliability since it used HL230 engine that was underpowered for Tiger and Tiger 2, but perfect for a lighter Panther aka PZ-V. Stupid video.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Even the Tiger 1 had a better power to weight ratio than most Sherman variants.

[@robertkohnke873]

The problem I have with this video is that it deems the tank terrible by external factors. When you deem a tank bad, it should be because of its overall design, not because of its poor manufacturing. That isn't a design flaw. The same can be said for the Tiger.

[@stancil83]

Tank Battalion Commander: „Hier ist Ihr Panther, und denken Sie daran, dass ein Werkzeug nur so gut ist wie die Person, die es führt. Sogar ein Holzlöffel kann in den richtigen Händen eine tödliche Waffe sein.“

[@mwhite112393]

"Marzipan marital aid" has to be the silliest comparison to a Panther's transmission I think I've ever heard.

[@kaltaron1284]

Funny how that article "Could an M4 Sherman Tank Even Survive Against a German Pather?" shows a Pzkw. IV Ausf. F2. The one behind it looks like a Pather though. Simon used the same picture correctly later. The M4 Sherman had less than 40 mm side armour (unless uparmoured) and it was completely flat. So the Panther isn't alone in having easily penetrated sides. Heck, even most modern MBTs are pretty vulnerable from the side. The T-34 was more the exception than the rule but even the side wouldn't be enough to stop most rounds and the front was weaker than other tanks. It was light but it paid for it with crew performance. Soviet winter isn't the season where mud is the huge problem. (Cold is.) Spring is the muddy season. To keep relying on the Pzkw IV would have been worse for crew survivability and it has a worse gun. Maybe good enough against Shermans and T-34s but against IS-2s let alone 3s? IMHO switching turreted tanks to lower priority as they are most useful for breakthroughs and maneouver warfare and focusing on casemated tank destroyers like the StuG-3, Jagdpanzer 4 or even Jagdpanther would have been better. Or some of the very light conversions like the Nashorn.

[@davemcduckful]

Sherman firefly. Drops microphone.

[@thelordofcringe]

T-34 did NOT succeed with crew performance. It was notoriously bad for crews, rating amongst the worst medium tanks in terms of crew comfort, crew visibility, crew protection, etc etc etc.

[@kaltaron1284]

@@thelordofcringe Where did I say otherwise? Or did I word something poorly?

[@davemcduckful]

@@thelordofcringe Seems they served well for at least 50 years post WWII. German armor, not so much.

[@donwalsh4445]

THE SIDE SKIRT AND OVERSIZE WHEELS INGNITED THE HEAT ROUND BEFORE IT GOT TO SIDE ARMOR GERMAN INVENTION THAT IS USED ON ALL MODERN TANK EVEN ON THE TURRET LIKE ON THE ABRAMS

[@davidsaunders941]

Statistically, Panthers survived longer in ''the field'' than any other German tank...

[@joshuadempsey5281]

yeah cuz they were half in the repair depot and not in action lol

[@ScottHendrix-yz3du]

​The tank was rushed into Battle without any teething time or trial period. All machines need a trail and teething period. After Kursk adjustments were made , training became proper and the tank got considerably better!!!. ​@@joshuadempsey5281

[@Based_location]

@@joshuadempsey5281the depot is not the field

[@joshuadempsey5281]

@@Based_location they weren’t getting knocked out because they were in the repair depot, but still technically deployed to their field of action. They broke down, and while in the repair depot, couldn’t be shot and lost. So the statistics make panthers look good, but they were shit.

[@muhammadazzandra3978]

The Panther's reputation of being terrible is exaggerated. Despite early issues, it was a solid tank with modest protection, mobility, and firepower. It could have been even better if it hadn't been rushed into production.

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

This is not a terrible tank at all even the T34 and Pershing tanks have a problem of their own. This uploader is just biased towards the Panther. Despite its problems, the Panther is the most beautiful and well designed Tank of the war. The root of the Panther tanks problem is Germanys lack of proper metal alloys for its bearings and final drive gears that makes it brittle and it's excessive weight that overload it's otherwise powerful engine.

[@die1mayer]

The Panther was like an early MBT, all its mechanical issues were due to rushed production. German crews felt that it was far superior to the T34.

[@BugattiONE666]

yeah, and human being KNEW it was superior to T-34

[@noldo3837]

It could. When it was produced (less were produced). When it got to the place where needed (heavier, more difficult to transport). When it worked. When it broke - it was more difficult to tow out, and to repair in the field. When average tank would be more numerous, easier to get where needed, easier to maintain, tow, and reoair, and in 85% it would do same service.

[@donwalsh4445]

GERMAN CREW NOT FELT IS WAS BETTER THEY PROVE IT NOT LIKE THIS IDIOT WITH ALL HIS NOT FACTS VIDEOS RUSSIAN WERE TOLD TO USE CAPTURED PANTHERS THE GERMANS TANK CREWS SAID THE SHERMAN WAS THE BEST ALLIED TANK NOT THE RUBBISH T34

[@georgefox4982]

The thing the T34 had going for it was the 10s of thousands that were built

[@duedman-alleswasknallt5775]

7:50 talking about the armor layout while showing a picture that says "dimension sheet for dummy construction" 😆

[@jeffdave8884]

17:25 I hate to be "that guy" but the graphic swapped the weights of the 2 tanks over.

[@Apocalypse_Meow...]

I saw a show where someone climbed in and looked at it from the inside, too~ it's unbelievably cramped! Moving around was a claustrophobic nightmare!😂It doesn't sound like enough for an episode, but I thought I'd mention it. 👍😎

[@martinstallard2742]

1:15 a brief history 6:05 design 11:27:the issues 16:40 conclusion

[@MSimpy-js4db]

Good video, very objective! You should do a video about the Curtis P-40 Warhawk!! Lots of hardware used in WWII has historically been either over or underrated…more than likely as a result of a couple biased reports from during the war or shortly thereafter, that have been repeated ad nauseam without considering any of the actual historical accounts by those who actually used said hardware. I believe the P-40 to be one such piece of equipment. Its full potential was hamstrung by high ranking officials making uneducated guesses before its use in the war. Then the fighter tactics taught early in the war were found to be suicidal, but only after the airplane was blamed by the press and the same high ranking officials. Yes, the P-40 had its shortcomings, but the first hand accounts by those that flew it, and flew against it, paint a very different picture than most history books have.

[@tylerandrews4375]

The panther is not a German t-34, for the simple reason that the Germans were logically attempting to create better higher quality equipment rather the just mass producing tanks they couldn’t fuel and getting skilled tankers killed.

[@dwaynecunningham2164]

You make a good point I think

[@donwalsh4445]

YEAH A BILLION ANTS CAN KILL A ELEPHANT

[@tylerandrews4375]

@@donwalsh4445 yeah but the elephant is going to kill a lot of ants, and you don’t have infinite ants.

[@donwalsh4445]

@@tylerandrews4375 that was just a saying dah how the russuian think

[@EddieRicks-i8v]

The German tanks look great then and today 😊

[@Mattamaza]

Panzer 4 was never produced in vast quantities, nor was it designed to be. It was the most produced German tank of the war but only because it's production was ongoing all the way to 1945. In terms of monthly units produced the production quantity of the panzer 3 and panther were far superior.

[@soggycracker5934]

The T34 was much like many of the German tank. Very good. In theory. Because they don't work. The odd thing is, Germany STILL has this problem. Their cars are fantastic. In theory. Because they don't. Fkin. Work!

[@donwalsh4445]

CAN A T 34 BEAT A PORSCHE 917 CAUSE FORD CHEVY FERRARI CAN'T

[@soggycracker5934]

@@donwalsh4445 Well Ford and Chevrolet made tanks so... Probably.

[@donwalsh4445]

@@soggycracker5934 FIY FORD DID NOT MAKE TANKS NOR CHEVY WHERE DO FOOLS COME FROM

[@soggycracker5934]

@@donwalsh4445 Lolz

[@iannagel2499]

Most informative. Look forward to more posted segments. I am keen to see a post on the Tiger two or King Tiger.

[@MaticTheProto]

The panther was really good, just rushed

[@Kinzarr4ever]

There were definitely good ideas there, it was a strong concept, but when you zoom out to the scale of a full war, things like reliability, ease of mass production, and efficiency become really important. From that perspective, the Panther (as much as I love them myself) was a failure. Over-engineering tends to get you results that are impressive and cool but turn out to be extremely impractical under real-life conditions. Nazi's would've probably been better off pumping out swams of reliable, effective, proven STUGs. Not that that by itself would've been enough to win the war; they never had the resources or the industry to keep up with the combined economic might of the Soviets and the US; and they just fell further and further behind in the industrial race as the war went on and they started losing on the battlefield. Which makes it even crazier that the top nazi's / hitler thought complicated, expensive, resource-hungry super-tanks were the answer. Simplicity and fool-proof ruggedness are king, which is why the AK47 and the T34 (once they worked out the war-time faults) were such a massive success. That's why the AK and the T55 (the sucessor of the T34) were both the most produced weapon in their class of all times and are still in use around the world to this day. Yes, modern 'Western' gear is technically better, but you need to be a fairly rich country to be able to mass-proudce something like that. And Western equipment often needs a metric shit-ton of maintenance and support.

[@kaltaron1284]

They aren't wrong about most of the weaknesses but honestly it wasn't the tanks who decided the war.

[@davemcduckful]

Good for scrap. This is true.

[@die1mayer]

@@Kinzarr4ever Pushing StuGs (infantry support vehicles) into the anti-tank role was a stopgap solution and StuGs are not suitable for offensive operations due to the lack of a turret. Germany could only field a small tank force and it was sensible to go for the quality advantage, also the Panther was intended to become cheaper and easier to produce than the Panzer IV.

[@stevethomas4310]

Good video, I think the Panther is looked at mainly from a design perspective which makes it very good, as opposed to a real life view which you have so eloquently portrayed. One point which I would add, which affected all late war German tanks, was the armour quality which deteriorated drastically. That Panther front was impervious to most allied shot, 17lb excluded, but later on was liable to crack or just break off.

[@Wyrmnax]

In short: the panther was a excelent tank if you managed to get it to break down on a good and protected overwatch position. Its a great gun emplacement, but kinda fails on the whole mobility amd maintenance thing.

[@bluecedar7914]

Excellent summary. The Tiger I was even better in this situation, which is why it was more effective in Italy than on the eastern front or in western Europe.

[@getgaijoobed6219]

The main problem with most of the late war German tanks was sheer mass. Get this: a “medium” Panther tank was only around a ton or so lighter than the better protected Soviet JS-2 heavy tank…

[@rustythecrown9317]

Changing a damaged wheel was a nightmare.

[@whiplash8277]

I think you're on the right track in regards to economy and the rec'd "bang for the Reichsmark" angle. All out building of the up gunned Panzer IV's would have resulted in more of the efficient, proven IV's and a lot less resources and time used to manufacture them. "Quantity has a quality unto itself," someone, allegedly Stalin, stated.

[@larikauranen2159]

Didnt the panther require less or an equal amount of man hours making it compared to the pz. IV? I know it was unreliable but what ive learned these were fixed by the G variant but was hampered by the sabotaging efforts during its construction, but at the time, these were secondary worries since at that time, a panther was required to be an adequate defensive combat vehicle which in turn, when considering it as an offensive tank, supports mr. Whistlers argument of it being a poor tank. Overall, it really is circumstantual on how one rates the panther or any other german late war design

[@SatanKarma1]

Correct and iirc it cost about the same as the pz4

[@sapiensiski]

@@SatanKarma1 it actually cost less, which was quite remarkable

[@SatanKarma1]

@@sapiensiski i stand corrected which further reinforces the cheifains saying is one tank chat that germany would have been better off making more panther then continuing to build pz4’s

[@sapiensiski]

@@SatanKarma1 panther was also more simpler to manifacture

[@sthrich635]

Don't bother with this video sprouting obsolete German WW2 myth. Panther tanks was much more worthwhile than the Panzer IV, its design is much more efficient for its power and cost. The superficial video commenter literally just do maths with Reichsmarks value from Wikipedia, blatantly disregarding what the supply, fuel, and crew manpower situation Germany were facing at that time.

[@DarthContinent]

@10:03 oopsie here, you mention Sherman when tagging weight to T34, mention T34 when tagging weight to Sherman.

[@marclrx2495]

this is just clickbait there is no reason to be this petty about it, especially when you pull out all the "it's the worst tank ever made" talk it's just a video saying "this tank had some innovative features on paper and aimed to be the best in its class" and then "but it had some drawbacks that made it perform unreliably and bad in select situations" every tank video EVER is structured like that and I don't see why the Panther should get a special trash talk treatment just because somme wehraboos say it's the best tank ever made.

[@vladimpaler3498]

You forgot the fuel system issues on the early models. My suggestion was to build a huge number of STUG IV's. Way cheaper than the Panzer and can do most of the same jobs. Particularly in '43 when the long retreat began and no one was doing anymore Bewegungskrieg. The STUG IV can sit there, hiding, low to the ground and nail you with that 75mm long gun. The Panther, on the other hand, is a break-through tank that once into the enemy lines is a sitting duck from the sides. Even older anti-tank guns can kill you from the side.

[@keesvanharen9791]

Terrible? A kill ratio of 10-1 ain’t exactly terrible 😂

[@Chrisfrom_Dallas]

Point of the story was that only 5% were operational at any time.

[@donwalsh4445]

while these fools on these chats are looking at breakdown stats there are blind to the 10 to 1 kill ratio but a real general would take that every day

[@foshyurgason]

It absolutely can be. But yeah, ignoring literally any other fact, it doesn't sound bad initially

[@donwalsh4445]

@@foshyurgason liston to yourself.......do you understand what 10 -1 means

[@foshyurgason]

@@donwalsh4445 lmao. I'd love to be not ignorant, because you know the other statistics and you know that other factors go into making a tank successful or arguably good, but being stupid enough to ignore them. You should get a prize.

[@markymark3572]

The Panther's combo of having thick, sloped armour on the front & a high velocity gun that could knock out pretty much any allied tank at any range made it a formidable adversary. However, it was plagued with reliability problems, some of which were still being worked on up to the end of the war.

[@DruidTimer]

A good argument for why the Panther was rather lacking. It still gets points for looking good, and being the first of the "Main Battle Tank" concept. Despite the crappy final drives, poor engine cooling, cramped turret, and crappy road wheel arrangement. Having been a tanker, I can tell you that the last thing you want when you're moving, is getting rocks stuck in your road wheels, which can cause you to throw a track. My sympathy to the tankers who had to deal with the interleaved road wheels of the Panther and Tiger.

[@adlerarmory8382]

You know those Panzerfahrer were out at nearly every halt with the Panzerstock (Tanker Bar) prying all the rocks and mud he could, out of the Schachtelwerk roadwheels and arms, especially in freezing. temperatures

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

That whole "main battle tank" concept. Light tanks are too ineffective. Heavy tanks are too expensive. Most important armor is at the front (when facing the enemy) and big gun goes boom.

[@MetalCooking666]

Here’s the problem with discussing panthers and tigers. The received wisdom used to be that they were simply superior and allied tanks (or, at least, western allies tanks) were laughably pathetic by comparison. These days, the trend is to say that German tanks were over engineered, unreliable and made in insufficient numbers, so they would have been better off just making more Panzer IVs. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The Germans were never going to be able to match allied industrial might, even in a best case scenario in which they spammed Panzer IVs. So the alternative was to build mega tanks that inflicted disproportionate losses. The big cats were a Hail Mary.

[@bluecedar7914]

Older broadly post war material I read back in the eighties tended to state that German armour was over engineered and under produced. The "simply superior" claims were rare until about the turn of the century.

[@masudashizue777]

The same chassis was used for the Jagdpanther which was Germany's best tank hunter.

[@grandaddyoe1434]

. . . . which didn't have to rove all over the battlefield. Short journey, sit and wait, shoot and move a short distance, rinse and repeat.

[@davemcduckful]

That would actually be the Stug III.

[@kaltaron1284]

@@davemcduckful Depends on how you define "best". The Jagdpanther has considerably more firepower and armour but the StuG III was far more numerous and easier on logistics. IMHO the Jagdpanzer IV is in a nice middle ground between the two and has a nice low profile.

[@AlbionAirsoft]

Completely blanking on the “top trump” attitude he literally just mentioned in the video, you just pointed out your own mistake pal, more numerous and better logistically. Duh, you don’t win wars with wonder weapons, that’s exactly why hitler kept pushing for ridiculous builds at extreme cost and the eventual downfall of the entire nazi war machine.

[@AlphaHorst]

​@@grandaddyoe1434tank destroyers, or rather Jagdpanzers in the german army moved around even more than normal tanks, as they had to fill holes in the defense so as to keep the proper tanks ready for a counterattack... If a Pz IV moved 20km during a Battle the Stug III would easily do 50km... similar for the Jagdpanther and Panther tanks. Also teh Jagdpanther was heavier than the Panther. It also fixed the final drive issue to a point where it was more reliable than on the Tiger I and compareable to other german vehicles... The same is true for late war Panthers as well. The "Final drive" issue is a post war issue caused by the french building spare parts by using plans from 1942 and 43 because newer planes could not be found. That is also why the British Jagdpanther and Panther tanks not show the issues the french complained about when they operated their Panthers.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:20 - Chapter 1 - A brief history 6:10 - Chapter 2 - Design 11:30 - Chapter 3 - The issues 16:45 - Chapter 4 - Conclusion

[@jw7500]

The Panther was probably the first real MBT as we know them today. However, the project was rushed into service far, far before the concept had all the kinks worked out and yeah....

[@GeofftheIronwolf]

Wouldn't of mattered if they did. They had no supply chain to keep it in the fight and it was a pain in the ass to repair and maintain. I don't care how good it is on paper. If it can't be reliably put back into action after being damaged and critically so, it's a useless waste of material.

[@jw7500]

@@GeofftheIronwolf Oh absolutely Germany was cooked the moment they invaded the USSR considering the state of their military. All I was saying is that the Panther (and T-34) pioneered a lot of the design philosophy that you would see on tanks from the 50's onwards.

[@dragonbutt]

Less an MBT, more the apex of medium tank development. The point where only a technological breakthrough or groundbreaking idea will create something better than just piling on the armor and armament and trying to have medium tank mobility with any sort of feasibility.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@GeofftheIronwolf The Panther was designed to be easy to both mass produce and maintain in the field. Especially engine maintenance and replacement was easier than in most other tanks.

[@sapiensiski]

One of the main traits of an mbt is that its reliable whereever and whenever. Then panther was not reliable.

[@TheNigelrojo]

Conclusion: the tank was rushed into production before proper trials & testing, which had they been conducted would probably resulted in reasonably quick solutions to the overheating & drive train issues. The armour distribution & wheel layout would have taken longer, requiring some redesign.

[@BotHub]

His writer is so hurt that he tries to rewrite history 😂

[@donwalsh4445]

YEAH HAHAHAHA

[@evolvedmonkey9978]

At the time, German General von Kleist called the T-34/76 “The finest tank in the world”, when they first met it, Panther was a Sophisticated overengineered tank, that had lot's of transmission problems, but had a marvelous gun and magnificient optics and radio, Germans can't just make it simple, it's their flaw, they need to do everything a masterpiece, sometimes masterpieces are to complex for a rugged environment like a battlefield.

[@lostbutfreesoul]

Will say it here as I did the last video: Why do we, in the West, love listening to enemy propaganda?

[@notablediscomfort]

Stupid people crave emotional stimulation from their PR and aren't satisfied with how dull ours is.

[@thelordofcringe]

Because in the west we don't stage violent coups and execute our leaders, so they are free to lie to us day in and day out. Gradually, the society that cannot trust anything it's leaders say is going to fall prey to outside lies. What's the difference at that point?

[@towarzyszbeagle6866]

It never ceases to amaze me that something as rudimentary as the T-34-85 had both a magnified gunsight and periscope for the gunner. Whilst in the Panther the gunner has his magnified gunsight, and that's it. Life must have been boring for a Panther gunner.

[@Tiefschlag]

I have watched 3 minutes and have heard and seen so many misleading information and pictures.🙈

[@donwalsh4445]

IT IS PURE RUBBISH

[@ollep9142]

I've got a number of comments here: 1. Glad to hear someone also provide the advantages with interleaved road wheels. 2. Side armor: How bad was it in reality, compared to other tanks? Was the Panther decidedly more vulnerable to light AT weapons? I guesstimate it was "good enough". 3. Shot trap. The first (D) version had the lower part of the gun mantlet sloping inwards. Any shot hitting there was directed into the hull roof or turret ring. This was fixed in the later versions. 4. Relatively poor HE round. Most targets were not armored, so excellent AP isn't that useful when the most common threat is towed ATGs. The Sherman's 75mm HE round was far superior to that of the Panther, which is a big reason the Allied tank platoons had only one Sherman with 76mm/17pdr. 5. Best German AFV of WW2: In my mind that prize goes to the StuG IIIG. Cheap, reliable and did well in all three roles: Assault gun, tank destroyer and regular tank (as it was occasionally used in tank formations lacking regular tanks).

[@Mattamaza]

The light side armour was an issue as the Russian anti tank rifle could get through it. However once they equiped the side skirts it was no longer an issue. There is more side armour on a panther than a Sherman or t34.

[@josteinkallumbendtsen9576]

I read somewhere that it took about 130 hours (on average) learning how to shift gears smoothly on the Panther and Tiger tanks having between 12-16 gears. So yeah, the engine overheated, but bye the end of ww2, the drivers had less then 30 hours on learning how to shift gears, in some cases only 15 hours. Only 10% of the Nazi army was mechanized, so many Germans couldn`t even drive, before the war.

[@Lykyk]

You've read nonsense, Carius mentions repeatedly how easy it was to shift gears on the tiger compared to any other tank and that you could literally do it with one finger.

[@nemesiswarrior75]

The reason why the M4 Medium (Sherman) tank is so well regarded in WW2 wasn’t because it had the best gun, was fast, was well armored or because it survived being hit. It was really regarded as the most “average” or balanced tank. The M4 Medium greatest asset was very easy to work on & repair in the field. Even after entire crew was killed the damaged M4 could be put back into service within days.

[@cgo225]

Allied Sherman/M4 tanks were limited by weight as they were only manufactured in the USA, and had to be shipped across the oceans to the fronts, whereas the Germans had no such problem and could build larger tanks restricted to railway gauges, and the weight bearing capacities of bridges and roads. The Shetman was therefore the optimum solution for the allies, FORCING them to outnumber the German tanks which they knew were always going to be better but fewer in number..... It's wrong to believe the allied commanders callously sent their tanks against Panthers and Tigers....they weren't callous, they were doing the best they could with what they were given.

[@5co756]

Of course they send a Sherman back to the front in 2 days , completely burned out and a few 88mm or 75mm holes in it . Not that they had enough of them , why should they recover a damaged tank anyways ? Were did you guys read all this BS ? Is it in your head ? 😅

[@nemesiswarrior75]

@@5co756USA recovery of Tanks during WW2 was higher than you imagine. The US Army had hundreds of repair/ recovery units in Europe. Yes, USA built 50k M4 Mediums, but they also knew they had to maintain the tanks they had in theater. If a tank broke down or was damaged in combat, was recover 3/4 of time. Even if the tank was beyond repair it was stripped of anything that could be used. As I stated the M4 was very easy to gain access & replace parts. No a burned out tank wouldn’t ever be back in service in couple days. Read history books. Logistics are key to victory. Ask the Russians.

[@5co756]

@@nemesiswarrior75 Later they got recovered , to have spare parts . That's a different thing , you said recovered and put back into action within days . If the armour gets penetrated , this whole front plate is useless . Only scrap metal , or you think they welded the holes with boiler plates ? 😅 You need to read such reports carefully , they recovered a lot yes . But not to put them back in 2 days , while the tank got completely annihilated by enemy fire .

[@nemesiswarrior75]

@@5co756 there is a lot of reports where they patched 75mm & 88mm holes in the armor. No joke they plugged the holes, welded plates over it & painted the tank. They did this to put tanks back into action. They also did this because Replacement crews didn’t want to know the previous crew person at that station likely was killed. There are plenty of reports were entire platoons & company of tanks were replaced with refurbished M4 Medium Tank 5x over from D-Day to end of war. It happened. Even with the USA massive amounts of equipment they used everything they had. They would put useable turret from a destroyed M4 on different M4 Hull that had a destroyed turret. They did this within days of it arriving at a forward depot in the field.

[@longtabsigo]

17:00; the aspect that you skipped over is one I have actually had to deal with. You demonstrated that for every 5 Panthers, the Germans could have built 6 Mk IV’s; true. BUT could they have manned those “extra” 1,500 tanks? Would it not be better to have 5 manned tanks than 6 partially manned ones. And for every “extra” Mk IV you need ammo, ammo handlers, extra mechanics, more cooks to feed the crews, more administrative/paymasters/personnel clerks etc etc to handle all those extra crews….in a zero sum gain environment, would the extra management, manpower, training areas, syllabus time etc been available? You asked Simon! Thoughts?

[@masonharkness6437]

considering 1,500000 Germans surrendered in the month of April 1945 I think they certainly would’ve. If the short angry funny looking moustache man didn’t intervene with germanys development and war manufacturing the war could’ve dragged on for a lot longer I feel

[@vanceed5051]

Ok, forget the extra. Just consider it a measure of resources lost. Keep it at the 5 P4s. This are 5 P4s that are effective, instead of 5 P5s that broke down every 200km.

[@gg4760-k5n]

Your point would stand a chance if the Panther was as reliable as the PzIV but it wasn't. Arguably, the unreliability of the Panther could mean more strain on the war effort since you need constant repairs VS a tank that would just run so you could have mechanics and logistics focused on something else, or even man the extra PzIV available. Also having tanks you can rely on means you can build bigger better tactical plans which they would have also benefited from. Last point, building the same amount of PzIV or even slightly more than the Panther that would have meant more budget available which could have been invested in the development of jet fighters to try and regain some control in the sky, which is ultimately what caused the demise of the Germans, both in the field and in terms of weapon/ammunition production.

[@longtabsigo]

@@gg4760-k5n I will stipulate that I allowed a degree of “presentism” that led to “confirmation bias.” My first hand experience is in actuality creating units from scratch as well as submitting justifications for altering unit’s manning to increase authorized leadership paths. The Germans had a similar process that says, for example, for every “X” soldiers in a unit, you must have “Y” cooks, for every “Y” cook you must have a field kitchen. For every field kitchen you must have “2Y” horses; for every “Z” horses, you must have “S” Stablemasters. One of the things that withstood thru early ‘45 was the Germans heavy reliance on maintaining a strong Staff Structure to act as a force multiplier. If we exclude the “Heliphant” in the room, that Hitler was personally involved from concept to the type of engine he wanted, using pure math, available data on production costs; Pnzr Mk IV was 11% cheaper than the Panther, the delta between production costs of the Mark IV & Panther would yield ~992 “extra” IV’s. (7,900+/- or 15,500). Would those “extra” 900 allow new units or just keeping up with battle losses, I don’t know. But many decisions made at national levels comes down to reliability vs survivability. As a Combat Developer in the Army, unless a new item does 3 things, it’s hard to justify; it must Increase Survivability & Lethality and Reduce Fratricide as Screening criteria whereas Reliability is an Evaluation criteria. The Panther checks those 3 screening boxes. In combat, the Panther survives much of the damage that kills Mark IV’s; BUT, it must be able to get to that gunfight. In light of your position, (with Zero cynicism) it’s supported by Stalin’s “quantity is a quality of its own.”

[@Mattamaza]

Major problem with the German tanks was to seperate Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 into two seperate vehicles built by seperate factories. If they were the same tank (with a different gun) then the availability and commanaity of spare parts would have helped them a lot on the early stages of babarosa.

[@TheJMBon]

Most historians when they gauge what tank was the best in World War 2 judge the tank based on the number of enemy kills versus the number of units lost to enemy action. Very few historians take into account the technical and logistical problems associated with that tank.

[@alfnoakes392]

But if a fair few are lost but not to direct enemy action, as described in the video, the 'units lost' is under-reported in terms of how effective a use of resources that tank design actually was. Probably applies to a certain extent to the T34 too, especially the early ones.

[@DanBray1991]

Not sure where you get that from? I know Doyle + Jentz most certainly take into account the vehicles ready rates. The weirdest thing about this video is Simon saying at any time up to 50% of Panthers could be out of action under repair at any one time, ignoring the fact the Panzer IV often had a ready rate of only 45%-65% depending on when in the war and front you look at.

[@alfnoakes392]

@@DanBray1991 Good points. Would be interesting to have out-of-action-under-repair 'comparison figures' on eg Sherman, T34, and the Big Cats. One of those subjects that will go on and on (but be interesting) ...

[@donwalsh4445]

yeah who care if it break not knock out after it takes out 13 tanks and broken tank can be repared

[@peteua61]

Entertaining vid. I’m curious @megaprojects, what fueled the post war obsession with the Panther and different German tanks that continues in any circles to this day?

[@5co756]

This video is a summary of all KZbin comment section historians , full of BS and myth's . Go and watch the Swedish tank test of a Panther and a Sherman , the Sherman barely managed to pass a single test . And this test was not about fire power or armour , wich also goes to the Panther .

[@donwalsh4445]

yeah should there be proof before one can post because this ia BULLSHIt you tube

[@TonyClarey]

Turret rotation was supposedly very slow as well, putting it at a disadvantage to getting off first shots vs. M4's.

[@lewisbrand]

The Panther was such a good tank that Britain had 14 manufactured after the end of hostilities for testing , trials and evaluation. The French utilised at least 200 of them for around 10 years after WW2 in tank formations in the French Army, and much of it's design details are still being used today, including the new Challenger 3. The Panther was not a bengal tiger, it was a shark with teeth.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

The French only used them because they had nothing else. The British Challenger tanks don’t share any design DNA with the Panther. It’s also worth noting the British quite clearly thought it was worse than their existing tanks. You can tell, because they kept using their existing Shermans instead of switching to panthers.

[@lewisbrand]

@@michaelimbesi2314 what nonsense ; there were thousands of perfectly good Shermans available at war's end in France. and setting up dedicated ammunition and spare parts supplies for the Panther meant the French had to go out of their way to accommodate these machines,

[@sidetracknick3984]

The answer to your question is the Tiger IE. If not for logistical issues, it was the overall best German tank of the war. Sherman was the best allied tank. Both of these tanks did exactly what they were designed to do and more. There are tanks that could match or beat various measurements and statistics - which is how most people compare tanks, because it's easy. But if I were to have to serve in a tank for couple of years on either side, it would be one of these two.

[@Evolution_Kills]

Ugh. Anyone who wants to get into a dick measuring contest over 'The Bestest Tank' and only looks at the on paper stats for gauging it's effectiveness in a 1v1 fight against another tank is talking complete bollocks. Tanks were, are, and remain far more than just the sum of their parts. They are more than just numbers on a spreadsheet. How easy was the tank to manufacture? What was the quality of the actually manufactured units? How easy or hard was the tank to maintain in the field? How much of a strain did it put on logistics to field it? How well did it work in conjunction with the infantry units it was meant to support? What were the ergonomics like for the crew manning the tank? How easy was it for a tank crew to operate, maintain, and fight in their tank? How likely was the crew to survive the tank being disabled or destroyed? That's why the M4 Sherman was one of the best tanks of the war. It was reliable, effective, easy to maintain, easy to operate. Being as small as it was for logistical reasons, meant that it was also small and light enough to use use infrastructure (like bridges) that heavier tanks could not. The US was able to reliably pump them out in huge numbers while maintaining a high quality. And if the tank were disabled in combat, the expensive and experienced crew would be very likely to survive and live on to fight again. Just looking at relative engine power, cannon caliber, or armor penetration tables aren't going to get you there...

[@LeoMajor1]

if the m4 had some armor it might actually be decent, but then again it's not penning anything in the front that isnt a light or early med tank

[@kaltaron1284]

@@LeoMajor1 That may have been true for the M4A1 but starting with the M4A3 the 76 mm gun gave them a good fighting chance (against Pzkw III and IV at least) and there were also uparmoured variants like the M4A3E2.

[@thelordofcringe]

​@@LeoMajor1and neither is anything it faced beyond the panthers. Panzer 4s were far inferior. Tigers could still be destroyed from the sides and were easily flanked by the far more mobile sherman. Panthers had the same problem, although we didn't face many of those.

[@thelordofcringe]

​@@kaltaron1284the sherman 75 could penetrate a panzer 4, it was a superior gun to what the T-34 had and they had no issue with panzer 4s

[@genek8630]

Absolutely, it has to do with a lot more. Crew experience, luck, who gets the first shot in, and where that shot hits, where the engagement takes place, in a town, in the woods, or on the steppes of Russia, etc. To say it was a terrible tank is stupid. I usually don't pay much heed to content coming from a channel that's not dedicated to one subject, be it planes, trains, AFV's, or house plants.

[@mchrome3366]

I absolutely agree. I’ve always thought the panzer 4 with the l48 gun was more than enough firepower to go through the war. The L48 gun on the stug 3 took out 30 thousand allied tanks so it more than proved itself.

[@propernoun1583]

Even if a Panther could take down four Shermans, you were far more likely to find four Shermans than one Panther. Not to mention that the Panther was incredibly poorly equipped to handle cold and muddy terrain, and would often catch fire or break down without even making it to the battlefield.

[@GerryProudfoot]

that 4-1 ration soft often mentioned by wehraboos has nothing to do with actual losses. Losses of western tanks to German Pz V and and VI was slightly above 2:1. Whta is true is that the British used 4 tanks troops and the US 5 tank platoons,... so wehraboos assumed that this Pz V or VI killed everyone they faced before "one more" arrived to finish of our tuetonic hero.

[@Kapik1081]

The Panther had superb performance in muddy terrain and it was less likely to get stuck in mud than the T-34 or even american light tanks (the panther had ground pressure of only 150kN/m2; the T34 had 174kN/m2 and M4s at best 205kN/m2; the M24, a light tank, 180kN/m2). Panthers gasoline engines also performed much better in cold than Russian diesels did. In conditions in which starting a T-34s engine would be a major challenge Panthers engine would start with no problem. The reliability of Panthers was only a major problem in 1943. In 1944 with most problems ironed out Panthers could drive 1500 - 2000 km between major overhauls. Not great but still above average for tanks of that weight of that time. Also there being more Shermans than Panthers is more a merit of american industry rather than of the tank itself.

[@propernoun1583]

@@Kapik1081 Not every issue was solved, and even then, the Panther was extremely difficult to repair, the wehrmact had to add a metal skirt (which slowed it down) because 1943 Soviet anti-tank rifles with 14.5 mm ammo could puncture the hulls of the vehicle. The overlapping wheel system was terrible for muddy terrain, and even though this was fixed, the fact that it made it into the original design for use in Barbarossa was just insane. The final drive system was incredibly fragile and required a well-trained crew to effectively manage. Not exactly helpful when your experienced crews are getting killed faster than they can be trained. The best tanks are ones that can quickly spot and immobilize the opponent, since unlike what the media has shown, tank-on-tank battles were extremely rare. Although, in Arracourt, the American Shermans defeated the German Panthers despite actually having a numerical disadvantage. The Shermans won through the ability to simply outmaneuver the Panthers and immobilize them. The fact that the Sherman was faster, more agile, easier to repair, highly mass-producible, and adaptable enough to fight on every single front of the war. It then went on to see use in the Korean war, and even served as part of the IDF in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

[@austinhicks7405]

The ratio also has issues due to the different ways the opposing forces counted losses. Can't remember where I read or saw that, so I can't cite the source.

[@5co756]

@@propernoun1583 You should watch the Swedish tank test of a Panther and a Sherman , it will open your eyes kid . The Sherman outmaneuvers itself . 😅 All your knowledge is from the KZbin comment section , your read it and repeat it 24/7 .

[@justjoking5841]

Average rate of working tanks was somewhere between 60% and 70% or so. On the long retreats that most forces had gone through, most vehicles that were busted, had to be abandoned and destroyed. Crews (especially inexperienced ones) often panicked and couldnt recover their tanks as the enemy advanced.

[@nickrowe7451]

I can hear the wehraboos typing…

[@smalltime0]

If Hitler had half the manpower of the wehraboos at the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets wouldn't have stood a chance.

[@5co756]

@@smalltime0 If only 10% of that BS wich people repeat under KZbin comments would be true , the Germans would have got their asses kicked at the Polish border . End of WW2 , what took the allies more than 5 years if the Germans only made crap ?

[@Bodkin_Ye_Pointy]

The other interesting facts were that both the Pzr Mk III & IV were up-armoured as well as up-gunned while the engines did not keep pace with the power. This meant in 1942 they were slower than in 1939. But they were more reliable than the big cats. Also, at the start of the war, the Pzr III & IV were probably the best ergonomically designed tanks in the world. A spacious turret that allowed the gunner and loader to operate as well as the commander meant better control and reaction times. By comparison the T34 was cramped and often the crew had their first experience with the vehicle as they drove it into battle. Soviet doctrine wanting to minimise wear and tear until the last minute. French tanks did not have radios and the British Cruiser tanks were harder to maintain due to production methods. What people don't seem to realise is that all tanks needed constant maintenance to keep operating and it was not combat every day. Deighton noted about 30% of the Panzer force that swept through Poland were out at any given time needing service. That was above the battle losses. Further the Poles with their little TKS 20mm tankettes were punching holes in Pzr IV's

[@donwalsh4445]

SAME FOR THE T34 UPGRADE AND GOT SLOWER......HAVE YOU SEEN PIC OF INSIDE TURRET OF THE T34 I DONE KNOW HOW THEY LOADED THE GUN HAHAHAHA

[@LeeHarris]

God... I am not watching this just because this is a perfect example of clickbait titles.

[@skyerose501]

Get off the channel then? Tf. Why are you here.

[@tgorski52]

British click bait no less

[@LeeHarris]

@@tgorski52 Indeed. Everyone knows the German tanks were a thousand times cooler than all that British crap.

[@kaleoariola]

Well done! Highly informative and enjoyable to watch as always. Mahalo for sharing.

[@apathyguy8338]

Why is it when they talk about World War II and mechanized War nobody ever brings up the fact that Germany used horse and carriage for supply transport the entire War. They never fully implemented trucks.

[@kaltaron1284]

Lack of rubber mostly. And fuel of course. Germany was seriously lacking in much of what was needed for a modern war.

[@dragonbutt]

@@kaltaron1284 This, granted that germany wasnt alone in doing so. All nations up to the end of 1945 used horses to move supplies in some way, shape or form.

[@許進曾]

Because those aren’t glamorous like tanks, the humble truck and liberty ship carried the allied towards victory. Tactics win battles, logistics win wars.

[@kaltaron1284]

@@許進曾 Also copying the design of the Jerry can.

[@bryanduncan1640]

Panzer IV Ausf G is the one for me. If they had just churned out these, along with the Stug III, I wonder how much longer the war would have lasted? I still think the final outcome would have been the same, just harder to achieve.

[@flood3456]

The panther paradox. -Lazerpig.

[@threeone6012]

Counterpoint: Every new weapon system fielded in WW2 had serious problems. For example, the Corsair was an outstanding aircraft and yet just like the Panther roughly 50% or more were down for maintenance at any given time. That was life in the 1940s for all sides.

[@deathbeforedishonor9012]

Ironically the T-34 was also a shit tank, numbers made up for quality Edit: overall the best tank in WW2 was the Sherman no matter how much people shit on it. No it didn’t catch fire easily after wet ammo stowage was introduced. The 75 and 76 was a great caliber for its job.

[@HellStr82]

Same as the t34 mate... numbers. Was not a great tank on his own. Was a great tank because it had the numbers and yes it was reliable and fast. And that`s about it. But mostly because of the numbers.

[@genek8630]

Drivers of the T-34 used to carry a hammer to bang the gearshift to get it into gear sometimes.

[@andreykuzmin4317]

Panther is not a German T-34, it's a German KV-1! (Admittedly, it's pretty horrible as either T-34 or KV-1).

[@PunkIan2483]

The Panther could do one thing well. Taking tanks out long range on the Steppes. Out of this scenario it was, er, a bit pants 😂😂

[@_kodokami]

1:37 - I’ve never expected a photo from a museum from my home town Poznań in Poland 😮 on any of the Simons channels! Nevertheless it’s a great army museum :) Cheers to anyone reading this 😅

[@HellStr82]

To say that the Panther was shi,t and that the Sherman was better... you must be smoking some bad shi.t mate.

[@akor45]

The Panther was junk. The Sherman outclassed both the Panther and T-34 by miles.

[@CyberMonkey03]

@@akor45lmao no it didn’t

[@akor45]

@@CyberMonkey03 T-34s got smoked by M4s in Korea, and M4s didn't have drive-train components burst into flame on a road march like Panthers. The M4 was better then both of those piles of junk in multiple, quantifiable ways.

[@sthrich635]

@@akor45 For Americans it might be, but not every WW2 military was the US army, and had access to its air power, fuel, motorization, manpower, intel, etc.

[@akor45]

@@CyberMonkey03 The T-34s routinely got wasted by M4s in Korea. They also could go on road marches without having it's transmission go up in smoke unlike the Panthers.