Shermans were shipped across the ocean. You can imagine all the limitations (size, weight, gun...) due to the logistic. Shermans still did the job. Nearly nobody point out this, but I think this one major "tour de force" from the US Army.
The versatility is arguably the most hallmark trait of the Sherman. With input of allied countries, Sherman variants were designed for all possible roles, including more rare armored medical transports, and amphibious assaults. No other single tank chassis saw the sheer versatility, and role diversity, like the Sherman.
@@samuellatta6774 no comrad you wrong. Great red army has no medivac at all because a soviet wins or dies. The t34 has infact an amphibius variant : you take an entire tank army you throw its tank in a river and it makes a bridge. Anyway you stil have enough t34 to equip ten more tanks armies. And for the transport you put your comrads on the back of a t34.
You're so right about late war Panther crews. I could only shake my head in disbelief watching the 1944 battle of the reichtwald where dozens of preciously needed Panthers were thrown away due to hopelessly bad deployment and tactics. Especially in one instance where 50 Panthers were led completely unsupported, and in parade fashion no less, right into flanking American fire. The result was a near turkey shoot.
@John Cornell actually that is untrue the m3 Lee's design was done prior to the war the m4's design was not fully completed until the prototype trials on the initial design submitted. These trials occurred after September 1941. The design was completed when they were accepted for production. It is hard to compare the German design process to the american process since their testing was much more limited . I honestly believe if we are going to talk about when it was designed then we should limit it to the final design. Which is what would be ultimately the production tank which means . 1941 for the m4 and 1942 for the panther. If we want to talk earliest design 1938ish for the panther and 1940 for the sherman.. but by 1940-41 america was honestly already indirectly fighting the war and by December 7th 1941 it was basically official that America was going to war
And again it doesn't matter when the final design was completed it is is it ready in time to help or hinder the army. The answer for the panther is no it wasn't
@John Cornellmy argumen is it doesn't matter when it was designed a tank can either be designed to win a war or a battle. The t28 super heavy tank was being designed when the allies were winning the war and it had one sole goal win battles against the Siegfried line. The panther was designed to win tank battles. The sherman wars
Shaggy: "Like, uh, Scoob. Jagtiger at 11 o'clock, he doesn't see us, crack it in the engine compartment" Scooby Doo: "RUH OH! ROADING HP SHRELL! Hehehehehehe ROOBY DOOBY DOOOO!
M4 - Easy to maintain - Very reliable - Easy to mass produce - 76mm with HVAP was found to be able to penetrate the font of a Panther at 950 yards in post war testing - Stabilized gun which when used gave it excellent first shot and return fire accuracy and target acquisition - Light enough to be lifted by a Liberty ship's crane and use most bridges - Wet stowage almost eliminated the risk of ammo fires (Gas engine was never the problem) and "dry" M4s had their ammo stowage revised to be less vulnerable. Individually, excluding the crew factor, I'd still say a Panther was the better tank but it was also more complex and fuel intensive which were exacerbated by the issues Germany was facing. Still it's disingenuous to say the Sherman couldn't compete and I'd also say the M4 was more suited to the US's needs.
RNG_ Lord Also it was made thousands of miles away form any front It’s part has to be interchangeable with one to a and other . Don’t forget the M4 had turret down with its optical sight mounted on the roof . Target actuated hidden
14:38 Shot of the top secret M1969 APC codenamed "Meddler". This machine would prove invaluable in later long range anti-monster(LRAM) operations in the Vietnam War. It's radical departure from the rugged look of the Jeep played a key role in it's operational use, as the LRAM teams would often use its rather civilian aesthetic to hide in plain sight. Make no mistake though, the M1969 is all business and was highly respected by the troops who used them. :)
One thing of note. The Americans did not really start receiving HVAP rounds in mass till around March-April of 1945. The only units to receive them of any quantity were that of TD units. Panther gets a bad rep by a bunch of BS propaganda. Before the Kursk battle was even over they had managed to rectify many of the faults of the D model. The refit and new production would be that of the A model with minor other improvements. The G model was the main production model and it was completely worked up. The only thing they did not fix was the final drive, but it was still 90% effective, the problem was crew training and logistical issues.
Reliability of Panther tank, like almost all german tank post 1943, was terrible. 90% of panther gearbox failed before 1500km. A report from the 116. Panzer Division said than within 5 days during the battle of the Bulge (from 18 december 1944 to 23 december 1944) 19 panthers out of 41 broke down, with only one because of enemy action.
@John Cornell the key word that should alert you that something unusual is being discussed is "at the required ranges which we must be able to effectively engage enemy armor" because during most of the campaign, range wasn't an issue. Grenade was staged in the floodplain of the Rhein river, which gave German armor a rare opportunity to use the Panther in the role which it was intended - as a long-range sniper. Most of the western front didn't allow this to be utilized with any regularity, unlike the battles on the steppes of the Eastern front.
The Sherman is a better tank due to how versatile it was. The Sherman could be deployed for many roles from Infantry support to minesweeping. Not to mention it was easy to manufacture.
The american Sherman with a 76mm could and faced both Tigers and Panthers. I read somewhere (i think it was on the Chieftains channel) that one Tiger was defeated by a bunch of 75mm Sherman using HE, they shot enough to basically desintegrate the crew with spall. 75 HE. A round for clearing infantry
The problem was the crews, by 1944, American crews had been training and working together since 1942 and had their tanks and tactics down to a T. While German tanks by 1944 were crewed with ex luftwaffe and kreigsmarine soldiers that due to shortages of fuel and ammo had little training. In the battle of Arracourt, September 1944, outnumbered Sherman’s easily stopped a 5th Panzer Army attack, adroit fire-and-maneuver tactics used by Combat Command A, negated the superior armor and firepower of the German tanks. The 5th Panzer started out with 262 AFV’s, they lost 86 destroyed and 114 damaged or broken while CCA lost 25 M-4’s and 7 tank destroyers. This probably explains why the M-1 tank was named after the commander of CCA, Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams?
No, it wasn't. Infantry support was only one role of many that a tank fulfilled and even in that a Panther was far superior to a Sherman because of it's superb armor and firepower. Too, important to remember that American philosophies of armor deployment and use were not the same as the German's. In an age where so many military enthusiasts, at least American enthusiasts, 'learn' their history from all the Spielberg rubbish that dominates American mass media it requires very little effort to go on YT and rattle away about how gloriously superior American weaponry, tactics, etc. . . were to those poor overmatched Krauts, but it has next to nothing to do with reality. Cheers!
M4A3(76)w HVSS Pro’s -Excellent Fire control and Target Acquisition -Excellent rate of fire -Vertical stabilizer allows acquiring targets on the move and very fast gun stability after stopping and firing -Periscope sight -Great AP shell -Powerful, fast and Precise powered turret traverse -Excellent Mechanical reliability -Excellent east of repair -Easy to mass produce -2nd most well-armored medium tank -Regenerative steering -relatively smooth ride -Extremely easy to escape from -Roomy and Ergonomic with wide turret ring -Every crew member has a 120 degree FOV optic. -Excellent Hp/tonne -Excellent Ground pressure -Excellent smoothness -Great travel -Very hard to hit and Wet stored ammo Con’s -Mediocre HE shell -Mediocre silhouette size Panther G Pro’s -most well-armored medium tank -Very accurate gun -Excellent AP penetration -Excellent smooth ride -Excellent suspension travel -Great ground pressure -Good HP/tonne Con’s -slow fire control and target acquisition -No gunners wide view sight -No gunners periscope sight -Shockingly bad Final drive reliability (150 km before break down) -difficult to repair -Slow rate of fire -Mediocre HE shell -Inpercise turret control -Can’t reload while turret is turning -turret cannot hold gun in place on 20 degree slope. -Heavy and Collapses most bridges -Mediocre escapability -Mediocre ergonomics -Gas Guzzler -No smoke rounds -Big silhouette size -No regenerative steering -Ammo a little vulnerable -Not the easiest to produce also forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/74282-m4-sherman-vs-panther/ imgur.com/EVKUetf ruclips.net/video/Mnyir02Y-EA/видео.html
how many hours a day do you spend patrolling around Comments?,i see you everywhere across the entire internet posting comments quite often in excess of 1000 words usually multiple of them per reply.
@John Cornell the only thing i saw that was kinda off was the 2nd most armoured medium since the t34 85 has more armour because of its better sloping and the very hard to hit part because the the m4 is tall , so far thats the only thing i can see thats wrong about it
Also why do you call Sherman simple tank? Because of wet ammo stowage? Because of reliable powertrain? Because of good radio sets? Because of gun stabilizer? Because of great visibility by having roof and coax gun sights?
One of your last sentences is very... well... unintelligent. "But in the end, Shermans won the war, and thats all what matters" Well, in this way to comparison you could even compare a Tiger I to a T34 and say the same. Or a fooking Mathilda and a Tiger II. Or you compare the Bismarck with the Hood at this circumstances. Sorry, but this sentence makes no sense at all.
It makes perfect sense, because tanks do not fight in a vaccum. They're part of a SYSTEM. In this sense Sherman was a better part of its own system then Panther was of its. When the Germans built and manned tanks which were made to be breaktrough tanks, they were wining, when their tank building concentrated on making a tank that is better at killing other tanks then being a breaktrough vechicle who's main targets are infantry and fortifications they were lossing. Now this is a factually correct statement, tho the tanks were not the only factor (by far not the only factor) for them lossing. Meanwhile the most effective vechicle the Germans produced and used in terms of killing enemy tanks was Stug and its variants, primarily the 48 callibers 75mm armed one. Their silly obsesion with putting massive anti-tank guns in their tanks, meanth a massive turret ring, a massive turret, a massive suspension, massive volume and hence massive weight, which then means massive engines and massive fuel consumption, this by a nation that had a shortage of fuel. The americans were perfectly capable of making a 60 ton tank with a long barreled 90mm gun and armor which is above 110mm in the front arc, BUT they decided not to do it for a REASON. And that reason is, such a vechicle didn't fit into their SYSTEM. So his statement makes perfect sense, if you use correct logic.
I dont think so, sorry. You are right, tanks dont act in a vacuum, I totally agree with that. But the germans lost the war because of lost recources in the first place. The germans needed to build such tanks because of theyr doctrine of war, because most of them gave the soliders a better protection. While the members of the Wehrmacht where in a constant war -mode (sorry for my bad english), the allies could send theyr aces back at home to train the new soliders. In order to protect the few man you have (well, few is not fitting completely but I hope you guess what I mean) you must have abetter protection. At least, I dont like this not so well made TV documentaries at all. If you are interested in tanks, take a look on "Tank chats" from the museum of Bovington. Well made and not so sensation hungry. Martin van Creveld, a very good book author writes the book "Fighting power" its a tip from me for you, because I think you will be greatly entertained. Best wishes and a ver peacefully weekend to you
+Hugo von Payns > *_"The germans needed to build such tanks because of theyr doctrine of war, because most of them gave the soliders a better protection."_* Based on what?
Branko Milicevic so you gonna tell me sherman was better bottom line??? and if you want to talk "logic" well the germans didnt have the luxury of making more tanks than the u.s. could shoot if they didnt have enough crews to man them and makes perfect sense for them to go with better tanks to try to even up everything so your wrong and so is the guy who made the video cause if your gonna go with anything it was circumstances that made it impossible for the germans to win if you want to talk logic
I knew a veteran driver of a Churchill tank in Normandy. When asked if they feared being out gunned by the Tiger , he matter of factly told me that they would aim to jam the turret and that it might also cause a downward richochet which would turn the interior into a hornet's nest of spall fragments. They only engaged below 500 metres and would try to get behind for the coup de grace if possible. He also mentioned that snipers were trained to disable rather than kill. Hence he was asked one day when they were sitting behind a hedgerow, which afforded a distant view of the occasional exposed Nazi. What do you want, an arm or a leg? I heard this from other veterans too. Rationale is that a non lethal wound would sideline more personnel than a deceased one.
Please don't comment if you dont know shit. The Tiger Ausf.E has no visible Turret Ring, nor any shot-traps. Plus you didnt specify, what variant of chuchill..
go and look at Tiger 131 at the Bovington tank museum. This exact thing happen and a Churchill jammed the tiger turret and promptly captured it. No need to be aggressive and believe that you got foolproof knowledge. Keep a open mind and check it out instead of lashing out because someone says something you don't know a about.
the very same "shot trap that kills them all" claim was made for the pre-chin mantlet Panther, somewhat with more grounds, given the shape... Even that obvious error took a long time for the Germans to bother fixing, which indicates hitting specifc parts of a turret pointing at you is not the easiest thing... Furthermore, all the German cats featured raised front hull armor that completey shielded the space below the mantlet, so this was only likely if the German had the turret turned a significant amount...
this was new for me because i had always think that shermans was able to defeat panthers only because numbers but now i see that was not so simple. ofcorce situation had been totally different if germans has had proper aerial and other support to their tanks and fully trained and experinced crews but that wasn't so and we all know what the outcome was. so thank you for good video 👍
You forgot to mention that (according to Zaloga) white phosphorus smoke rounds proved to be effective against stationary german heavy tanks, the smoke blinded the german crews and was getting sucked into the tank by the ventilation, forcing the crews to bail out.
There are stories about rare cases where 1 or 2 Panthers with one of the very few remaining well trained an experienced crews took out dozens of shermans in short order.
Yeah there are similar stories about Tiger I's and Tiger II's. The story of the death of michael wittman comes to mind, he took out tons of tanks, trucks, light vehicles then came back and took out a lot more, only to get hit by a lucky shot from a British Sherman Firefly from a inexperienced crewman, Wittman and his tigers took out at least 20 vehicles that day, but i don't know the number off the top of my head. The fact that most post WW2 european tanks took more from the panther than the sherman, the Centurion and Leopard 1 being good examples, the T-54 taking elements of the T-44, IS-2 and Panther, the Patton tanks were the only outlier, coming from the pershing but the pershing was meant to be a similar tank and to counter Panthers and Tigers, and even then they knew their 90mm gun was inferior to the German 88mm. The French used panthers in the 50's, lack of spare parts being the main reason they were taken out of service. The Czechs used and retired them for the same reasons in the 50's, but they did it with lots of German vehicles (the French did too, but the Czechs a lot more) The Czechoslovak army in the early 50's was like a mini-wehrmacht.
@@maverick7376 innovative about the panther were a few things. First it was comparatively cheap to produce and the design was the first to near a standardized development process close to the E series of tanks which allowed it to be developed in record time. It featured like the tiger 2 a long sloped upper hull leaving the the weak spot between the upper and lower plate (weaker welding) very low down with the transmission right behind it protecting the crew and especially driver from potential spalling if that weak spot was actually hit. It featured very good mobility for its size and armor protection. It was the most expandable design ready to implement a lot of upgrades for the time. The gun was even more so than the 88 on the tiger geared towards anti tank warfare. For a medium tank it also offer the most crewspace at the time, something the Russian failed to implement until the introduction of the T14 in 2015 for example. There are also several technical innovations I don't have memorized in regard to range finder and targeting system. All in all a good chunk of experts describe it as the best overall tank to hit the ww2 battlefields.
@@maverick7376 you yourself named a few of tanks designed with inspiration from the panther. The weakspot where 2 armor plates are welded together is well known. A hit at that spot will often cause spalling when the armor is not penetrated almost like a hesh round. On the panther just like on the tiger 2 that weakspot is low to the ground so it's hard to hit and if it's hit the transmission protect the driver from spalling. The tank had many faults mostly due to the record development time of under a year and it was the least overengineered German tank of the later years in the war. The things I named were great innovations for a tank of its class and its reflected in its combat record. It's hard to say how effective it would've been if they had experienced crewmembers or even well trained crew members for the machines.
@@northumbriabushcraft1208 that's entirely false. The 90mm M3 cannon was a superior gun to the Tiger 1's 88mm in penetration and post penetration affect. Hell, the tigers gun has some issues penetrating the Pershing's turret and ufp aswell. Are you smoking crack you kraut?
The M4 was good enough and cheap to produce. Because of the two oceans preventing any invasion of the mainland, the U.S. military budget has always tended to prioritize naval and air equipment, and spent a huge amount of resources on the Manhattan project and technical things like miniature radar for planes and ships and the proximity fuse warhead. But on everything they made, producing things in great quantity was a priority, and they did that better than anybody.
the sherman had amazing survivability, was easy for the crew to bail out and easy to get back into service. only 1300 tankers died during the war, thats very small.
My great cousin who was in France would argue that. He served as rifleman tank escort, and 2 different instances, saw crew members who were trapped in the Sherman as it burned since the hatches got stuck often. If anything, the panzer 4 offered better survivability due to having side hatches which were much easier to get to, and open.
The army gathered statistics, and a KO-ed Sherman lead to about 0.9 casualties per tank. It was one of the best tanks when it came to crew ergonomics and escape. Whatever your cousin saw, it wasn't the rule, but the exception.
calli clark but it was named "Tommykocher" =tommycooker. Tommy is a slang used for americans, and the name leads to the fact that shermans were prone to burning out immediatly after a hit, or even without. It was very easy to set on fire.
Which, if you had any knowledge of WW2 myths, you'd know is utter bullshit. The dry stowage was no more prone to brewing up than any other tank, except with some stupid crews that loaded their tanks with ammo to the brim, and the wet stowage made the M4 one of the safest tanks in the war.
The information provided seems accurate enough. I don't exactly disagree with the overall conclusion, but the logic used to get to such conclusion IMO is flawed. The logic you used here is less of a individual tank comparison and more of a effectiveness of the vehicles instead(which is different from being technically superior) How effective a vehicle performs can be affected by things outside of the vehicle's technical capabilities. A M1 Abrams would be horribly ineffective if WW2 Germany used it, simply because of the fuel shortage and cost. But the technical capabilities would be better than anything that existed in WW2. First issue I have is the training argument. The average German tank crews have been reduced great from 1943 onwards with exception to the heavy tank battalion which were elite units. True enough however... The less trained average tanker post-1943 isn't inherent to the tank's design. You can take away points if it was difficult for the crew to use but that wasn't really the case. You can take away points since the final drive gave a rookie driver a harder time, but overall the training capabilities of a nation shouldn't be used for or against a weapon. The weapon itself doesn't train the user. In cases like these, it should be assumed that the crew are equally well trained in their respective equipment and tactics. Also the generals deploying the Panther in urban areas(which it was unsuited for) is not the tank's fault. Sending a fighter underwater to fight a submarine doesn't make the plane bad. My next problem is the conclusion that US won the war, thus the M4 is better. The Marmon-Herrington CTLS can't be said to be superior to the Panzer IV just because it's on the winning side. In a war, not all weapon have the same level of contribution. Logistics have a larger contribution to victory than any tank would for example. You can have a very bad design, and still win simply because everything else worked great. Doesn't make that a good weapon. Hypothetically if the M4 Sherman were replaced with the Panther, and the US army performs better, wouldn't that make it superior? In that example, the Panther could of been better but since its on the losing side, it's not? That doesn't make sense. Just hypothetical, as I will get into why I think the Sherman is arguably the best tank of the war. But the Panther isn't necessarily a bad tank at all. In tank to tank, the Panther is vastly superior. In tactically mobility, the Panther is also superior, with better climb, speed, pivot, and ground pressure. But of course, these aren't the only factors in a tank. For what the Panther can do against tanks, it is very cost effective, although more expensive than the Sherman. The Sherman however is survivable, which help preserve skilled crewmen. The German tanks weren't as survivable but aren't exactly deathtraps either. Maintenance goes to the Sherman, German big cats aren't necessarily less reliable, but it simply required a lot more complex logistic capability to maintain that reliability. US also had superior logistics which made the already reliable Sherman more robust as constant supply and skilled maintenance crew can keep up. The Panther being an exception had a unreliable final drive even after it being partially addressed in the Ausf G. Against infantry, the M4 is simply better with a better HE round. The best all-round gun the Germans had were probably the 8.8cm L/55 on the Tiger I which combined a good penetrating gun and a powerful HE round. IDK if the higher velocity gun on the Tiger II can fire the same HE round though. M4 Sherman had better fire control since the gunner had a independent periscope. The Panther had a superior optic reticle, but lack situational awareness by comparison. The armor on the Sherman is good, the 76mm is good enough, and the 75mm is very useful. Overall the Sherman is a well balanced tank, it doesn't excel at anything other than survivability and reliability, but its versatility is what is most needed. The Panther was well suited for the Eastern front but all in all was ill-suited as the main tank for an army. It was too specialized in one particular role. It was more of a cheaper and easier to transport heavy tank. Unlike the Panzer III and IVs, it was not as versatile. I'm reluctant to even consider the Panther's role suitable for a heavy tank, unlike the Tiger I and IIs, it didn't quite have the HE round useful for trenches, foxholes and bunkers. It is strictly anti-tank in nature, so more of a heavy tank destroyer if anything. In that role alone it is great, but since both the M4 and Panther was intended as the main tank for their respective army, I will argue the Panther failed.
The Sherman’s 76 was better than the panthers 75. When it comes to firepower I would say the Sherman takes it, for example the M4A3 (105) could penetrate the panthers frontally. In the end statistics the panther doesn’t win by much and if a Sherman fought the panther in a one on one with it’s smoke rounds it could cover up the area and go in and surprise the panther.
I did some follow up on the HESH question. The 75 & 76 mm round does not have much volume for plastic explosives. The 105 mm howitzer has much more volume and could fire at an exaggerated arch and hit the cat tanks. This in fact did happen at times in combat, The HE round could cause spalling and destroy , if it hit the top armor of a cat tank. A HESH round would have come in handy
It shoud be mentioned that panther had serious disadvantage because of total air superiority of Alied forces over Luftwafe which limited tactics of panzers.Best Nazy trops were on the East front that is also a factor.
I would rather have 10 Shermans than 10 Panthers. All 10 Shermans would make it to the battlefield and could be kept fighting. Only 3 out of 10 Panthers could be kept functioning in the battlefield. That is until they were eventually knocked out.
It did not matter how reliable the Panther was. It was complicated to fix and when it broke down it was down for a minimum of 3 days. And that is if the parts were available and usually they weren't. More often than not, new tanks traveling to the front were stripped of parts so that other tanks could be repaired. The Allies, on the other hand, had massive amounts of supplies and support. A broken down Sherman was repaired within 24 hrs.
+John Cornell > *_"But if you are in a Panther, you have a smaller chance of the armour being breached to begin with."_* Based on what? Only concerning engaging it frontally?
Great video Red! The Sherman was a logisticians tank and it was designed to be mass produced and moved great distances. There were a lot of variants of the Sherman which used different engines and transmissions but they were designed to be replaced very quickly in the field and be interchangeable. This was a good video comparing tank on tank capability. I know Red knows this but many people do not, US Army doctrine during WW2 did not intend for the Sherman to fight other tanks. It’s role was as an infantry support tank. Anti tank doctrine called for vehicles like the M18 which were exclusively fit with 76mm and carried mostly anti tank ammo.
The Sherman was a good tank that had a decent gun. It had no problems taking out any tanks other than German heavies. It was equal or better than the panzer iv in every way except the gun. And why compare a heavy tank to a medium tank? Of course a medium tank like the sherman cannot handle a heavy tank like the panther or tiger. No one ever complains about light tanks not being able to take on medium tanks.
The M4 won in '45 but if the Germans would have had an army of video game trained panzer experts driving their armor they would have won no doubt about it.
unmentioned plus for Sherman--automotive reliability was second to none. one could easily drive a Sherman from Omaha Beach to Berlin. no German tank was made well enough or reliable enough to do that. from 1940 to end of war.
John Cornell point being. you could not drive a panther with one full loaded of fuel on board .it would break down before one full load of fuel was used up. if your tank can't get to the show. you don't actually have a tank. so automotive dependability is a critical factor.you could drive a Sherman with it's original engine and transmission and set of tracks 1000 miles easily. a panther would not even make it 200 miles.
@@trentbyington1449 122mm could pen Pershing anywhere in the front 90mm could not pen is2 upper plate ,the left cheek, only lower plate (close range ) or right cheek
Julian Kern so those 2 things everyone uses when comparing german amour to the sherman. Give me a real reason it's better because the amour better is debatable because at some point they stopped face Harding the Panthers amour which takes away from it and the reliability of the panther kind of makes the rest a mute point
Spot on.And the M4A3 Jumbo 76mm was even better than the standard Sherman because the armour was 40% thicker than a standard Sherman,which made it virtually equal in armour to the panther.
Read the German reports of the Panther D arrival at Kursk... The Panther Ds at Kursk was a horrendous failure. Approximately 75-80% of the delivered Panthers broke down during the first days of fighting. Even worse was the fact that the suspension got fucked by the train transport.
This was all rectified before the Kursk battle even ended with the revisions as per the A-Model. I have read all the reports, and since the Panther went from paper to production to the front in around 9 months its only certain there would be some issues to work out. As far as Kursk, the Drivers, Commanders and maintenance crews received too little training in the short time of the Panthers deployment, to the time at the front, this could be said the same with the T-34's first use in theatre as well. Most of the losses were due to this very fact of too little training. That being said I recommend Jentz's book on Panthers "The quest for combat supremacy" pg 132. thru 144. Walter J. Spielberger has a great technical book on the subject as well, and Mike Green's book is another good read.
I have the exact same book in front of me (Panzer Truppen 2. Atglen: Schiffer Military History, Tom L Jentz, 1996). The engines of the Panther D model (at Kursk) did not improve by a few more days of use. Out of the 184 Panther D's deployed at Kursk during the initial phase of the battle engine problems weren't the main cause of losses. These mechanical problems led to only 40 Panthers being operational after 3 days of combat, it then dropped to 10 after 6 days of combat. According to the reports from the German high command and the book the total amount of operational Panthers during Kursk after the first 3 days never were higher than 40 at its peak, the average were much lower at around 10-20 of 184 Panthers deployed being operational...
Well since most of these issues were resolved in the Panther A.... which arrived later, the number of mechanical breakdowns diminished, this is why the D model was shipped back to the factory, and revised with the the model A. I dont think anyone here is arguing that the D model had issues upon delivery, but that being said, all D models were upgraded to either A models or revised D models. Which if you keep reading, you will discover that in the end the crews as well as the General of Panzertruppen gave the Panther high remarks, although he stressed the need for training and logistics... of which we know this would be a Achilles heel of Germany in late 1944 thru 1945. I just want to say that the Panther tank for all of its quirks was one of the most lethal Tanks medium tanks on the field, and that if you look at any modern Army today of its mechanized Divisions or (Brigades)... the logistics and training is exhausting to maintain 100% levels.. you have to be a very wealthy country to sustain said toys.
Good analysis. This echos simulations done by the U.S. Army of the battle of 73 Easting where the conclusion was that if the U.S. and Iraqi forces had traded tanks, the results would have been mostly the same. I feel like the old narrative about the Sherman was propaganda by the military industrial complex to push the idea that an ever-escalating arms race was a important. But in every campaign in WW2, when there was a significant difference between the armor+firepower of the best tanks on one side of the campaign, the side with the *stronger* tanks almost always lost the campaign. In Poland, the best German and Polish tanks were roughly equal but Germany won. In the low countries and France, then later in the desert, the best French and British tanks were markedly stronger than the Germans and the Germans won. The best Soviet tanks in Barbarossa outclassed the Germans but the Germans won. And from 1943 on, the best German tanks outclassed the Soviets but the Germans were consistently losing.
+JAGTHEGEMINI In terms of quality, the M4 was able to shipped over great distances from its "home" factory without needing to return given it's ability to be easily maintained and operated. And reliable enough from the getgo. As well as ergonomics and mobility.
yet armor and gun were not good enough for a main battle tank over the course of the war and the "fear" of Sherman crews meeting tiger tanks is WELL known.
JAGTHEGEMINI say that to the dead iraqi soldiers of 73 eastings...they had way more t72s in comparison to the m1a1 which was more advanced in every way. and what happened? the americans wiped the side with the strength in numbers like shooting fish in a barrel.
Nuclear Winter The Panther was not only a superb fighting machine , It was also crewed by highly trained and skilled elite Panzer Troopen who were second to none!
The german Panther was a better design. But material, logistics and training hurt them a lot. The final drives problem was never solved. And even the A and G models were not as reliable as some people say. Shermans had better trained crews on the average unless you get some old veterans on the Panthers. The Panther had a better gun, armor good optics. Sherman had numbers, better average crew training, reliable, better optics layout on the late models. And better radios, much better FM radios than the AM used by the germans, a detail is often forgotten. American radios had more range and more power against ground clutter. Usefull to call support from other tanks, artillery or P 47s.
Another interesting topic that is relevant to this comparison is the shatter gap issue with U.S. 76mm AP ammo that caused it to not even be able to penetrate the panther's mantle at close ranges. It even made it impossible for the Sherman to penetrate the PzIV H from the front. The issue was caused apparently by a heat treatment issue with U.S. AP ammo. When this issue is included it makes the positive sherman vs panther kill rate even more impressive.
The advantage wasnt even in the tanks, it came in their CAS, and tactics. Both guns were effective against each other, the disadvantage to the germans was lack of air cover, pushing a group to do something they cant realistically achieve is doomed to failure, the pressure was on the germans to make breakthroughs and keep up with time tables, while the us and british had more flexibility and support roles, so they had more mobility to counter the germans.
Has anyone heard of the Panther F and Panther II? The F did exist and was used a bit, it had 50mm side plates instead of 40, and its turret was a flat angled 120mm plate with the rest of the turret having 60mms. The gun was the same as the rest of the Panthers but had no muzzlebreak. It had improved reload as the turret had more space to reload. The Panther II was a paper tank, using the same turret as the Panther F (schmaulturm turret), given the kwk 43 88mm gun, and the armor was upgraded. the front upper plate was given 100mms, and the sides were 60mms. Both the F and II had bulges on the side of the turret that were rangefinder optics.
The panther II I talk about is one of many theories of what the panther II would have been if it was made. The reload would have been terrible as the 88 was very large for the turret, so it would have had a worse reload then the tiger II.
Not even close. No _Panther Ausf. F_ was produced, even then a turret was built and fitted to a _Ausf. G._ A singular _Panther II_ was produced and fitted witht the turret of a _G._ The new turret was not bigger nor added protection
@@peterson7082 last time I heard they produced a few panther Fs but no Panther IIs at all. The schmalturm turret did actusly have more armor. The cheeks were 120mms, and the sides and rear were 60mm. The turret did allow for a tad bit more room that helped with reloading the 75mm.
@@PilotTed There was only one F turret built. I believe the remains of it are in a museum in Germany. The _Panther II_ hull is mated with a late _G_ turret and is currently at the Patton Museum of Calvary and Armor at Fort Knox in Kentucky
It was barely deployed I don't know if it even saw any combat. I know that 75mm Jumbo saw combat but I am not sure about 76mm Jumbo. But anyways it was deployed in very low numbers and if it saw any combat it most likely didn't fight Panther tanks. So it is not thing for comparison.
Panthers costed only a bit more than the Panzer IV varients, However still costing half of a Tiger H1. It was arguably and in my opinion one of the best tanks in WW2, the only thing that made it ineffective was the lack of supplies in late war Germany. This gave it it's reputation with breakdowns and reliability, If serviced properly it would arguably be a reliable tank. It is such a shame Hitler fantasized about large, powerful heavy tanks.
Great video Red! It can't be stressed enough that tanks isn't always about how good your gun, armor and mobility is when the crew operating them does not know how to operate or can't operate the vehicle effectively due to other factors like ergonomics. Some other points that could have been mentioned; the Sherman isn't a "death trap" that a lot of people claim. If I remember my numbers right, a Sherman had a casualty rating of 1 dead, and about 1-2 injured from a hit. Casualty statistics isn't always accurate either as they don't necessary specify if a crewman died whilst fighting inside the Sherman or died while outside. Kinda makes a difference between the two. I should also mention that Shermans (75mm) can use White Phosphorus to disable enemy tanks, but I guess that's a different topic for a different day Bonus points for showing a Soviet operated Sherman at 15:11
Hell yeah. Not just Shermans, but a lot of other equipment and materials like P-39s via Lend-Lease "When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?" -Soviet Hero, Dimitriy Loza (he operated both Shermans and T-34s)
what about the time it took the turret to do a complete 360 degrees ?- some German tanks were VERY slow in this regard compared to the Sherman , which could theoretically manoeuvre out of trouble , and even get a second shot off while the German tank turret was still slowly , VERY slowly turning into position
I would've felt a little bit more at ease, if Sherman's we're equipped with the higher velocity, gun in the beginning. But, I would definitely still fear the Tiger.
+scott crabtree They were. Just not accepted by Armored Force nor deemed necessary by Battalion Commanders, and to a degree the generals behind the Armored Divisions and even Army Ground Forces.
+scott crabtree 200 76mm. gun M1A1 armed M4A1(76)W's were in the U.K. ready for Normandy by May of '1944. Just not bothered to be sent over until Operation _COBRA_ in July.
Nathan Peterson Ah, I see. Man, it's hard to believe how not-so-bothered the Allied Powers were, when it came to the Tiger, Panther, Tiger II, etc..., etc..... They had to know just how dangerous these tanks were going to be for the Sherman, no?
I saw swedish military mobility tests from the late 40's where a sherman went up against panther. The sherman had severe mobility problems in forests rocky ground mud and snow while the panther flew through it. The difference is huge!
I do disagree with you. It was the T 34 in all its models that defeated the Wehrmacht and not the Sherman in all its models. Prove me wrong if you can.
True,but T-34's cudnt do it without IS-2's,TD's of all kinds,and the needed artillery and infrantry support.US forces faced a muuuuuch less germans then the soviets did,and their tanks and army stuff was useless.They cud do it only with the help of their huge airforce,which even then,damaged and destroyed more civillian houses and people,than hit its enemy targets,like they did in Italy,France,Netherlands,and Germany.
There is a point to be made that the Panther if it was an American Tank, would be a heavy tank. So this is actually a Medium Tank M4 vs a Panther Heavy Tank
The latest serman was improved in many ways. Also I learned a lot about how much skill is important in battle just by playing wartunder and world of tanks. If you got more skill you can kill multiple superior tanks on the battlefield and on top of that add some pancerfausts skill matter more
Ok I'm moron. Skill doesn't matter at all. You can pretty much pick random dudes from street and put them into tanks, airplanes, submarines... and dominate on the battlefield. Fuck yeah. Why army spend millions on each F35 pilot when any dude can sit there and bomb them all
Hmmm - well the only thing the Sherman MAY have over the Panther would be perhaps HE punch? The standard M3 75mm gun cannon carried about 0.68 kg of HE whilst the Panther carried about 0.65 kg of HE
@Chad Justice pardon me - I meant in FIREPOWER that is of HE ... then again Sherman 75 atleast wouldn't have nose-heavy problems in maneuvering in tight spots ... and the burning rather than exploding ammunition ... and the turret speed was faster
Nam Trần it’s a British adaption of an American vehicle. The tank itself was an American design, and the British modified the turret so their 17lb gun could fit inside. You could call it 10% British vehicle
Jym Account The firefly had less armor than the German Panther and Tiger. Guns had about the same potential, except that the Firefly used APCR which didn't have explosive filler, allowing tank crews to usually have the ability to escape.
Why in all your videos you always try to talk down German tanks it seem like all you do is make videos about German tanks and then bashing to say how unreliable they are how bad their cruzar why do you do that for
Still every panther/tiger scared the pants off every sherman tank crew right up to the end of the war. The lack of trained tank crews did not help the German fighting effort. Still the big cats bring nothing but awe from all who see them.
Problem with the Panther was there wasn't many made to be a decisive war winner for the Germans. Only about 6,000 were ever made before the war ended compared to 48,000 M4 Sherman's built. There wasn't a gyro stabilizer on the Panther either which ment it couldn't fire accurately on the move like the Sherman could.
Ah. The two infamous medium tanks used by the Western Allies and Nazi Germany. On the Western Front, these two were practically a nemesis to each other. From Normandy, to the Battle of the Bulge, all the way to Berlin.
James Thomas yeah and the Sherman was just as good and you could argue even better than the panzer 4... but still all the wheraboos talk about how shit the Sherman is compared to the mythical tiger 2 in a one on one scenario that never happened 😤
I would actually pick the Panther as the better tank. The Sherman myth that it's a flaming coffin was true but people tend to not believe it but as you said, the Easy-8 solved that issue but still, it had a weak gun that could only fight mediums to light vehicles while can't engage with Tiger Is properly. However, the Panther could pen almost anything on the battlefield from the M26 Pershing to the IS-2 pretty easily thus if I'm like Germany that needed to be on the defense, I want a tank that I know could kill reliably rather than pushing the enemy out thus, I want the Panther. HOWEVER, that being said, the Shermans are just too many to counter so when I'm attacking, I want a Sherman. Of course the Panthers can attack and push too but with lesser material to make more and even maintain them, you would not want to push too far and then break down with no supplies to repair the tank where for the case of the Sherman, there's plenty so for the attack, it goes to the Sherman but end of the day, if you have a gun that could kill your enemy before they reaches you, that tank is a good tank and that's the Panther coupled with it's thicker armor.
Ground pressure is a limited way of evaluating mobility. The overlapping wheels of the Panther reduced peak ground pressure by providing multiple ground contact points. Their large diameter also reduced peak ground pressure. The torsion bar suspension also tracked the ground better to maintain track contact. I believe Panther had a halon gas dump system to extinguish fire.
Arguably. They couldn't fix the final drive issue, so it broke down a bit too easily. Other than that and the somewhat lacklustre crew visibility suite it was pretty good, though.
Unfortunately the Sherman armed 76mm were smaller numbers on each battalion are the first primary target for the Germans when they see the longer barrel.
Rate of fire for Panther 8-10 rounds per minute is only theoretical... gunner had to load the gun with left hand over the gun breach, because he was on the right side, which did not helped with speed of loading.... 76mm Shermans got few of HVAP rounds that were able to penetrate 200mm armor at 500m... but of course, these rounds were mostly provided to Tank Destroyers, and tankers only had 2-3 rounds mostly... And regarding accuracy, 76mm M1 gun was one of the most accurate weapons of WW2... it had 10-15cm dispersion at 1000m, which means it could reliably hit the spot gunner aimed at... for comparation, British 17Pdr had dispersion 25cm at the same distance, while German 88mm (L71) gun had 20cm at the same distance. (dont have data for 75mm L70 though) In real combat, Shrmans were able to engage Panthers first, and keep firing. Study done after war found out Shermans had advantage over Panthers 3:1 when all battles where these tanks met were investigated.. Of course, there were situations where Panthers managed to kill a lot of Shermans from ambush positions, but at the other side there were a lot of situations where Shermans managed to outmaneuver Panther units and wipe them out with accurate fire into flanks.. After all, Tank warfare is maneuver warfare, and whoever outmaneuvers his opponent, wins.
The M4A3E8 Sherman Variant is a better Tank than the Panther Ausf G in my opinion. The Sherman was more maneuverable,weighed less meaning it was easier to transport and could go farther with less fuel,was easier to repair, and could be Retrofitted easier. The Panther Ausf Gs only true advantages of the M4A3E8 Sherman was it’s Armor Thickness. Any Sherman armed with the “Long 76mm” or British 17 pounder Guns could penetrate the Panthers&Tigers frontally, meaning suddenly the Shermans went from not being a major threat if the Panther Front Hull was facing it, to the Shermans being able to penetrate it frontally. Ultimately the Panther Variants,Tiger 1 Variants and Tiger 2 Variants were all vastly flawed and were rushed so they could be on the Battlefield faster. The Allies didn’t do this to any degree as bad as the Germans did, and so most of the Allied Mid-War and Late-War Tanks had less design flaws or less serious design flaws, which were not as problematic due to the Allies having better Logistics than Nazi Germany did. Germany tried taking the entire Planet, and they panicked&rushed things which caused huge issues for the, down the road.
i am always wondering if German can stick a 88mm on a tank, why not try and stick a 90mm M3 anti air gun on the sherman it surely have enough penetration power to pen the panther from the front like the firefly.
One german general said "tiger was as good as 10 shermans, but american brought 11" In reality, tiger was good as 1 sherman (if armed with 76mm gun), and americans brought 5 shermans
I learn from and enjoy your vids. Occasionally I'll not understand an acronym u use. If possible, pls give a definition of the acronym in the description. Cheers ;)
I think there was a little mistake made by saying that the m4a1 76 mm is the easy 8, its not the easy 8 was the m4a3e8 which was another later war model, because the army command demanded a better version of a sherman with a 76 mm gun.
The Panther was a generation (arguably two) newer design. It was designed at a point where the characteristics of the Sherman were already known. The fact that you can compare the two is testimony to the Sherman's quality. Another thing to consider is engine/ trans service life. Being 900km on a Panther and 2500km on a Sherman. I read Faust (I thinks) book and he lamented how it seemed like his Panther immediately wore out while captured American and Russian vehicles being used as tractors ran forever.
I'll say it again. The M4 was the only Tank that the Allied had and they were very successful in their roles. Their Common Knowledge is that they were very Mobile vehicles, reliable and had less maintenance issues, then they were manufactured in big numbers from factories. Most people don't that that Shermans had Wet Storage to prevent ammunition fires because engine fires is not the culprit due they found intact fuel inside a burned Tank and their Armor is ductile to prevent spalling, the M4 is the most survivable Tank throughout the War The reason why the Shermans had better kill-to-loss ratio is that the Western Front negated the German Tank performance and their range from 2000 Yards to 800 Yards and of course, despite that Germans had superior Optics and range, they have very bad Target Acquisitions and Field of View due to the Lack of Periscopes can't fire first due to the lack of Gun Stabilizers. If anyone believed that the 75mm M3 L/40 Gun is incapable to penetrate the Tiger-I and the Panther from the front, then you are wrong. Tiger-I hull can be penetrated by a 75mm with the use of APC Rounds at 90 Degrees. The frontal Turret cheeks of the Panther is also penetrable by a 75mm from 500 Yards. Little did anyone know that they lack the knowledge about Crew experience, Tanks working in Platoons of five to support Infantry breakthrough and Mobile Warfare that is meant to flank defending enemies and armored vehicles. Then of course, the are a lot of M4 Variants is that one Sherman Variant has a 90mm Gun that is capable to penetrate the Turret cheeks of a Tiger-II and the other Sherman Variant that is capable to block 88mm Guns.
If I remember correctly, or...I think I know, that the fact about Germany's best elite crew guys were manned on Tigers. And Shermans won because of its simplicity, it was necessary for military to find a way how to make it cheap and reliable, thus they won simply by overwhelming enemy, since they could send Shermans one after another. And lets remember that there was a short period of time when Germany could fight U.S. and UK alone on west front, while eastern front was safe because of the pact that Hitler made with Stalin, which later was broken by Hitler when pushing into eastern front suddenly. Otherwise fighting on both fronts is quite demanding. Before Hitler sent forces to east, Germany has a good time fighting on the west and being safe from east, focusing a lot of forces on the west side. They managed pretty well fighting against General Patton and his tactics, and other places on the western front. But when Hitler decided to move largest part of forces to east, that's when it started to go down. Bad move which lead to Hitler's loss.
It is always the Man more than the Machine but the Sherman had some big advantages over the Panther, like reliability. The Panther's reliability problems were very real. According to Zaloga's Panther Vs Sherman (does anyone argue with him? Please I would like to know) the Germans had 415 factory fresh Panther ready for the attack in the Ardennes. 120 broke down just moving into line. At the end of the battle they were left with 200, half of which were broke down. The Germans were desprite for tanks so they put 45 tons of resources into one that can't be counted on. All modern battle tanks have guns stabilized in both axes the Sherman's gun was stabilized in the vertical, the panther was in none, it was against German Doctrine to shoot on the move so everyone else did whether they had a stabilized gun or not (yeah, Stabilized better). Both tanks had a manual and power turret traverse, on the Panther the power traverse wasn't used because it didn't work. On the Sherman the manual traverse wasn't used because the power one was so precise. Both commanders had turret controls but in the case of the Panther's as stated above this was useless. The Sherman TC had a leaf sight welded to the front of the turret. He could put the gun on target using his turret controls in seconds, no need to say anything to the gunner, but: AP! TANK! FIRE! Also the Sherman did something no Panzer ever did, it supported the Infantry. Because it had Mass in numbers. What's the equation? Mass vs quality? There is no quality in something that breaks like a toy.
Shermans were shipped across the ocean. You can imagine all the limitations (size, weight, gun...) due to the logistic. Shermans still did the job. Nearly nobody point out this, but I think this one major "tour de force" from the US Army.
Very good point often completely overlooked.
Probably the best tank of the war
That German Leo 2a4 is holding it's beer while sprinting 3:37
You know it's a German tank when it brings you a mug of beer on the battlefield without spilling.
everyone saw that i think
armored beer delivery right onto the battelfield! now thats a waiter you can trust
The versatility is arguably the most hallmark trait of the Sherman. With input of allied countries, Sherman variants were designed for all possible roles, including more rare armored medical transports, and amphibious assaults. No other single tank chassis saw the sheer versatility, and role diversity, like the Sherman.
CHURCHILL
@@HanSolo__ Churchill meep meep
T 34 lol
@@Ren-tq1hs T-34 literally had no other variants... No medevacs, no armored transports, no amphibious tanks.
@@samuellatta6774 no comrad you wrong. Great red army has no medivac at all because a soviet wins or dies. The t34 has infact an amphibius variant : you take an entire tank army you throw its tank in a river and it makes a bridge. Anyway you stil have enough t34 to equip ten more tanks armies. And for the transport you put your comrads on the back of a t34.
Did you say "tanks for watching"?
we can only hope
Tank you XD
You're so right about late war Panther crews. I could only shake my head in disbelief watching the 1944 battle of the reichtwald where dozens of preciously needed Panthers were thrown away due to hopelessly bad deployment and tactics.
Especially in one instance where 50 Panthers were led completely unsupported, and in parade fashion no less, right into flanking American fire. The result was a near turkey shoot.
Battle of Arracourt en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
Do you build tanks to win the battle (Panther) or do you build tanks to win the war (Sherman).
@John Cornell it may have been designed then but it wasn't really used until germany started losing the war
@John Cornell I didn't say it was I'm just stated being designed prior to an event is different then being built prior to an event.
@John Cornell actually that is untrue the m3 Lee's design was done prior to the war the m4's design was not fully completed until the prototype trials on the initial design submitted. These trials occurred after September 1941. The design was completed when they were accepted for production. It is hard to compare the German design process to the american process since their testing was much more limited . I honestly believe if we are going to talk about when it was designed then we should limit it to the final design. Which is what would be ultimately the production tank which means . 1941 for the m4 and 1942 for the panther. If we want to talk earliest design 1938ish for the panther and 1940 for the sherman.. but by 1940-41 america was honestly already indirectly fighting the war and by December 7th 1941 it was basically official that America was going to war
And again it doesn't matter when the final design was completed it is is it ready in time to help or hinder the army. The answer for the panther is no it wasn't
@John Cornellmy argumen is it doesn't matter when it was designed a tank can either be designed to win a war or a battle. The t28 super heavy tank was being designed when the allies were winning the war and it had one sole goal win battles against the Siegfried line. The panther was designed to win tank battles. The sherman wars
14:38 Scooby Doo's Mystery Machine in formation
Lol
Holy shit my dude, that's quite observant!
Shaggy: "Like, uh, Scoob. Jagtiger at 11 o'clock, he doesn't see us, crack it in the engine compartment"
Scooby Doo: "RUH OH! ROADING HP SHRELL! Hehehehehehe ROOBY DOOBY DOOOO!
I don’t get it
@@generalrommel5666 look in the background
M4
- Easy to maintain
- Very reliable
- Easy to mass produce
- 76mm with HVAP was found to be able to penetrate the font of a Panther at 950 yards in post war testing
- Stabilized gun which when used gave it excellent first shot and return fire accuracy and target acquisition
- Light enough to be lifted by a Liberty ship's crane and use most bridges
- Wet stowage almost eliminated the risk of ammo fires (Gas engine was never the problem) and "dry" M4s had their ammo stowage revised to be less vulnerable.
Individually, excluding the crew factor, I'd still say a Panther was the better tank but it was also more complex and fuel intensive which were exacerbated by the issues Germany was facing. Still it's disingenuous to say the Sherman couldn't compete and I'd also say the M4 was more suited to the US's needs.
RNG_ Lord oh my finally someone who likes panther but accepts the Sherman as a good tank too
RNG_ Lord
Also it was made thousands of miles away form any front
It’s part has to be interchangeable with one to a and other .
Don’t forget the M4 had turret down with its optical sight mounted on the roof .
Target actuated hidden
14:38 Shot of the top secret M1969 APC codenamed "Meddler". This machine would prove invaluable in later long range anti-monster(LRAM) operations in the Vietnam War. It's radical departure from the rugged look of the Jeep played a key role in it's operational use, as the LRAM teams would often use its rather civilian aesthetic to hide in plain sight. Make no mistake though, the M1969 is all business and was highly respected by the troops who used them. :)
Meddl loide!
One thing of note. The Americans did not really start receiving HVAP rounds in mass till around March-April of 1945. The only units to receive them of any quantity were that of TD units. Panther gets a bad rep by a bunch of BS propaganda. Before the Kursk battle was even over they had managed to rectify many of the faults of the D model. The refit and new production would be that of the A model with minor other improvements. The G model was the main production model and it was completely worked up. The only thing they did not fix was the final drive, but it was still 90% effective, the problem was crew training and logistical issues.
Indeed John, I had not read about Operation Grenade for some time, just went and re-read it. Good stuff.
JuergenGDB lol panther gets overrated due to propaganda and documentaries on history channel
John Cornell your forget that the 25 percent of 76 mm tanks where still more than all panthers combined.
Reliability of Panther tank, like almost all german tank post 1943, was terrible. 90% of panther gearbox failed before 1500km. A report from the 116. Panzer Division said than within 5 days during the battle of the Bulge (from 18 december 1944 to 23 december 1944) 19 panthers out of 41 broke down, with only one because of enemy action.
@John Cornell the key word that should alert you that something unusual is being discussed is "at the required ranges which we must be able to effectively engage enemy armor" because during most of the campaign, range wasn't an issue. Grenade was staged in the floodplain of the Rhein river, which gave German armor a rare opportunity to use the Panther in the role which it was intended - as a long-range sniper. Most of the western front didn't allow this to be utilized with any regularity, unlike the battles on the steppes of the Eastern front.
The Sherman is a better tank due to how versatile it was. The Sherman could be deployed for many roles from Infantry support to minesweeping. Not to mention it was easy to manufacture.
True, it's cheap producing made it a really good tank, but it could only stand up against Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs
The american Sherman with a 76mm could and faced both Tigers and Panthers. I read somewhere (i think it was on the Chieftains channel) that one Tiger was defeated by a bunch of 75mm Sherman using HE, they shot enough to basically desintegrate the crew with spall. 75 HE. A round for clearing infantry
So did panther
The Problem wasnt the Crews the Problem was on 1 Panther came 20 shermans
8 out of 10 German soldiers died on the Eastern front(in battles with the red army)
Henning Malland You do know it was part of a tanks job to support infantry right? Even being mass produced the sherman was and is the better tank
The problem was the crews, by 1944, American crews had been training and working together since 1942 and had their tanks and tactics down to a T. While German tanks by 1944 were crewed with ex luftwaffe and kreigsmarine soldiers that due to shortages of fuel and ammo had little training. In the battle of Arracourt, September 1944, outnumbered Sherman’s easily stopped a 5th Panzer Army attack, adroit fire-and-maneuver tactics used by Combat Command A, negated the superior armor and firepower of the German tanks. The 5th Panzer started out with 262 AFV’s, they lost 86 destroyed and 114 damaged or broken while CCA lost 25 M-4’s and 7 tank destroyers. This probably explains why the M-1 tank was named after the commander of CCA, Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams?
No, it wasn't. Infantry support was only one role of many that a tank fulfilled and even in that a Panther was far superior to a Sherman because of it's superb armor and firepower. Too, important to remember that American philosophies of armor deployment and use were not the same as the German's. In an age where so many military enthusiasts, at least American enthusiasts, 'learn' their history from all the Spielberg rubbish that dominates American mass media it requires very little effort to go on YT and rattle away about how gloriously superior American weaponry, tactics, etc. . . were to those poor overmatched Krauts, but it has next to nothing to do with reality. Cheers!
That is why the M1 is a replicate of the Sherman ;-)
M4A3(76)w HVSS
Pro’s
-Excellent Fire control and Target Acquisition
-Excellent rate of fire
-Vertical stabilizer allows acquiring targets on the move and very fast gun stability after stopping and firing
-Periscope sight
-Great AP shell
-Powerful, fast and Precise powered turret traverse
-Excellent Mechanical reliability
-Excellent east of repair
-Easy to mass produce
-2nd most well-armored medium tank
-Regenerative steering
-relatively smooth ride
-Extremely easy to escape from
-Roomy and Ergonomic with wide turret ring
-Every crew member has a 120 degree FOV optic.
-Excellent Hp/tonne
-Excellent Ground pressure
-Excellent smoothness
-Great travel
-Very hard to hit and Wet stored ammo
Con’s
-Mediocre HE shell
-Mediocre silhouette size
Panther G
Pro’s
-most well-armored medium tank
-Very accurate gun
-Excellent AP penetration
-Excellent smooth ride
-Excellent suspension travel
-Great ground pressure
-Good HP/tonne
Con’s
-slow fire control and target acquisition
-No gunners wide view sight
-No gunners periscope sight
-Shockingly bad Final drive reliability (150 km before break down)
-difficult to repair
-Slow rate of fire
-Mediocre HE shell
-Inpercise turret control
-Can’t reload while turret is turning
-turret cannot hold gun in place on 20 degree slope.
-Heavy and Collapses most bridges
-Mediocre escapability
-Mediocre ergonomics
-Gas Guzzler
-No smoke rounds
-Big silhouette size
-No regenerative steering
-Ammo a little vulnerable
-Not the easiest to produce
also
forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/74282-m4-sherman-vs-panther/
imgur.com/EVKUetf
ruclips.net/video/Mnyir02Y-EA/видео.html
how many hours a day do you spend patrolling around Comments?,i see you everywhere across the entire internet posting comments quite often in excess of 1000 words usually multiple of them per reply.
I prefer T-34 . I can use it many time .
Muhahahaha War Thunder muhahahahaha
@John Cornell hes not wrong at all your wrong
@John Cornell the only thing i saw that was kinda off was the 2nd most armoured medium since the t34 85 has more armour because of its better sloping and the very hard to hit part because the the m4 is tall , so far thats the only thing i can see thats wrong about it
Also why do you call Sherman simple tank? Because of wet ammo stowage? Because of reliable powertrain? Because of good radio sets? Because of gun stabilizer? Because of great visibility by having roof and coax gun sights?
Finally a brilliant fact driven analysis of the issue. Well done...
A cohesive and well trained crew in a good tank is more combat effective than a poorly trained and uncoordinated crew in a very good tank.
One of your last sentences is very... well... unintelligent.
"But in the end, Shermans won the war, and thats all what matters"
Well, in this way to comparison you could even compare a Tiger I to a T34 and say the same.
Or a fooking Mathilda and a Tiger II.
Or you compare the Bismarck with the Hood at this circumstances.
Sorry, but this sentence makes no sense at all.
It makes perfect sense, because tanks do not fight in a vaccum. They're part of a SYSTEM. In this sense Sherman was a better part of its own system then Panther was of its.
When the Germans built and manned tanks which were made to be breaktrough tanks, they were wining, when their tank building concentrated on making a tank that is better at killing other tanks then being a breaktrough vechicle who's main targets are infantry and fortifications they were lossing. Now this is a factually correct statement, tho the tanks were not the only factor (by far not the only factor) for them lossing.
Meanwhile the most effective vechicle the Germans produced and used in terms of killing enemy tanks was Stug and its variants, primarily the 48 callibers 75mm armed one.
Their silly obsesion with putting massive anti-tank guns in their tanks, meanth a massive turret ring, a massive turret, a massive suspension, massive volume and hence massive weight, which then means massive engines and massive fuel consumption, this by a nation that had a shortage of fuel.
The americans were perfectly capable of making a 60 ton tank with a long barreled 90mm gun and armor which is above 110mm in the front arc, BUT they decided not to do it for a REASON. And that reason is, such a vechicle didn't fit into their SYSTEM.
So his statement makes perfect sense, if you use correct logic.
I dont think so, sorry. You are right, tanks dont act in a vacuum, I totally agree with that.
But the germans lost the war because of lost recources in the first place. The germans needed to build such tanks because of theyr doctrine of war, because most of them gave the soliders a better protection.
While the members of the Wehrmacht where in a constant war -mode (sorry for my bad english), the allies could send theyr aces back at home to train the new soliders. In order to protect the few man you have (well, few is not fitting completely but I hope you guess what I mean) you must have abetter protection.
At least, I dont like this not so well made TV documentaries at all.
If you are interested in tanks, take a look on "Tank chats" from the museum of Bovington.
Well made and not so sensation hungry.
Martin van Creveld, a very good book author writes the book "Fighting power" its a tip from me for you, because I think you will be greatly entertained.
Best wishes and a ver peacefully weekend to you
+Hugo von Payns
> *_"The germans needed to build such tanks because of theyr doctrine of war, because most of them gave the soliders a better protection."_*
Based on what?
Branko Milicevic so you gonna tell me sherman was better bottom line??? and if you want to talk "logic" well the germans didnt have the luxury of making more tanks than the u.s. could shoot if they didnt have enough crews to man them and makes perfect sense for them to go with better tanks to try to even up everything so your wrong and so is the guy who made the video cause if your gonna go with anything it was circumstances that made it impossible for the germans to win if you want to talk logic
Anon emous
Design and pourpose wise maybe, but individual tank wise, no.
14:40 I guess shaggy and Scooby-Doo were vets
Did anyone else see the mystery machine in one of the photos?
I knew a veteran driver of a Churchill tank in Normandy. When asked if they feared being out gunned by the Tiger , he matter of factly told me that they would aim to jam the turret and that it might also cause a downward richochet which would turn the interior into a hornet's nest of spall fragments. They only engaged below 500 metres and would try to get behind for the coup de grace if possible. He also mentioned that snipers were trained to disable rather than kill. Hence he was asked one day when they were sitting behind a hedgerow, which afforded a distant view of the occasional exposed Nazi. What do you want, an arm or a leg? I heard this from other veterans too. Rationale is that a non lethal wound would sideline more personnel than a deceased one.
Please don't comment if you dont know shit. The Tiger Ausf.E has no visible Turret Ring, nor any shot-traps. Plus you didnt specify, what variant of chuchill..
go and look at Tiger 131 at the Bovington tank museum.
This exact thing happen and a Churchill jammed the tiger turret and promptly captured it.
No need to be aggressive and believe that you got foolproof knowledge.
Keep a open mind and check it out instead of lashing out because someone says something you don't know a about.
the very same "shot trap that kills them all" claim was made for the pre-chin mantlet Panther, somewhat with more grounds, given the shape... Even that obvious error took a long time for the Germans to bother fixing, which indicates hitting specifc parts of a turret pointing at you is not the easiest thing... Furthermore, all the German cats featured raised front hull armor that completey shielded the space below the mantlet, so this was only likely if the German had the turret turned a significant amount...
A refreshing view of the Sherman v Panther debate by a partisan observer,without allied or axis prejudice
Both decent tanks, but one was utilized well, and the other wasn't.
this was new for me because i had always think that shermans was able to defeat panthers only because numbers but now i see that was not so simple. ofcorce situation had been totally different if germans has had proper aerial and other support to their tanks and fully trained and experinced crews but that wasn't so and we all know what the outcome was. so thank you for good video 👍
You forgot to mention that (according to Zaloga) white phosphorus smoke rounds proved to be effective against stationary german heavy tanks, the smoke blinded the german crews and was getting sucked into the tank by the ventilation, forcing the crews to bail out.
There are stories about rare cases where 1 or 2 Panthers with one of the very few remaining well trained an experienced crews took out dozens of shermans in short order.
Yeah there are similar stories about Tiger I's and Tiger II's. The story of the death of michael wittman comes to mind, he took out tons of tanks, trucks, light vehicles then came back and took out a lot more, only to get hit by a lucky shot from a British Sherman Firefly from a inexperienced crewman, Wittman and his tigers took out at least 20 vehicles that day, but i don't know the number off the top of my head.
The fact that most post WW2 european tanks took more from the panther than the sherman, the Centurion and Leopard 1 being good examples, the T-54 taking elements of the T-44, IS-2 and Panther, the Patton tanks were the only outlier, coming from the pershing but the pershing was meant to be a similar tank and to counter Panthers and Tigers, and even then they knew their 90mm gun was inferior to the German 88mm. The French used panthers in the 50's, lack of spare parts being the main reason they were taken out of service. The Czechs used and retired them for the same reasons in the 50's, but they did it with lots of German vehicles (the French did too, but the Czechs a lot more) The Czechoslovak army in the early 50's was like a mini-wehrmacht.
@@maverick7376 innovative about the panther were a few things. First it was comparatively cheap to produce and the design was the first to near a standardized development process close to the E series of tanks which allowed it to be developed in record time. It featured like the tiger 2 a long sloped upper hull leaving the the weak spot between the upper and lower plate (weaker welding) very low down with the transmission right behind it protecting the crew and especially driver from potential spalling if that weak spot was actually hit. It featured very good mobility for its size and armor protection. It was the most expandable design ready to implement a lot of upgrades for the time. The gun was even more so than the 88 on the tiger geared towards anti tank warfare. For a medium tank it also offer the most crewspace at the time, something the Russian failed to implement until the introduction of the T14 in 2015 for example. There are also several technical innovations I don't have memorized in regard to range finder and targeting system. All in all a good chunk of experts describe it as the best overall tank to hit the ww2 battlefields.
@@maverick7376 you yourself named a few of tanks designed with inspiration from the panther. The weakspot where 2 armor plates are welded together is well known. A hit at that spot will often cause spalling when the armor is not penetrated almost like a hesh round. On the panther just like on the tiger 2 that weakspot is low to the ground so it's hard to hit and if it's hit the transmission protect the driver from spalling. The tank had many faults mostly due to the record development time of under a year and it was the least overengineered German tank of the later years in the war. The things I named were great innovations for a tank of its class and its reflected in its combat record. It's hard to say how effective it would've been if they had experienced crewmembers or even well trained crew members for the machines.
@@northumbriabushcraft1208 that's entirely false. The 90mm M3 cannon was a superior gun to the Tiger 1's 88mm in penetration and post penetration affect. Hell, the tigers gun has some issues penetrating the Pershing's turret and ufp aswell. Are you smoking crack you kraut?
Been waiting a long, long time for this vid. Thanks Red.
The M4 was good enough and cheap to produce. Because of the two oceans preventing any invasion of the mainland, the U.S. military budget has always tended to prioritize naval and air equipment, and spent a huge amount of resources on the Manhattan project and technical things like miniature radar for planes and ships and the proximity fuse warhead. But on everything they made, producing things in great quantity was a priority, and they did that better than anybody.
*ahem* the Russian t-34
the sherman had amazing survivability, was easy for the crew to bail out and easy to get back into service. only 1300 tankers died during the war, thats very small.
My great cousin who was in France would argue that. He served as rifleman tank escort, and 2 different instances, saw crew members who were trapped in the Sherman as it burned since the hatches got stuck often. If anything, the panzer 4 offered better survivability due to having side hatches which were much easier to get to, and open.
The army gathered statistics, and a KO-ed Sherman lead to about 0.9 casualties per tank. It was one of the best tanks when it came to crew ergonomics and escape. Whatever your cousin saw, it wasn't the rule, but the exception.
calli clark but it was named "Tommykocher" =tommycooker. Tommy is a slang used for americans, and the name leads to the fact that shermans were prone to burning out immediatly after a hit, or even without. It was very easy to set on fire.
Which, if you had any knowledge of WW2 myths, you'd know is utter bullshit. The dry stowage was no more prone to brewing up than any other tank, except with some stupid crews that loaded their tanks with ammo to the brim, and the wet stowage made the M4 one of the safest tanks in the war.
And?
The information provided seems accurate enough. I don't exactly disagree with the overall conclusion, but the logic used to get to such conclusion IMO is flawed. The logic you used here is less of a individual tank comparison and more of a effectiveness of the vehicles instead(which is different from being technically superior)
How effective a vehicle performs can be affected by things outside of the vehicle's technical capabilities. A M1 Abrams would be horribly ineffective if WW2 Germany used it, simply because of the fuel shortage and cost. But the technical capabilities would be better than anything that existed in WW2.
First issue I have is the training argument. The average German tank crews have been reduced great from 1943 onwards with exception to the heavy tank battalion which were elite units. True enough however...
The less trained average tanker post-1943 isn't inherent to the tank's design. You can take away points if it was difficult for the crew to use but that wasn't really the case. You can take away points since the final drive gave a rookie driver a harder time, but overall the training capabilities of a nation shouldn't be used for or against a weapon. The weapon itself doesn't train the user. In cases like these, it should be assumed that the crew are equally well trained in their respective equipment and tactics.
Also the generals deploying the Panther in urban areas(which it was unsuited for) is not the tank's fault. Sending a fighter underwater to fight a submarine doesn't make the plane bad.
My next problem is the conclusion that US won the war, thus the M4 is better. The Marmon-Herrington CTLS can't be said to be superior to the Panzer IV just because it's on the winning side. In a war, not all weapon have the same level of contribution. Logistics have a larger contribution to victory than any tank would for example. You can have a very bad design, and still win simply because everything else worked great. Doesn't make that a good weapon. Hypothetically if the M4 Sherman were replaced with the Panther, and the US army performs better, wouldn't that make it superior? In that example, the Panther could of been better but since its on the losing side, it's not? That doesn't make sense.
Just hypothetical, as I will get into why I think the Sherman is arguably the best tank of the war. But the Panther isn't necessarily a bad tank at all.
In tank to tank, the Panther is vastly superior. In tactically mobility, the Panther is also superior, with better climb, speed, pivot, and ground pressure. But of course, these aren't the only factors in a tank. For what the Panther can do against tanks, it is very cost effective, although more expensive than the Sherman.
The Sherman however is survivable, which help preserve skilled crewmen. The German tanks weren't as survivable but aren't exactly deathtraps either.
Maintenance goes to the Sherman, German big cats aren't necessarily less reliable, but it simply required a lot more complex logistic capability to maintain that reliability.
US also had superior logistics which made the already reliable Sherman more robust as constant supply and skilled maintenance crew can keep up. The Panther being an exception had a unreliable final drive even after it being partially addressed in the Ausf G.
Against infantry, the M4 is simply better with a better HE round. The best all-round gun the Germans had were probably the 8.8cm L/55 on the Tiger I which combined a good penetrating gun and a powerful HE round. IDK if the higher velocity gun on the Tiger II can fire the same HE round though.
M4 Sherman had better fire control since the gunner had a independent periscope. The Panther had a superior optic reticle, but lack situational awareness by comparison.
The armor on the Sherman is good, the 76mm is good enough, and the 75mm is very useful. Overall the Sherman is a well balanced tank, it doesn't excel at anything other than survivability and reliability, but its versatility is what is most needed. The Panther was well suited for the Eastern front but all in all was ill-suited as the main tank for an army.
It was too specialized in one particular role. It was more of a cheaper and easier to transport heavy tank. Unlike the Panzer III and IVs, it was not as versatile. I'm reluctant to even consider the Panther's role suitable for a heavy tank, unlike the Tiger I and IIs, it didn't quite have the HE round useful for trenches, foxholes and bunkers. It is strictly anti-tank in nature, so more of a heavy tank destroyer if anything.
In that role alone it is great, but since both the M4 and Panther was intended as the main tank for their respective army, I will argue the Panther failed.
What a load of wank
The Sherman’s 76 was better than the panthers 75.
When it comes to firepower I would say the Sherman takes it, for example the M4A3 (105) could penetrate the panthers frontally. In the end statistics the panther doesn’t win by much and if a Sherman fought the panther in a one on one with it’s smoke rounds it could cover up the area and go in and surprise the panther.
I did some follow up on the HESH question. The 75 & 76 mm round does not have much volume for plastic explosives. The 105 mm howitzer has much more volume and could fire at an exaggerated arch and hit the cat tanks. This in fact did happen at times in combat, The HE round could cause spalling and destroy , if it hit the top armor of a cat tank. A HESH round would have come in handy
"Sherman is superior"
Konigstiger: Vat deed yu saed?
That Person The King Tiger has only 80mm of side armor so there's no big deal.
White343 and Sherman had the 75 and 76 gun that cannot pen Tiger II reliably
That Person From the front no but even then the tiger 2 was nothing more than a propaganda machine just like the tiger 1. Unreliable fuel eating waste
Chad Justice early Tiger I yes, but i dont know about later production
Tiger I may not be great, but Tiger II was a beast
That Person Konigstiger, oofed itself while fighting is2s
How many World Of Tanks players are here? If you are not, then you are missing out on a wonderful thing. Like if you are one.
For a realistic experience, War Thunder is better.
*Laughs in War Thunder*: B-but that’s a pay2win game! Hahahaha
It shoud be mentioned that panther had serious disadvantage because of total air superiority of Alied forces over Luftwafe which limited tactics of panzers.Best Nazy trops were on the East front that is also a factor.
Not entirely from a tactical point of view.
CAS was actually very ineffective against tanks. All it did was crush the morale of tank crews
@@jessegm1 But CAS can wreak havoc on your supply
*nazi
@@miljenko4209 dobro brate mojne si jezički nacista 😁
I would rather have 10 Shermans than 10 Panthers. All 10 Shermans would make it to the battlefield and could be kept fighting. Only 3 out of 10 Panthers could be kept functioning in the battlefield. That is until they were eventually knocked out.
Kevin Sissons what panther? panther A? panther G? because I can tell you one of the two was known for its good reliability...
It did not matter how reliable the Panther was. It was complicated to fix and when it broke down it was down for a minimum of 3 days. And that is if the parts were available and usually they weren't. More often than not, new tanks traveling to the front were stripped of parts so that other tanks could be repaired.
The Allies, on the other hand, had massive amounts of supplies and support. A broken down Sherman was repaired within 24 hrs.
Kevin Sissons So, you prefer to figth in a Sherman?
Fernando De Marco Shermans weren't that bad, and if you were in a panther, you had a smaller chance of making it out alive, if the armor was breached
+John Cornell
> *_"But if you are in a Panther, you have a smaller chance of the armour being breached to begin with."_*
Based on what? Only concerning engaging it frontally?
Owh... Finally new videos!
Happy new year and I hope your enjoying the Holidays ..
Great video as always :')
Thanks, happy holidays to you as well :)
RedEffect Glad to hear that you're enjoying your holiday :')
Thanks :)
Great video Red! The Sherman was a logisticians tank and it was designed to be mass produced and moved great distances. There were a lot of variants of the Sherman which used different engines and transmissions but they were designed to be replaced very quickly in the field and be interchangeable. This was a good video comparing tank on tank capability. I know Red knows this but many people do not, US Army doctrine during WW2 did not intend for the Sherman to fight other tanks. It’s role was as an infantry support tank. Anti tank doctrine called for vehicles like the M18 which were exclusively fit with 76mm and carried mostly anti tank ammo.
The Sherman was a good tank that had a decent gun. It had no problems taking out any tanks other than German heavies. It was equal or better than the panzer iv in every way except the gun. And why compare a heavy tank to a medium tank? Of course a medium tank like the sherman cannot handle a heavy tank like the panther or tiger. No one ever complains about light tanks not being able to take on medium tanks.
The M4 won in '45 but if the Germans would have had an army of video game trained panzer experts driving their armor they would have won no doubt about it.
So what, that applies to just about anything. Irrelevant they lost
unmentioned plus for Sherman--automotive reliability was second to none. one could easily drive a Sherman from Omaha Beach to Berlin. no German tank was made well enough or reliable enough to do that. from 1940 to end of war.
John Cornell point being. you could not drive a panther with one full loaded of fuel on board .it would break down before one full load of fuel was used up. if your tank can't get to the show. you don't actually have a tank. so automotive dependability is a critical factor.you could drive a Sherman with it's original engine and transmission and set of tracks 1000 miles easily. a panther would not even make it 200 miles.
John Cornell lol never mind John.
Brad Campbell 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔
@John Cornell the Sherman had great armor protection
@John Cornell I love you too.
Great job very informative. I plan to look up several of the battles mentioned.
Can you do IS2 Vs pershing in korea?
Never faced eachother
Or Pershing goes boom
Mr. Waffentrager lmao no
@@trentbyington1449 122mm could pen Pershing anywhere in the front
90mm could not pen is2 upper plate ,the left cheek, only lower plate (close range ) or right cheek
@Tiger 231 no no if you have tiger1 gun then IS2 will outrange you anywhere ...
And tiger 2 won't be able to pen is2 upper plate or the left cheek
Another Great Video RedEffect!
Thanks :)
So if Germans won the war,panther would be a better tank?
lol some logic you got there
Bors9 Eh, yah that is some shoddy reasoning but as we learn, the German tanks didn’t stop the shells from killing them and are a reliability nightmare
These 2 tanks are like Brothers. Big tracks, big guns, high speed and mobility and tall silhouette.
But if it comes down to the question which is the better tank the Panther is superior.
Julian Kern how?
Chad Justice better gun better armor a little better manoeuvrability
Julian Kern so those 2 things everyone uses when comparing german amour to the sherman. Give me a real reason it's better because the amour better is debatable because at some point they stopped face Harding the Panthers amour which takes away from it and the reliability of the panther kind of makes the rest a mute point
Chad Justice the Sherman's weren't that reliable either more than 1/4 of them broke down on the way to battle and they weren't rushed into production
Chad Justice +and even if the armor was the same if the Sherman wouldn't get close enough to penetrate
Spot on.And the M4A3 Jumbo 76mm was even better than the standard Sherman because the armour was 40% thicker than a standard Sherman,which made it virtually equal in armour to the panther.
thomas Gokey turret and hull sides were in hell better. but not so much jumbos got the 76
I think most of them either had the standard m3 75mm or the 105 mm for troop support.
Fun fact: Panthers destroy itself try to get into kursk in 1943.
True... I dont think John Slavitski wants to admit.. that he would rather be red..... Russian bias
Read the German reports of the Panther D arrival at Kursk... The Panther Ds at Kursk was a horrendous failure. Approximately 75-80% of the delivered Panthers broke down during the first days of fighting. Even worse was the fact that the suspension got fucked by the train transport.
This was all rectified before the Kursk battle even ended with the revisions as per the A-Model. I have read all the reports, and since the Panther went from paper to production to the front in around 9 months its only certain there would be some issues to work out. As far as Kursk, the Drivers, Commanders and maintenance crews received too little training in the short time of the Panthers deployment, to the time at the front, this could be said the same with the T-34's first use in theatre as well. Most of the losses were due to this very fact of too little training. That being said I recommend Jentz's book on Panthers "The quest for combat supremacy" pg 132. thru 144. Walter J. Spielberger has a great technical book on the subject as well, and Mike Green's book is another good read.
I have the exact same book in front of me (Panzer Truppen 2. Atglen: Schiffer Military History, Tom L Jentz, 1996). The engines of the Panther D model (at Kursk) did not improve by a few more days of use. Out of the 184 Panther D's deployed at Kursk during the initial phase of the battle engine problems weren't the main cause of losses. These mechanical problems led to only 40 Panthers being operational after 3 days of combat, it then dropped to 10 after 6 days of combat. According to the reports from the German high command and the book the total amount of operational Panthers during Kursk after the first 3 days never were higher than 40 at its peak, the average were much lower at around 10-20 of 184 Panthers deployed being operational...
Well since most of these issues were resolved in the Panther A.... which arrived later, the number of mechanical breakdowns diminished, this is why the D model was shipped back to the factory, and revised with the the model A. I dont think anyone here is arguing that the D model had issues upon delivery, but that being said, all D models were upgraded to either A models or revised D models. Which if you keep reading, you will discover that in the end the crews as well as the General of Panzertruppen gave the Panther high remarks, although he stressed the need for training and logistics... of which we know this would be a Achilles heel of Germany in late 1944 thru 1945. I just want to say that the Panther tank for all of its quirks was one of the most lethal Tanks medium tanks on the field, and that if you look at any modern Army today of its mechanized Divisions or (Brigades)... the logistics and training is exhausting to maintain 100% levels.. you have to be a very wealthy country to sustain said toys.
Good analysis. This echos simulations done by the U.S. Army of the battle of 73 Easting where the conclusion was that if the U.S. and Iraqi forces had traded tanks, the results would have been mostly the same. I feel like the old narrative about the Sherman was propaganda by the military industrial complex to push the idea that an ever-escalating arms race was a important. But in every campaign in WW2, when there was a significant difference between the armor+firepower of the best tanks on one side of the campaign, the side with the *stronger* tanks almost always lost the campaign. In Poland, the best German and Polish tanks were roughly equal but Germany won. In the low countries and France, then later in the desert, the best French and British tanks were markedly stronger than the Germans and the Germans won. The best Soviet tanks in Barbarossa outclassed the Germans but the Germans won. And from 1943 on, the best German tanks outclassed the Soviets but the Germans were consistently losing.
Sherman/T34 won cause NUMBERS win a war and not cause they were the better tanks...
Quantity >> Quality
+JAGTHEGEMINI
Not necessarily.
But mostly yes..
"Exceptions strengthens the genereal rule"
+JAGTHEGEMINI
In terms of quality, the M4 was able to shipped over great distances from its "home" factory without needing to return given it's ability to be easily maintained and operated. And reliable enough from the getgo. As well as ergonomics and mobility.
yet armor and gun were not good enough for a main battle tank over the course of the war and the "fear" of Sherman crews meeting tiger tanks is WELL known.
JAGTHEGEMINI say that to the dead iraqi soldiers of 73 eastings...they had way more t72s in comparison to the m1a1 which was more advanced in every way. and what happened? the americans wiped the side with the strength in numbers like shooting fish in a barrel.
The Panther Ausf G was The Best Tank of WW 2 !!!
+Frank White
There's no such thing as "the best tank of the war".
Ayelmao you talking about those tactics that lost them war?
Then i guess Arracourt should have been a german victory
John Cornell if the panther was such a good and superior tank, then it shouldn't matter who crews it
Nuclear Winter
The Panther was not only a superb fighting machine , It was also crewed by highly trained and skilled elite Panzer Troopen who were second to none!
Another very good video. Well done!
The german Panther was a better design. But material, logistics and training hurt them a lot. The final drives problem was never solved. And even the A and G models were not as reliable as some people say. Shermans had better trained crews on the average unless you get some old veterans on the Panthers. The Panther had a better gun, armor good optics. Sherman had numbers, better average crew training, reliable, better optics layout on the late models. And better radios, much better FM radios than the AM used by the germans, a detail is often forgotten. American radios had more range and more power against ground clutter. Usefull to call support from other tanks, artillery or P 47s.
No matter what, the Panther and Jagdpanther are the best looking ones!
Justin Cider I like the look of the Stuart and pz 4 with the longer barrel and side skirts, is it the pz 4 m?
@@crunch9876 PZ 4 H
Another interesting topic that is relevant to this comparison is the shatter gap issue with U.S. 76mm AP ammo that caused it to not even be able to penetrate the panther's mantle at close ranges. It even made it impossible for the Sherman to penetrate the PzIV H from the front. The issue was caused apparently by a heat treatment issue with U.S. AP ammo. When this issue is included it makes the positive sherman vs panther kill rate even more impressive.
The advantage wasnt even in the tanks, it came in their CAS, and tactics.
Both guns were effective against each other, the disadvantage to the germans was lack of air cover, pushing a group to do something they cant realistically achieve is doomed to failure, the pressure was on the germans to make breakthroughs and keep up with time tables, while the us and british had more flexibility and support roles, so they had more mobility to counter the germans.
Cas wasn't even the most effective way of talking out a tank in ww2 and the kill records in the archives shows.
Has anyone heard of the Panther F and Panther II? The F did exist and was used a bit, it had 50mm side plates instead of 40, and its turret was a flat angled 120mm plate with the rest of the turret having 60mms. The gun was the same as the rest of the Panthers but had no muzzlebreak. It had improved reload as the turret had more space to reload. The Panther II was a paper tank, using the same turret as the Panther F (schmaulturm turret), given the kwk 43 88mm gun, and the armor was upgraded. the front upper plate was given 100mms, and the sides were 60mms. Both the F and II had bulges on the side of the turret that were rangefinder optics.
The panther II I talk about is one of many theories of what the panther II would have been if it was made. The reload would have been terrible as the 88 was very large for the turret, so it would have had a worse reload then the tiger II.
Not even close. No _Panther Ausf. F_ was produced, even then a turret was built and fitted to a _Ausf. G._ A singular _Panther II_ was produced and fitted witht the turret of a _G._ The new turret was not bigger nor added protection
@@peterson7082 last time I heard they produced a few panther Fs but no Panther IIs at all. The schmalturm turret did actusly have more armor. The cheeks were 120mms, and the sides and rear were 60mm. The turret did allow for a tad bit more room that helped with reloading the 75mm.
The schmalturm turrets armor was not really much better then the standard panther turret, but it was still better.
@@PilotTed There was only one F turret built. I believe the remains of it are in a museum in Germany. The _Panther II_ hull is mated with a late _G_ turret and is currently at the Patton Museum of Calvary and Armor at Fort Knox in Kentucky
jumbo 76 i think was a better tank than the ez8
It was barely deployed I don't know if it even saw any combat. I know that 75mm Jumbo saw combat but I am not sure about 76mm Jumbo. But anyways it was deployed in very low numbers and if it saw any combat it most likely didn't fight Panther tanks. So it is not thing for comparison.
Fext The 76 jumbo are just the 75 jumbos upgunned in the field.
There were quite a few jumbos made, and thats not counting the regular shermans with welded on armor plates in the battle of the bulge
There were only 300 Jumbos made in total sadly. That's basically nothing in a war.
There where the grand total of 2 of those deployed to Europe.
People don't understand that wars may be fought with weapons but are won with experience and a powerful mind
Man there are alot of "experts" in the comments on this video.
Yeah. No one knows what they are talking about
Panthers costed only a bit more than the Panzer IV varients, However still costing half of a Tiger H1. It was arguably and in my opinion one of the best tanks in WW2, the only thing that made it ineffective was the lack of supplies in late war Germany. This gave it it's reputation with breakdowns and reliability, If serviced properly it would arguably be a reliable tank. It is such a shame Hitler fantasized about large, powerful heavy tanks.
13:20 so basically the Bundeswehr today ^^
Great video Red!
It can't be stressed enough that tanks isn't always about how good your gun, armor and mobility is when the crew operating them does not know how to operate or can't operate the vehicle effectively due to other factors like ergonomics.
Some other points that could have been mentioned; the Sherman isn't a "death trap" that a lot of people claim. If I remember my numbers right, a Sherman had a casualty rating of 1 dead, and about 1-2 injured from a hit. Casualty statistics isn't always accurate either as they don't necessary specify if a crewman died whilst fighting inside the Sherman or died while outside. Kinda makes a difference between the two. I should also mention that Shermans (75mm) can use White Phosphorus to disable enemy tanks, but I guess that's a different topic for a different day
Bonus points for showing a Soviet operated Sherman at 15:11
Callsign-YukiMizuki Soviets operated Shermans during the war?
WHAT?
The More You Know
Hell yeah. Not just Shermans, but a lot of other equipment and materials like P-39s via Lend-Lease
"When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?"
-Soviet Hero, Dimitriy Loza (he operated both Shermans and T-34s)
BattleMaster Gaming I mean we were their allies so yeah would make sense.
16:02 what battle?
Halo mannen arracourt
@@Elisângela8968 Hallo Herr Arracourt ich bin General Rommel
what about the time it took the turret to do a complete 360 degrees ?- some German tanks were VERY slow in this regard compared to the Sherman , which could theoretically manoeuvre out of trouble , and even get a second shot off while the German tank turret was still slowly , VERY slowly turning into position
I would've felt a little bit more at ease, if Sherman's we're equipped with the higher velocity, gun in the beginning. But, I would definitely still fear the Tiger.
+scott crabtree
They were. Just not accepted by Armored Force nor deemed necessary by Battalion Commanders, and to a degree the generals behind the Armored Divisions and even Army Ground Forces.
Nathan Peterson Wow, you're telling me that they could have had numbers of Shermans with the higher velocity gun on it, basically from D-Day on?
Or, was that just mainly a British thing with the Fyrefly?
+scott crabtree
200 76mm. gun M1A1 armed M4A1(76)W's were in the U.K. ready for Normandy by May of '1944. Just not bothered to be sent over until Operation _COBRA_ in July.
Nathan Peterson Ah, I see. Man, it's hard to believe how not-so-bothered the Allied Powers were, when it came to the Tiger, Panther, Tiger II, etc..., etc..... They had to know just how dangerous these tanks were going to be for the Sherman, no?
I saw swedish military mobility tests from the late 40's where a sherman went up against panther. The sherman had severe mobility problems in forests rocky ground mud and snow while the panther flew through it. The difference is huge!
That is because they tested a early sherman with vvss not the hvss. The hvss would have done just as well as the panther
Also the sherman fought on every theatres
Not the northern front xD
@@lilprussia8467 northern?
@@emilbt7588 yes mostly the German navy was there
@@radonsider9692 so convoy assault?
@@emilbt7588 yes near Norwegian coasts
I do disagree with you. It was the T 34 in all its models that defeated the Wehrmacht and not the Sherman in all its models. Prove me wrong if you can.
True,but T-34's cudnt do it without IS-2's,TD's of all kinds,and the needed artillery and infrantry support.US forces faced a muuuuuch less germans then the soviets did,and their tanks and army stuff was useless.They cud do it only with the help of their huge airforce,which even then,damaged and destroyed more civillian houses and people,than hit its enemy targets,like they did in Italy,France,Netherlands,and Germany.
Maby next time M4A3E8 vs T-34/85
They never faced eachother dumbass
they did, in the korean war
TanquesDeWW2 - español Hey pal...heard of the Korean War? Oh of course you didn’t as it was the “Forgotten War”.
There is a point to be made that the Panther if it was an American Tank, would be a heavy tank. So this is actually a Medium Tank M4 vs a Panther Heavy Tank
The latest serman was improved in many ways. Also I learned a lot about how much skill is important in battle just by playing wartunder and world of tanks. If you got more skill you can kill multiple superior tanks on the battlefield and on top of that add some pancerfausts skill matter more
sherman*
*germans
how did you learn anything? anyone who thinks these games bear any relation to war is a moron.
agreed, he is a moron. Games are not Real.
Ok I'm moron. Skill doesn't matter at all. You can pretty much pick random dudes from street and put them into tanks, airplanes, submarines... and dominate on the battlefield. Fuck yeah. Why army spend millions on each F35 pilot when any dude can sit there and bomb them all
Hmmm - well the only thing the Sherman MAY have over the Panther would be perhaps HE punch? The standard M3 75mm gun cannon carried about 0.68 kg of HE whilst the Panther carried about 0.65 kg of HE
You sure that's only thing?
@Chad Justice pardon me - I meant in FIREPOWER that is of HE ...
then again Sherman 75 atleast wouldn't have nose-heavy problems in maneuvering in tight spots ... and the burning rather than exploding ammunition ...
and the turret speed was faster
Firefly!?!? 17pdr knocking out panthers and tigers at will,
Jym Account isn't it British tank?
Nam Trần it’s a British adaption of an American vehicle. The tank itself was an American design, and the British modified the turret so their 17lb gun could fit inside. You could call it 10% British vehicle
Jym Account
The firefly had less armor than the German Panther and Tiger. Guns had about the same potential, except that the Firefly used APCR which didn't have explosive filler, allowing tank crews to usually have the ability to escape.
This is a amazing video Finally somebody got this right good job
No
Why in all your videos you always try to talk down German tanks it seem like all you do is make videos about German tanks and then bashing to say how unreliable they are how bad their cruzar why do you do that for
the one may be he not like them how knows
Sorry for bad english
Unlike all the other tank vs tank comparison channels there are this 1 is actually educational
because they fucking were unreilable.
Panthers final drives broke after 150km and this issue was never fixed with the Panther G.
Robert H. Goddard: The Father of Rocketry you said They you meny 1
Outstanding review and narration. The music along with the German commenting was hilarious!
Panther over Sherman any day.
Still every panther/tiger scared the pants off every sherman tank crew right up to the end of the war. The lack of trained tank crews did not help the German fighting effort. Still the big cats bring nothing but awe from all who see them.
Problem with the Panther was there wasn't many made to be a decisive war winner for the Germans. Only about 6,000 were ever made before the war ended compared to 48,000 M4 Sherman's built. There wasn't a gyro stabilizer on the Panther either which ment it couldn't fire accurately on the move like the Sherman could.
Your German pronunciations gave you away as being away as Scandinavian, probably Swedish immigrant?
the fuck?
He was making a mystery about where he was from.
I bet he is of Yugoslavian decent and his parents fled to Sweden back then.
He's Persian i think
Exactly.
i believe more, that he is a russian, but he could be elsewhere 😊
Ah. The two infamous medium tanks used by the Western Allies and Nazi Germany. On the Western Front, these two were practically a nemesis to each other. From Normandy, to the Battle of the Bulge, all the way to Berlin.
m4 and panzer 4 were the truly opposing each other the entire war this includes Africa, itally, france, and germany.
James Thomas yeah and the Sherman was just as good and you could argue even better than the panzer 4... but still all the wheraboos talk about how shit the Sherman is compared to the mythical tiger 2 in a one on one scenario that never happened 😤
12:24 xD XD
It's M4a3 76mm with hvss, the m4a3e8 only refers to the experimental m4a3 prototype for the hvss suspension
Easy eight for the win!!!!!!
I would actually pick the Panther as the better tank.
The Sherman myth that it's a flaming coffin was true but people tend to not believe it but as you said, the Easy-8 solved that issue but still, it had a weak gun that could only fight mediums to light vehicles while can't engage with Tiger Is properly. However, the Panther could pen almost anything on the battlefield from the M26 Pershing to the IS-2 pretty easily thus if I'm like Germany that needed to be on the defense, I want a tank that I know could kill reliably rather than pushing the enemy out thus, I want the Panther.
HOWEVER, that being said, the Shermans are just too many to counter so when I'm attacking, I want a Sherman. Of course the Panthers can attack and push too but with lesser material to make more and even maintain them, you would not want to push too far and then break down with no supplies to repair the tank where for the case of the Sherman, there's plenty so for the attack, it goes to the Sherman but end of the day, if you have a gun that could kill your enemy before they reaches you, that tank is a good tank and that's the Panther coupled with it's thicker armor.
ill take the panter
Ground pressure is a limited way of evaluating mobility. The overlapping wheels of the Panther reduced peak ground pressure by providing multiple ground contact points. Their large diameter also reduced peak ground pressure. The torsion bar suspension also tracked the ground better to maintain track contact. I believe Panther had a halon gas dump system to extinguish fire.
Panther wins
soxx soxx the Germans produced some excellent tanks in WWII, but the Panther was the lame duck of the bunch. It was just a rushed out copy of the T34
More or less. Ironically, of the 3 big cats, the Panther had the best potential, but it was held back by the 30t to 45t design change.
It would have had easier to penetrate aurmor
The initial panther was a rushed piece of junk. But by the Panther G (the most produced and successful model) it was a very good tank
Arguably. They couldn't fix the final drive issue, so it broke down a bit too easily. Other than that and the somewhat lacklustre crew visibility suite it was pretty good, though.
Unfortunately the Sherman armed 76mm were smaller numbers on each battalion are the first primary target for the Germans when they see the longer barrel.
the panther had the best of the best crew
Not at Arrancourt.
No they didn’t.
Rate of fire for Panther 8-10 rounds per minute is only theoretical... gunner had to load the gun with left hand over the gun breach, because he was on the right side, which did not helped with speed of loading....
76mm Shermans got few of HVAP rounds that were able to penetrate 200mm armor at 500m... but of course, these rounds were mostly provided to Tank Destroyers, and tankers only had 2-3 rounds mostly... And regarding accuracy, 76mm M1 gun was one of the most accurate weapons of WW2... it had 10-15cm dispersion at 1000m, which means it could reliably hit the spot gunner aimed at... for comparation, British 17Pdr had dispersion 25cm at the same distance, while German 88mm (L71) gun had 20cm at the same distance. (dont have data for 75mm L70 though) In real combat, Shrmans were able to engage Panthers first, and keep firing. Study done after war found out Shermans had advantage over Panthers 3:1 when all battles where these tanks met were investigated.. Of course, there were situations where Panthers managed to kill a lot of Shermans from ambush positions, but at the other side there were a lot of situations where Shermans managed to outmaneuver Panther units and wipe them out with accurate fire into flanks.. After all, Tank warfare is maneuver warfare, and whoever outmaneuvers his opponent, wins.
The M4A3E8 Sherman Variant is a better Tank than the Panther Ausf G in my opinion.
The Sherman was more maneuverable,weighed less meaning it was easier to transport and could go farther with less fuel,was easier to repair, and could be Retrofitted easier.
The Panther Ausf Gs only true advantages of the M4A3E8 Sherman was it’s Armor Thickness.
Any Sherman armed with the “Long 76mm” or British 17 pounder Guns could penetrate the Panthers&Tigers frontally, meaning suddenly the Shermans went from not being a major threat if the Panther Front Hull was facing it, to the Shermans being able to penetrate it frontally.
Ultimately the Panther Variants,Tiger 1 Variants and Tiger 2 Variants were all vastly flawed and were rushed so they could be on the Battlefield faster. The Allies didn’t do this to any degree as bad as the Germans did, and so most of the Allied Mid-War and Late-War Tanks had less design flaws or less serious design flaws, which were not as problematic due to the Allies having better Logistics than Nazi Germany did.
Germany tried taking the entire Planet, and they panicked&rushed things which caused huge issues for the, down the road.
i am always wondering if German can stick a 88mm on a tank, why not try and stick a 90mm M3 anti air gun on the sherman it surely have enough penetration power to pen the panther from the front like the firefly.
Too big a gun.
One german general said "tiger was as good as 10 shermans, but american brought 11"
In reality, tiger was good as 1 sherman (if armed with 76mm gun), and americans brought 5 shermans
I learn from and enjoy your vids. Occasionally I'll not understand an acronym u use. If possible, pls give a definition of the acronym in the description. Cheers ;)
I think there was a little mistake made by saying that the m4a1 76 mm is the easy 8, its not the easy 8 was the m4a3e8 which was another later war model, because the army command demanded a better version of a sherman with a 76 mm gun.
sry the sherman m4 76 is called m4a1e4, and the e8 is the m4a1e8 and had a spring suspension
+Maximilian Maier
What?
The Panther was a generation (arguably two) newer design. It was designed at a point where the characteristics of the Sherman were already known. The fact that you can compare the two is testimony to the Sherman's quality. Another thing to consider is engine/ trans service life. Being 900km on a Panther and 2500km on a Sherman. I read Faust (I thinks) book and he lamented how it seemed like his Panther immediately wore out while captured American and Russian vehicles being used as tractors ran forever.
I'll say it again.
The M4 was the only Tank that the Allied had and they were very successful in their roles.
Their Common Knowledge is that they were very Mobile vehicles, reliable and had less maintenance issues, then they were manufactured in big numbers from factories.
Most people don't that that Shermans had Wet Storage to prevent ammunition fires because engine fires is not the culprit due they found intact fuel inside a burned Tank and their Armor is ductile to prevent spalling, the M4 is the most survivable Tank throughout the War
The reason why the Shermans had better kill-to-loss ratio is that the Western Front negated the German Tank performance and their range from 2000 Yards to 800 Yards and of course, despite that Germans had superior Optics and range, they have very bad Target Acquisitions and Field of View due to the Lack of Periscopes can't fire first due to the lack of Gun Stabilizers.
If anyone believed that the 75mm M3 L/40 Gun is incapable to penetrate the Tiger-I and the Panther from the front, then you are wrong.
Tiger-I hull can be penetrated by a 75mm with the use of APC Rounds at 90 Degrees.
The frontal Turret cheeks of the Panther is also penetrable by a 75mm from 500 Yards.
Little did anyone know that they lack the knowledge about Crew experience, Tanks working in Platoons of five to support Infantry breakthrough and Mobile Warfare that is meant to flank defending enemies and armored vehicles.
Then of course, the are a lot of M4 Variants is that one Sherman Variant has a 90mm Gun that is capable to penetrate the Turret cheeks of a Tiger-II and the other Sherman Variant that is capable to block 88mm Guns.
If I remember correctly, or...I think I know, that the fact about Germany's best elite crew guys were manned on Tigers. And Shermans won because of its simplicity, it was necessary for military to find a way how to make it cheap and reliable, thus they won simply by overwhelming enemy, since they could send Shermans one after another. And lets remember that there was a short period of time when Germany could fight U.S. and UK alone on west front, while eastern front was safe because of the pact that Hitler made with Stalin, which later was broken by Hitler when pushing into eastern front suddenly. Otherwise fighting on both fronts is quite demanding.
Before Hitler sent forces to east, Germany has a good time fighting on the west and being safe from east, focusing a lot of forces on the west side. They managed pretty well fighting against General Patton and his tactics, and other places on the western front. But when Hitler decided to move largest part of forces to east, that's when it started to go down. Bad move which lead to Hitler's loss.
The panthers biggest problem was the extremely thin side armor.
It is always the Man more than the Machine but the Sherman had some big advantages over the Panther, like reliability.
The Panther's reliability problems were very real. According to Zaloga's Panther Vs Sherman
(does anyone argue with him? Please I would like to know) the Germans had 415 factory fresh Panther ready for the attack in the Ardennes. 120 broke down just moving into line.
At the end of the battle they were left with 200, half of which were broke down. The Germans were desprite for tanks so they put 45 tons of resources into one that can't be counted on.
All modern battle tanks have guns stabilized in both axes the Sherman's gun was stabilized in the vertical, the panther was in none, it was against German Doctrine to shoot on the move so everyone else did whether they had a stabilized gun or not (yeah, Stabilized better).
Both tanks had a manual and power turret traverse, on the Panther the power traverse wasn't used because it didn't work. On the Sherman the manual traverse wasn't used because the power one was so precise.
Both commanders had turret controls but in the case of the Panther's as stated above this was useless. The Sherman TC had a leaf sight welded to the front of the turret. He could put the gun on target using his turret controls in seconds, no need to say anything to the gunner, but:
AP!
TANK!
FIRE!
Also the Sherman did something no Panzer ever did, it supported the Infantry. Because it had Mass in numbers. What's the equation? Mass vs quality?
There is no quality in something that breaks like a toy.
It wasn’t really the reliability issues. Things like lack of spare parts and poor crew training proved far more fatal.