Great Bang For The Buck | Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. J (part 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- The Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausführung J, also known as Gerät 550 or Sonderkraftfahrzeug 161/2, was the last variant of the famed Panzer IV. It was produced from January 1944 to the last days of April 1945 in the Nibelungenwerk (Ni-Werk) factory in Sankt Valentin, northern Austria.
This variant was characterized by many modifications made to the previous models in order to speed up production and save on valuable raw materials.
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Article: tanks-encyclop...
Sources:
Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV Grosstraktor to Panzerbefehlswagen IV - Thomas L. Jentz
Panzer Tracts No.4 Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. H/Ausf. J, 1943 to 1945 - Hilary Louis Doyle, Lukas Friedli and Thomas L. Jentz
Sd.Kfz. 161 Panzer IV Ausf. J - Krzysztof Mucha
Panzer IV & its Variants - Walter J. Spielberger
web.archive.org
Panzer IV: The Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank, 1939-1945 - Kevin Hjermstad
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyc...
Our website: www.tanks-encyc...
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyc...
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by By Arturo Giusti and Joshua Trinchero
Narrated by Stan Lucian
Edited by Big Turn
Sound edited by Gabe
![OhGeesy x Lefty Gunplay - What It Iz [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L0yzW9t2ixk/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm laughing so hard at your comments about pronunciations of the equipment.. hahahaha made me laugh my friend. I've often tried to get the proper pronunciation and I think you are very good indeed. Helping me get it right too. Superb content and quality. I think this format is great.
Actually the Ausf. G used both the 7,5 cm L/43 and L/48; surviving Ausf. F1 and F2 (and some E and D) being retrofitted to the longer gun. Schürzen became standard on H but again, older variants were retrofitted.
I'm so tempted to reply "🤓" but I'm also a tank nerd so it'll pretty much will backfire to me.
Tanks encyclopedia never disappoints!
hahah it's true
Speak for yourself. I’m disappointed.
balloon was NOT spying...🤔
ruclips.net/video/zgWv3kXUn10/видео.html
I love how people argue about what tank is better or not, or how a country should've built a certain type more than the other.
Did they forget that tactics, crew experience, maintenance, supplies and supply lines, weather and much, much more comes in account in a full out war?
The Swedes should have kept and upgraded the S-103. Perfect for its intended role, ambushing and destroying invading Russian armor in those dense Swedish and Finnish forests with those narrow roads.
Because it's fascinating and the entry level before knowing that factories and logistics wins the second world war.
Gen. Heinz Guderian, who after being sacked by Hitler in late '41 from his field command, was given another job as Chief Inspector for the WaffenAmt for armored and other special vehicles. He was against the deployment of the Panther and Tiger tanks, believing them to be too expensive, heavy, failure-prone, and burdensome to maintain. He felt the Panzer IV was all the battle tank the Panzerwaffe needed, and its chassis made a suitable mount for heavier anti-tank guns to deal with Soviet armor.
Their engines just weren't powerful enough to sustain heavy armour, making transmission troublesome.
I´d say the panther proved him kinda wrong, after the early mistakes where fixed it was way superior to the panzer iv. The tiger and tiger 2 etc where obviously just waste of resources. Their biggest impact on the war was psychological. I´d say more panzer iv and v tanks would have done the job better.
Id say the peak of the pz iv was the h variant even so the outdated engine really limited its potential.
If you think about it he might have a point they could spit these tanks out as fast as the Russians could produce T54s
@@oceanhome2023 I think the justification for the Panther and Tigers was to preserve the life of crew and equipment through "better" tech, because they were badly outnumbered
Don’t make things up.
I love this channel.
A Romanian talking German in English.
It's awesome :D
One of the best tank channels on youtube, greatly undersubbed!
How do you know that is romanian ?
@@Mr_Fu_Manchu Location: Romania,Narrator:Stan Lucian
The biggest change from the Ausf. H type is the removal of the turret turning motor and power generation auxiliary engine, which means the turret has to be turned manually. By removing it and adding fuel tanks, the tank's cruising range has been increased from 210km to 320km on level ground.
Panzer IV is my favourite German tank of WWII. I still think if they had concentrated on streamlined, all-out Stug III and Panzer IV mass production. They would have benefitted greatly in many ways. Perhaps with some Tiger 1 for shock and awe support. All R&D efforts dedicated to improving main guns, ammunition types and engine/ drive trains. With the aim to improve ease of manufacture with improved spares support..
As a fellow Panzer IV (and III) (and ass) man, I can only agree - whilst offering a friendly reminder that the desperate oil/fuel and manpower/experience situation they faced probably means it would have made zero to little difference
@@lindgrenland All things considered, it's bloody good they didn't maximise efficiency when building and fielding panzer forces. Pushing on to the Caucuses first or reinforcing North Africa. Taking Suez and the oil flow, may have solved their fuel issues. Along with strengthening ties with antisemitic Arabs. Which could have solved their manpower crisis too.
I always feel a little guilty when admiring WWII Nazis kit. It's a good job I can compartmentalise. Which is probably what the SS said to each other over schnaps after a day in the death camp. Pun not intended.
Boob man myself (.)(.) udderly smitten.
I agree with you the panzer iv h could take on anything the USA and ussr and great Britain had
You must consider though, even if Germany didn't built big expensive tanks and focused on building many more tanks like the Stug and Panzer 4, all those extra tanks also requires more fuel to keep running and also more crews to operate those tanks and even more men to maintain and repair those tanks
It's not a simple solution as just "build more tanks" you have to understand the logistics as well which in 1944-45 for Germany was absolutely dire
wouldn't have done them any good with the immense lack of oil. no gas to run all those extra tanks; they had trouble keeping the tanks they did have running
One aspect of the later model PZIVs that may be a bit of a surprise is the frontal armor of the turret remained at 50mm. The increase to 80mm was just for the front hull.
Always funny to me that the latest Panzer 3s had stronger turret face armor than the late Panzer 4
I wonder how many Panzer IV could be built in place of all these TIGERS & PANTHER ?
BTW this is a very well researched presentation !!!!!
Id never heard of wire side skirts before! Interesting
Brilliant video, keep it up
Comprehensive and well done.
Good information, but audio hard on ears. Almost like an echo.
Only 8000 panzer 4's were built thats what always made me wince. They needed 16,000 or 20K to even have a chance
not sure if Germany could fueled them all..... if we double the tanks, they are running on half tank of gas (over simplified).... i'd like to see the numbers..
No matter how many were produced your previous Wehrmacht was still fucked from the beginning.
The best all-rounder tank of WW2 Germany
Good, but did not the T34 eat it up?
@@chriszelez7970 Yeah, but it ate the Pz3 more 😂
absolutely not; that was the Sherman bcs of soft stats ... edit: oh u said Germany ... my bad
@@nkristianschmidt The Sherman had a very bad gun, so bad that the british build it out and replaced it with there own. The Sherman had to come to 500 meters to have a chance to hit something, where as the much better german gun killed the Shermans on 1000 meters. In North Africa, the Pz 4 kill most Shermans on a range between 500 to 1000 meters. Early Shermans was given the nic name "Tommi Kocher" by the germans ("Tommi" means English, "Kocher" means "cooker"), because it was so easy to set on fire. German troops in North Africa was trained on the Machinegun, with the use of Leuchtspurminition(Tracer ammunition), to set the Sherman on fire. No Anti-tank gun was needed, every soldier could use the MG34 and Leuchtspurminition(Tracer ammunition), to set the Sherman on fire.
Later, the US replaced the storage of the ammunition to a wet storage, to eliminate the problem of the immediatly go to flame problem by tracer ammunition. Resulting in the fact, that the reloading of the gun now took much longer. German guns, also the Pz 4, could now shoot 3 to 4 rounds on the Sherman, before this could shoot back. The Sherman was a misdesign, but the only the US had. The T34 for example, was way better.
The Sherman gun was the badest gun, ever build in a tank? What tank in WW2 had a more bad gun then the Sherman? Maybe an Italian tank? The British, the Germans, the Soviets all the much better guns on there tanks. I too would give the price for the most economic, best all-rounder tank in WW to the T34, followed by the Pz 4.
@@michaelschmid9567 Thanks. I hate my own conclusion, but after much research into the topic, that is what I have arrived at, because:
- always available
- reliable
- won engagements with German tanks, also tank on tank because of the soft stats, like gunner-commander communication and coordination, as well as training and good ammunition.
- could cross most bridges
- a lot of criticism is not confirmed in combat reports
knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/
love the video subscribed
Is there an actual plans for a sloped armored panzer3s or 4s? I'm just curious.
There was a weird panzer IV with a sloped rear at Aberdeen proving grounds, but I haven’t heard about it since the big move.
They couldn't due to the ergonomics of the design of the vehicle. Another words they were too small to slope the armor. In 1944 they added spaced amor to extend the life of the Panzer 4 . Also they weren't designed to be facing tanks with 85mm Guns. Hence, the panther and Tiger in 1942 to fight the KV, T34. The Germans didn't know the Russians had heavy tanks. In the end, they produced vehicles that were superior to any country in the world. Look at the TIger, King Tiger, Jadpanther. These are all heavily armored and superior guns. British, US tanks couldn't compete with these vehicles. Unfortunately they ran up against simply too many vehicles to stop the Russians or the Americans. But the fact 1 German division could hold off 7 Russian divisions. Kinda shows how superior the military was. Check out "GERMAN WAR FILES" you can learn about each vehicle individually , design, effect in the field , usage, and also any variants developed.
@@outlaw8865 If there was NO PANTHER OR TIGER , then their would be no need for T-34 85mm or SU-85.
IIRC, the IV H was supposed to have sloped frontal and side armor, but the design was scrapped.
There is possibly blueprints for the Panzer IV K which has sloped armor, its basically a squished panther
So the factory continued to make these for a short period while under Soviet control ?
Are these the tanks that were supplied to Syria and other Arab countries ?
To Bulgaria as far as we know.
They had less than 10,000 PzIV and America and the Soviet Union made over 100,000 M4 and T34. Looks like a lose-lose proposition to to me.
Pz. IV H is the cutest tank ever
Just a suggestion you may want to try:
Try delivering your material as though you are speaking with someone, as though you're explaining this to someone right there with you, having a conversation. It'll be more pleasing to the ear.
Nice work, though!
I don't think there's much wrong with the narration
Did the Panzer IV have heating inside the hull or was it warm inside because of the engine etc..
Heat was no issue in the Russian summer, even around Leningrad.
Thank - you .
It wasn't a 3rd machine gun.. it was one from inside the tank relocated to the AA mount
The main change (NOT an improvement but because of lack of copper) might have been making the turret handcranked instead of electrically operated. Imagine standing on a slope/incline and having to crank that turret all around to the opposite side 😯
Panther turret traverse drive wasnt strong enough to turn the turret on slopes over 20 degrees. Germans didnt balance their turrets. Also some tanks used power traverse to get the gun on target and then manual traverse for precise aiming. US copied British hydraulic traverse system from Matilda II cause you could use power traverse for precise aiming.
@@Paciat Balancing isn't always possible because that also means adding a lot of weight. Adding weight that isn't armour, ammo, gun or engine is wasted weight. The power was already maxed out in most cases because of afterwards adding heavier guns and armor.
@@johnsamu Witch proves that all German late war tanks were overweight, boxy designs, rather than medium tanks build for maneuver warfare.
@@Paciat Them being overweight could probably be primarily attributed to how they were constantly making on the fly changes to accommodate changing conditions to already existing systems such as adding new guns and more armor. I don't think them being boxy really affects the role as medium tank since most medium tanks normally were. I mean its not like the Sherman or the T34 are particularly small although the panther is a bit bigger it wouldn't seem particularly disadvantageous although it could cause problems in some situations it could also be a benefit in others
@@jebreggie4225 A prime example of an overweight Sherman is the M4A3E2 "Jumbo". And yet you dont see USA changing all the production lines to get this tank that worked well in some situations. So you can clearly see the difference between the armies. VK.30 turned into a 45 ton tank while M4 didnt.
Audio sounds like you're in a toilet cubicle. Like the content of your videos though. Also a big fan of the mid-late war Panzer IV's.
Subscribed!!👍
In my opinion, the ausf. H was better as it still had the auxilliary engine wich was used for turret rotation, with the ausf. J the turret had to be manually rotated.
Whenever I hear 'panzer' I don't think of the tiger or tiger II, I think of the Panzer IV, the last tank Nazi Germany designed before they went completely bonkers
1 of the 1st ones I Built
I can only hear you stretch out the last sylible of every sentence.
Shut your mouuuuuth!
@@marmalaterjones4526 loo00L
what do you know about the Panzer 4(K)? was he real or fake?
The Panzer IV Ausf. K was a paper design from Krupp that was in effect a modification of the Ausf. H, it never went into production. It was basically a small Panther.
I forgot to mention, the Ausf. K’s biggest selling point was sloped armour. The issue is the time to create the design, the time to put them into production, the cost of producing them, and upgrading all relevant equipment to make sure they didn’t have massive technological problems, was viewed as less valuable than just making more Panther’s.
Need more Burger Panzers!
why ? are you hungry?
I still wonder why the german did not change the frontal armor of the panzer iv. I mean, they can certainly make the frontal armor slope like the sherman and t-34. Aside from that, that solution would help them save on steel while improving the armor and save on weight, wouldn’t it?
They considered it, but it would've taken time and ended up costing more. The decided to go with panther instead.
Ended up googling this. Someone on quora basically said they considered it, they designed it, they proposed it, but ended up not going through with the idea. Reason being it would've taken time to retool the machinery and would've slowed or stopped pz iv production.
Additionally the changes would've stressed the chassis and the added costs were not worth the improvements. The panther tank was capable of carrying more armor and a better gun for just a little more cost than the sloped pz iv design.
The Panther tank will never exist
Pz-IV, gooid tank, they could and should have focused on making more to stay competitive, 8500 vs 50k Russian tanks and 40k US tanks with the UK tonks tossed in for good measure, we drowned them in steel
The Germans produced just short of 50,000 tanks total in the war your numbers are laughably inaccurate.
@@cattledog901 paying attention to the numbers of the Pz-IV series produced in the video, the US and Russian equivalents out produced them massively. even adding in Panthers and both tigers the numbers were still weak in productivity comparatives your near 50k is laughable for including models of tanks that were no longer viable to coninue on as they were, having to be reconfigured into TDs and other SPGs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II Compare to US and allied production of relatively fresh and new Shermans and T-34 series alone, NOT counting heavy tanks, and not counting British tanks Germany was out matched and out produced.
@@Lenzabi That is, why the Soviets won the war against German. The Soviet have a huge tank production, even before the war. But what I not buy are the US numbers of 50k Shermans. At no time, there was more then a few thousands Shermans on the western front, and nearly no Shermans was used in Asia. For example, in September 1944, the german high command calculated the numbers of Shermans on the western front with 2500. If the US had 50k Shermans in France, they could drive to Berlin in 1 month and the Germans had nothing to stop 50k Shermans. But they used, for example, only 1342 Tanks totally (britsh and US tanks) for the biggest advance (Operation Market Garden) in September 1944. If they had 50k, they could just roll over all defences of the Germans. So, these 50k never made it to Europe, and was never see by humans.
There is a very interesting channel here on RUclips, from an american tank expert of WW2. He hold a speach in a Tank museum in New York, and ask the listeners: "how many Tiger tanks, you think, fought with US troops in france in WW2?" Later he gave the answer: Only 3 Tigers had fightings with US troops in France. Germany had only less then 10 percent of its armed forces (including the tanks, fighter planes, infantry ect.) on the western front (France, Belgium, Holland), the rest was in the east. Again, with 50k Shermans, the US troops would be in Berlin in 1 month. We all know, the US troops never made it to Berlin, the Soviets took it.
@@michaelschmid9567 I looked shermans totaled maybe 40k, Berlin was a political decision to placate Stalin who demanded that as the most bloodied of the allies that Russia have that honor of rolling into Berlin.
@@Lenzabi Well, wikipedia says, the Shermans produced in WW2 is 50k+. Thats the number I not believe. The 40k I not belive as well, where you have the number from?
Fact is, the Soviet Red Army pushed the Germans out of eastern europe faster then they rushed in. From 1942 on, from Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bregatone out of Bella Russia, Ungaria, Romania, ect, while fighting against the mass of the German armor. 90% of the german armor fought on the eastern front, and was defeated by the Soviets. According the "Kriegstagebuch der Wehrmacht" (war diary of the the germany forces), 90% of the german tanks was destroyed on the eastern front. Of course, the fighting was bloody. The Soviet Red army did good operations (Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bregatone) and bad operation (1941, Kurland pocket, and others). But all after all, the Soviet Red Army destroy the German army, while the US/GB/France ect. did very little damage to the German army.
To conclude: 90% of the german armor was destroyed on the eastern front, less then 10% on the western front. According german war documents from WW2.
Is that ally can deliver? A few pics and a vague story with poor information?
I thought I had heard RHA was superior to face hardened, guess I'll go research that.
Depends on the angle and type of shell
That's just over complicating the translation. Effectively the early PzIV with the short L/24 7.5cm was a a infantry support vehicle. That might not be it's direct translation nor what it was essentially designed for but that is EXACTLY what it was used for and how it was referred to in panzer doctrine at that time. Saying otherwise is just over complicating a simple truth. It's what they used them for on the ground. As the PzIV had a large turret ring and was used in every roll throughout the war in many variants it's just semantics anyway.
It was not in any way meant for infantry support. You are confusing doctrines. The infantry support vehicles were the Sturmgeschutz. The Panzer IVs were part of the Panzer Regiments of the Panzer Divisions and were meant to deal with fortifications and other heavy emplacements in order to support OTHER TANKS.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT In fact, by 1940, some Panzer is, already demonstrably too feeble as tanks, had their turrets removed and an improvised mount was devised for the 15 cm SiG 33 "infantry" gun. Sure, these were assigned to PANZER, LIGHT, and PANZERGRENDIER units that had tanks, but they also had their infantry component (Panzer Grenadiers), all of which was simply and effectively applying the general principle of combined arms.
Great video, but it needs more Nahverteidigungswaffe.
I think you tank experts are contradicting yourselves a little bit.
If the add on side armour and I'm not going to say it in German was not for heat shells then why go to a mesh?
This would not stop anti-tank rifle projectiles but would still be good against Heat, and save a bit of material.
So which one was it?
And speaking of anti-tank grenades that still works on the heat/shape ch. principle.
So that's barely an argument.
And how in the world can 5 millimetres and 8 millimetres stop an anti-tank rifle.
I think there's more to the story than anti-tank rifle.
I'm not buying that.
Impact induces yaw/tumbling of the bullet.
Whether you use a steel plate or a mesh, the effect will be similar in destabilizing the bullet.
@@gustaveliasson5395
So you're still saying the mesh on the leder models was to stop anti-tank ammo??
I think once the Bazooka was introduced it had another effect also.
Prematurely detonating the ammunition.
No response?
@@1joshjosh1 attempting to bullying people into telling you that you’re right won’t actually make your point of view correct.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography
Point of view.
Bulling?
No sir.
It's just a discussion that's all.
The Mk 4 with its short gun was no match to the Char B1
Good thing the B1 will break down before it gets to the fight.
Didn't really matter when everyone in the panzertruppe were out of their box on Meth - they just sailed past while the frogs were snoozing.
The modifications severely impacted the production rate. It reduced the rate by around 30%.
That is why the Germans limited who could request modifications to the Panthers during production.
It was introduced when Adolf Hitler was still a friendly head of state.
Night of the Long Knives? Hitler was NEVER a friendly head of state.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 relatively
support comment 🐕 wuff!
comment support comment
@@vaclav_fejt comment support comment comment support comment
👍
I prefer the G variant.
9:22 look at these Shoes. Jesus Christ!!!
1:28
T-34 wants to have a word with you.
T-34 was produced only since 1940, where Panzer IV was produced even before war started in 1939
@@enrik9475 Fair, but the PzIV started off with a short-barreled 75, whereas the T-34 started off with a general-purpose 76mm.
The PzIV didn't get a long 75 until the barbarossa experience proved that something needed to be done, and even then the T-34 proved to have more upgrade potential as the commies stuck a whole new turret with a long 85mm onto it.
Took them a while longer to get that done than it took the fashies to put long 75s on the PzIV tho.
I suppose it's all apples and oranges. What's important is that the silly backwards pseudo-feudalist toothbrush-moustache-wearing crazy person and his industrialist magnate goons didn't get things their way.
Just to be clear, the Germans were:
OUTNUMBERED
OUTGUNNED
OUTCLASSED
OUTTECHED
by the Allies. Despite what the mythos want to tell you about the unstoppable and invincible Wehrmacht, the Germans could win all the battles multiple times, and the Allies would still come out on top. This is the context any German war effort must be viewed, the cold and brutal fact being that they would lose in the end no matter how many things we change in hindsight - such as only producing and developing the Panzer IV and/or STUG - to give them the absolute best chance. The war was a war of attrition, and the Germans and Axis held no advantage in any of the categories despite their "big cats", "Wunderwaffen" or "Me-262". If you're losing on every strategic front (read: resources, logistics and operational capability), you'll end up losing anyway. This is the sentiment «Just build more Panzer IV» really isn't a winning solution. Ironically, as stated in the video, they kinda did do this as Panzer IV was the most produced tank of the Wehrmacht along with the STUG - both touted as "solutions" to the German crisis of war attrition - and neither of them could still stop the Allied onslaught. If you've been dealt pocket-Aces in a four-way pot in Texas Hold'Em poker, it really doesn't matter if your opponents decide to play on with their combined pool of cards when the flop is 3-4-5-6-7 and they hold 2-7, 7-7 and 8-9; this is why simple vehicle stats alone won't win the war despite you having the perceived "best hand", when the overall strategic situation aka "the flop", sees your force beaten by "lesser tanks" because there simply was more of them in every conceivable way - afterall you decided to take on all three of them despite being short-stacked and outflopped - then no strategy is winning.
No "H" version ?😁
TANK with radar is just stupid....like shining a flash light at night telling every one where you are.
Are you on the toilet?
Face hardened armor, by 1944, was not preferred. Basically, the Germans did not really do a product improvement for the Panzer IV H, keeping the old style cupula, and awful turret design, to crank out tanks. The whole idea of using sloped armor, also was trashed because...they needed more tanks. PS This guy rambles on and says many incorrect things.
idea of sloped hull was dropped because it would require way too much effort to rework the hull, while using 80mm plate on superstructure had same effect and was much simpler..
Bad audio :(
Good work guys BUT it is time to ditch the Semple tank video. We are well aware in New Zealand that Bob Semple was, to a certain extent, a complete waste of space. His most notorious personal publicity stunt was to drive a bulldozer over a wheelbarrow and declare that wheelbarrows would no longer be used on public works projects. An obvious lie, a waste of a wheelbarrow, a waste of machine time and an unnecessary disruption to actual work! The Semple tank was another waste of a useful machine.
True. But considering the ridiculous little death traps that the Japanese deployed like the Type 95, even the Bob Semple, ludicrous as it was, had a fighting chance.
@@selfdo I see your point BUT it is likely that, in common with initial prototypes of clean-sheet tanks, the ‘armour’ was mild steel. Have a good week.
If you did two or three layers of corrugated armour, with the sheets angled at 45° (like layering fibreglass, too soon?), you might have had reasonable spaced armour protection. Especially against the lil baby Japanese tanklings.
Are you sitting in your toilet or your wall closet when you record your comments? The audio quality is very poor.
The German Sherman
german tank industry made tank like watches while russian tank industry made tank like hammers...
and russia won the war due to their correct industrial policy
Panzerkampfwagen 4
It wasn't "great bang for the buck". Although it cost less to produce than than the Panzer IVH, it still cost as much as 80-90% of a Panther, which was in all aspects, except for reliability, twice the tank. The Panther had much better gun, armor and mobility. And even in reliability it was pretty close.
''And even in reliability it was pretty close.'' Just no, it got better with time. But it was most of its time plague with technical problems. For sure not so heavenly many sugest, but the PzKpfw IV was realiable for years already, when the Panther was intodruced.
@@fullgreys0n738 The Panther A and G was only slightly worse than late war PzIV, numbers from German stats shows that (available rate of 68-71%(EF-WF) vs 62-65% on average from May 44 to March 45). Late war PzIV was worse than early war marks because of increased weight. Late war PzIV had as much trouble with the final drives as the Panther. As far as reliability goes, the Tigers were on the same level as the PzIV.
Where did you pull those cost numbers out of? And do you realize how problematic comparing "stated prices" for tanks or for rarely traded goods is? Especially in a state controlled economy like Nazi Germany's?
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT
According to 1944 Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, -Fahrzeuge, -Gerät:
Tank prices listed without weapons, optics and radio:
Pz. IV Ausf. F1, F2 & G: RM 103 462
KwK 40 (L/43): RM 12 500
(1400 man hours);
No figures for KwK 40 (L/48),
but for the related 7,5 cm StuK 40 (L/48): RM 13 500 (1800 man hours).
Panther Ausf. D, A & G: RM 117 000
KwK 42 (L/70): RM 12 000 (1500 man hours).
Somewhat surprisingly the Panther's gun was cheaper.
It is possible that the PzIV H and (especially) the J was cheaper than the G.
Of course, these are “paper values”, based on how many man hours each vehicle required. This would vary wildly in Germany 1944-45 due to disruption of production lines by bombing as well as access to raw materials. The Panther needed about 82 tons of material and the PzIV 39.
You are correct, the reliability issue with the Panther is largely a myth started by American/British authors and speakers who were pandering to their audiences. Another thing to consider is that the Panther was designed or at least optimized for mass production. Even if you count spg's, flak and recovery variants and are assuming that none were rebuilds, PzIV chassis vehicle production was somewhere around 10 to 11 thousand vehicles from 1936 to 1945. On the other hand over 6,000 Panther chassis vehicles were produced in less than two years and in the worst possible conditions
Budget tank.
Panther costs were the same
@@nkristianschmidt if that were the case then why did they bother?
@@highjumpstudios2384 production capacity for each line
@@nkristianschmidt I’m pretty sure they didn’t build a new production line for this model, just stopped putting parts in, like the turret drive motor. My money is on the Panzer 4 J being cheaper than the much heavier, much more complex and resource intensive Panther tank.
@@highjumpstudios2384 after a refresher, I am gonna concede some to your argument. But the costs came close and retooling was a big argument in the debate between Guderian and Hitler, with the latter wanting to switch only to the Panther.
Lacked power transverse, Ausf H was better
Jesus Loves You
Jesus loves you too.
Buy a better mic.
Terrible spelling!
German seems like the most inefficient language on earth.
Just overengineered with unnecessary grammar rules that make even native speakers make mistake in everyday life.
Panzer IV is my favourite German tank of WWII. I still think if they had concentrated on streamlined, all-out Stug III and Panzer IV mass production. They would have benefitted greatly in many ways. Perhaps with some Tiger 1 for shock and awe support. All R&D efforts dedicated to improving main guns, ammunition types and engine/ drive trains. With the aim to improve ease of manufacture with improved spares support..
Fuel and tank crewman would be the problem for so much tanks to field
@@commanderadam1835 They had many horse units and bicycle infantry at the start of WWII. Changing them over to mechanised would have benefitted the fighting efficiency. All things considered, it's good they did not get their act together. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight.
A more panzer heavy force (and ignoring Moscow) would have permitted them to push towards the Caucasus' oil fields and/or reinforce North Africa. Capturing Suez and the oil flow. They seized vast quantities of Red Army fuel during the opening weeks of Barbarossa. That could have been better utilised too. I'm so pleased they didn't.
See my reply to lindgrenland.
Although a decent theory, it is only a theory.
In the end, no fuel.