How Bad Was The Panther?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2024
- Very much like the Tiger heavy tank, the Panther medium tank is another mid to late war German tank that is very controversial in the armored fighting vehicle community. Some go as far as to say that the Panther was the first main battle tank, while others call it a worthless pile of junk. We'll be taking a look at the Panther's history to see just how good it was, and to what extent it had unreliability issues.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
Panther & Its Variants - Walter J. Spielberger
Panther - Thomas Anderson
Testing And Fielding Of The Panther Tank And Lessons For Force XXI - Major John H. Womack
The Korsun Pocket - Niklas Zetterling, Anders Frankson
Panther, Germany’s quest for combat dominance - Michael Green, Gladys Green
Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy - Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle
Le Panther 1947 - Ministre de la Guerre
British REME Panther Tests
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Armored Warfare Crew Voices
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory 
Игры
Tiger 1: no spare parts
Panther: teething issues
Tiger2: Obesity
Also it burned through fuel like it was going out of style
@@deliqene3191 I guess you could say its the Badlands Chugs of the tank world.
You forget all 3: petrol & bridges.
You can make whatever you want but if you struggle to support it or get it to where it’s needed….
@@deliqene3191 that was more of en General problem during that time though. Engines where not very efficient at all.
If tiger 2 is obese then what's the jagtigor or maus or even sturmtiger.
“The transmission was in the front”
The lower plate is dying
Interesting fact, due to the mediocre alloy quality of mid-late war Germany and bad welding, the front plate could fall off if struck
@@Daniel-wy2kx lol, imagine that happening in-game with some mid-late panther models
@@Daniel-wy2kx literal hull break
Panther is indestructible.
@@alanwatts8239 The comments above yours say otherwise.
"On the orders of moustache man" - made me really laugh
He has to say it like that overwise the youtube gods will get Angy and smite him
I got a kick out of it myself I had to think about it for a second tho
@@samuelsocha2767 A N G Y 😡
Ah yes, Winston Churchill
Stalin had a very notable moustache as well, but RUclips has no issues with creators mentioning THAT particular mass murderer and oppressor.
"Mustache Man orders front plate to be increased by 20mm"
It seems Mustache Man was actually really good at designing tanks...that are effective in video games 80 years later.
I don't think demanding more armor can be counted as designing a tank
@@kamkueniu6128 he specified which plate he wants to be thiccer
@@kamkueniu6128 Purely in the sense of tank games, I think the +20mm change crossed a boundary in terms of protection. Early Shermans and T-34s that have 50mm and 45mm front plate respectively at a similar angle, yet they're easily penned by common tank guns like US 76mm, German 75mm and Russian 85m. If Panther's UFP stayed at 60mm it wouldn't have been much different.
@@zujiahuang8454 Exactly. It makes a BIG difference.
Mustache Man was not the idiot people often think. He made a few decisions on designs that made perfect sense, like installing the 8,8 cm L/56 (to be changed for the L71 later) on Tiger I and increasing the Panther's frontal armor. Even the Me-262 to be a fighter bomber made perfect sense, when you think about it.
The Panther isn’t a bad looking German tank
I agree
Yeah, the German army never had an issue with looks lmao
@@phil-2725 nice to look at but poorly developed and executed lol
Far from ugly, yes I do agree
They looked pretty ugly when I visited the museum though
I honestly think the Panther is one of the best looking tanks ever.
It's modular style looks very modern.
It's kinda tall thou
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 Yeah its 9'10" versus modern MBT that range from 8' to 9'
ah yeah I like its look a lot, I like it more than Tiger.
Centurion looks more modern so does the T44
@@IceAxe1940 Both of which were introduced after the Panther.
I like the panther and the tiger equally, but the panther does have better pen.
But the panther is better shaped than the tiger, but the side armor is not that great, the D variant of the panther is not that great tho, do to the low turret traverse speed.
And the engine problems. (On the D variant of the panther)
are you commenting to urself?
@@cerealmilk1803 lol yes
@@cerealmilk1803 he probably forgot he can just edit even though his comment is already edited
"being shown to the mustache man..." This is great XD
The Austrian failed artists ;)
Have you thought about doing a video about “how good was the Sherman/T-34” I would like to see that personally
how ´´good´´ are you sure?
@@hubbel6831 very.
@@hubbel6831 they made several dozen thousand of them, won the war, and they remained in use for decades later. i think "good" is just fine.
I would prefer a sherman over any other tanks.
The sherman had a casualty rate of 0.4 for each destroyed sherman, and a burn rate of between 10-20% after a penetrating hit, While other nation was around 80%.
Sovietaboos would come out of the woodwork needing more preparation-H than the entire Soviet Army in 1941, after they get told their precious was smushed shit on the Oregon trail at best. Pre-tl;dr of such an argument: "COPE has a BOTTOM TEXT of its own."
Panther is no match to the speed and guns of the Laansbreig II!
It looks glorious!
I Agree!
Attack the D point!
@@yayeetmeoffacliff4708 Negative!
The Panther tank is an amazing tank! Until the transmission kills itself and you now have a mechanic on suicide watch...
2:18 The first 250 Panthers (and Tigers) actually used the HL 210 which was phased out in the rebuild programs due to awful reliability issues
"funny moustache man"
RUclips is gonna murder him if spookston mentions the moustache mans name.
Adolf dripler
I call him angry Austrian painter
I like how spookston calls hitler mustash man
Probably to prevent being demonitized
Mostly because you can get demonetized for saying his name. So it's both funny and sad.
@@CrazyDutchguys i am aware
@@Icedrake201 i know its just seens it funny and sad
@@CrazyDutchguys "demonetized", aka RUclips stealing revenue from content creators. At some point they changed demonetization from no ads to ads but RUclips gets all the money.
I just have a problem seeing thing in the comments.
Saying things like the Panther or Pz. IV should be built more than Tigers or etc. They must both be built.
The term Light, Medium, and Heavy tank are not just for weight but partially determine the roles of the tanks. In it's name and documentation the Tiger IS a breakthrough tank. It is meant to punch a hole in enemy lines and soak up lots of damage while surviving. It is meant to obliterate enemy tanks. It is meant to deal with heavy fortifications like bunkers etc. The Tiger is a Heavy tank, it is the Hammer of the Panzerwaffe.
This is also why Germany has the designation Schwere Panzer-Abteulung or Heavy Tank Battalion. It consists of Heavy tanks.
The Panther and Pz. IV are medium tanks, by weight and size a Panther is a heavy, but by role the Panther is by all means a medium tank.
The medium tanks (In Germany's case) is to exploit the breakthrough the heavy tanks make, sometime to make one too. They are there to expand a breech in a frontline, to support the heavy tanks or infantry, to dislodge the enemy and cause confusion and disorganization among the enemy due to their speed. Medium tanks are multipurpose having adequate armor, firepower and speed. It is partially the reason the Panther has such weak side armor, it is not meant to soak hits like a Tiger, it just has thicker frontal armor to survive just incase they encounter heavily armed tanks. Germany was fighting the Soviets who implemented heavy tanks on large scales, they of course need to adapt and have their mediums at least survive some hits. Medium tanks are the anvil for the hammer, they support what the heavy tank does, they provide the stable allaround fighting ground for anything to come into contact with them. They support what the Heavy tanks does. It is the reasons why the Panzer-Abteilung or Panzer Battalion exist. It only consists of mediums. Panther were and always have been organized into medium tank units, never heavy tank units.
The same goes for light tanks. But I'm too lazy too explain them, it's also the reason why the Leichte Panzerkompanie or Light tank company exist.
Why would such terms as light, medium, or Heavy exist if it only defines weigt, a tank is a tank, if they all so the same thing there is no need to classify them.
The problem with this assessment is that Nazi Germany absolutely does not have the industry nor the raw materials required to service numerous types and variants of armor at once. There's a particular reason why the United States and the Soviet Union both decided to mass produce smaller number of armor variants instead of doing what the Nazis and the British did, and well, we all know that it did pay off rather effectively in the end.
@@modest_spice6083 actually Germany did have the capabilities but It did not have the resources.
This is quite detailed so be prepared for a little essay XD
This is where you look into production methods, that ultimately flawed them.
(I will treat the term variant as an "upgrade". If it's a different vehicle like a tank destoyer, I will state that is is a different vehicle design.)
The Soviets have a clear method of modifications. They design a tank, let it run for around a year and along the way design a new improved version with all the flaws they collect on it. This is why their T-34s have (1940), (1941), (1942), etc. It seems to be their principle of how they do it.
The Germans on the otherhand have a different approach, instead of collecting data over longer periods they seek to add modifactions to every new problem that comes up, this is why the Pz.III, StuG IIIs, Pz.Ivs, etc have so many variants, every few months or so, they implement a new variant.
The Soviets method is a slow process but It keeps a streamlined production, because there is so little or no change to the existing line of production, it can only grow larger and faster thus how the Soviets and Americans grew their tanks industry. The American having M4A1 then M4A2 then M4A3, etc.
This method is perfect for mass production but slow to combat any downsides in the field. Production wise it is the best, combat was it's detrimental.
For short I'll call this overhaul upgrading.
The German took the more direct combat approach, which each new modifactions, they can effectively counter every new problem very quickly without much time and waste of manpower and equipment during the time the new variant is being made. While this was combat effective, production wise, it was not, with each upgrade, new tools, new machines, machine redesigns, and other things need to be added and/or removed in every factory. This slowed down the flow of production and since the Germans did many variants every few months (2-5), they couldn't reach mass production levels due to the need to constantly change stuff in the line of production.
For short I will call this incremental upgrading.
Hell Germany's industry was far more capable than most believe but it was limited by the method used.
Another thing is craftsmenship, when regarding early war or prewar, the type of pridu tion was more of a craftsman than a streamlined production. Each tank was made like an art piece rather than an object that is just needed to be made on mass. If you ever get to get a close up on early war panzers the welding is just gorgeous, it truly is a work of craftsmanship.
Incremental upgrading was somewhat similar to how a craftsman might work on his piece, there the industry is more familiar with that method and kept it that way through.
Germany truly began mass production of tank in 1943, but the number could never reach as high as the Soviet tank industry, this was due to a multitude of factor but a large factor was incremental upgrade. During all of this the Soviets had been producing the same thing with little to no change, not slowing down at all and only increasing from 1941 upwards to 1943.
The Germans did so many upgradea, production fluctuated, it raises up them goes down as new variant comes in then raises up again only to lower as new variants come on.
A new type of vehicle is fine. Take for example a Pz. IV and Jadgpanzer IV L/70.
The a factory is taken of the Pz.IV and put on the Jagdpanzer things will be slow of course but production efficiency will slowly rise as more tools, better method, etc come into play. Bit if minor upgrade keep happening their slow rises will just be haulted.
Regarding different vehicle types, the US had a shitton, bit what they did was good, instead of directly influencing the line of production like the Germans them do addons. The bulldozer, the minesweepers, frontal plate add-on armor (Jumbo armor) etc. Those variants don't slow production down as much as they can be made in without influencing the tank production itself. Then when regarding things like the M7 Priest, it filled the same guidelines as the Pz. IV an Jagdpanzer if left to grow it's fine but if incremental upgrades happen, it ultimately slows production down. It's not a matter of how many variants you have, it's how you produce them, and the US did well by making either add-on upgrades or slower complete redesigns like transitioning from the M4A2 to the M4A3 Shermans.
The Americans can be compared but they have such a large industrial capability I shall ignore them from now on
The Soviets didn't really make variants (as in new vehicles), they just made variants (as in upgrades).
If they want an SPG, they just made an entirely new vehicle or shoved a bigger gun in it. IS-1 to IS-2 to IS-3, completely different vehicles incorperating similar design.
If they wanted a new vehicle, but on a certain chassis, they did so but made sure not to really interfere once in production.
If they wanted a improved design, they just made slow overhaul and changes.
As for the British, I never studied their production and don't give much care for it either so I have no say in it.
@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Thanks for this information, it was really interesting!
@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Definitely agree to this!
As for the Brits, they also produced too many tanks and too many variants like the Germans because of the same issue, they have to produce what they can to quickly replace the heavy equipment that they lost during Dunkirk and beyond. They do have the prevailing doctrine of different armor for infantry support and exploitation/breakthrough, hence the faster Crusader, Cruiser and others, and heavier tanks like the Cromwell and Churchill. They did have the support of imported Allied war materiel, unlike the Germans.
But when the British did get the gist of tank making, they did pretty well, as evidenced with the beautiful and capable Centurion.
@@modest_spice6083 the british were not produceing more tank types than the americans and soviets.
the yanks had the M3/M4 medium chassis, the M3/M5 light chassis (replaced by the M24) and later added the M26 chassis (we could probably also had the M18 hellcat) so 2-4 designs at any one point.
while the soviets had initially a scout tank (T-38), a light tank (T-26), a fast tank (BT-7), a medium tank (T-28) and a heavy tank (T-35), this was then reduced to just three (light, medium and heavy) and then 2 (although light chassis were maintained for SPGs) and they only got so low due to lendlease.
so 2-5 designs at anyone point
the british initially had a light tank, a cruiser tank and an infantry tank. but dropped the light tank (but started making 2 infantry tank types) then dropped to just a cruiser tank and a infantry tank. the large number of british designs is irrelvanet due to replaceing them on the production line. unlike the germans. when the cromwell was ready the crusader stopped (for example). so 2-3 designs at any one point.
A little critique: It would be great if you would talk a little slower.
He’s better than dark docs at least
@@mr.astronuts3825 yeah
Have you tried setting the playback speed to 0.75x?
@@-MarcelDavis- it sounds so bad imo lol
wdym, I can easily follow him.
I feel that the Tiger 1 was a tank designed for a specific role that was then forced into roles it was never meant for. As a heavy breakthrough tank it did its job well.
However once it became an emergency response to enemy breakthroughs (German recon was not very good) it ended up being used more and more between maintenance and refitting. So heavy tank battalion readiness suffered.
The Panther was given the much larger and more difficult role of becoming the new medium tank. It was never able to really accomplish this and given its weight it is debatable if it even can be considered a medium tank.
In short the Tiger H1 was a specialty tank that worked well to spearhead an attack, but lost much of its effectiveness when pressed to do things outside its role and operate longer than it could.
The Panther was given a harder job and since it was later in the war it was often given inferior crews.
Any vehicle that’s designed and fielded in one year is absolutely going to be bad
To be honest while everyone loves bashing wehraboo's and all. literally every side had unreliable tanks even the shermans were not as sturdy cross country...
Problem is from 1942 Germany was on the defensive meaning they could not recover broken down tanks as much as the allies, the allies could afford relyability issues germany could not, neither side could eleminate them...
Only tanks designed AFTER the war were actually mostly reliable, every side basicly kept slapping big guns and big armor to their tanks during the war with little regard towards suspension, transmission capabilities, engine tourge etc... and they had to better have a tank that breaks down every now and then than being shot and having ABSOLUTELY no chance at survival cause the other side choose to put a fuckin' 88 mm on theirs....
That's why US Army didn't rush M26 Pershing. In a test report from December 1944 basically the armored branch refused to field M26 Pershing because it was crap
Reminds me of a joke from a WW2 book. A German child while seeing American tanks remarked that Germany's were better. An American soldier asked an English-speaking old man what the kid had said. Once the old man told the soldier of the child's remark he replied: "If your tanks are better than ours where are they?"
edit: After 2 years I finally decided to fix the grammar. My young dumbass didn't care cause I thought it wouldn't get that much attention. Oh boy was I wrong.
They are better on paper and their steel quality sucks because of shortage. Having a better tanks doesn't mean you will win a war after all. Just like how the Italian lost to Ethiopia
What’s the book called?
nice grammar
What a bad argument...
@@nilihcrevo9820 German steel was perfectly good. How it was applied could have been much better though. Too many of their tanks started out as boxes with very little sloping anywhere on them, and those design flaws, plus many others, cost them in the long run. Russians on the other hand had problems with steel quality, rather than sloping design. Some T-34s were so bad they could be shattered on impact. Some were a lot better. It all depended on which factory they came from.
Who would ya prefer? Tiger I or Panther?
100mm flat or 80mm slope?
88mm L/56 or 75mm L/70
Mediocre reverse or slug reverse
They're both good tanks in warthunder. I personally prefer the Tiger because its side armour makes it better protected from multiple angles. Panther has better frontal protection, a faster turret (later Panthers) and slightly more pen at closer range, Tiger holds its pen better at long range. For me the Panthers garbage reverse speed makes it unplayable, which is why i'm in love with the Panther II
@@CrazyDutchguys I didn't know 30mms is considered slight
Panther for long range and tiger for city combat
I'd rather see a tiger down the road because if unangled it's far easier to send a tiger turret flying.
If you properly angle Tiger it has way much armor protection then a Panther. Tiger I turrret has only 100mm armor on paper, however it is incredibly well protected due to overlapping armor, and 80mm of side armor enables angling to about 40 deg.
Panther turret is way less protected and it's not smart to angle the hull due to the possibility of overmatching the 40mm sideplates.
You should do the jumbo next. I’ve seen people saying it was amazing or just bad. I’ve heard both so a video would be pretty cool.
Honestly I think the real answer is "There was only like a dozen of them it is completely irrelevant".
Well yes
@@hedgehog3180 240ish Jumbo's made. All fought on the front with about half being lost in combat. Mostly known for being good combat tanks as all the tank battalions were basically screaming for more to be made ASAP.
Also an interesting thing to note: The panther's turret was also going to be mounted on the tiger I chassis, in a variant called the Ausf H2, but this was cancelled due to modifications to the king tiger.
actually the H2 was a competetor to the H1. it was descarded as the 75mm requires more tungsten than the 88 aswell as haveing a smaller HE charge.
Who needs tigers or panthers when you can build many more STUGs?
Economic shit
Manpower,resources,bad decisions to prolong the war....
@@fulcrum2951 No tanks were great in WWII, they all were still new designs.
The fact Germany was so low on fuel that even with their big cats using more fuel than smaller tanks on a 1-to-1 basis, they were still better off using only a small number of tanks meaning bigger tanks were really the only option?
Something really understated about the Panther here is that ergonomically it is horrific.
-The gunner does not have a way of independently viewing anything, all he can see is through the narrow FOV of his primary optic. This makes it far more difficult for the gunner to know exactly what the commander is talking about and traverse to what he is directing to.
-The driver cannot ride head out, and the small vision port on the front plate was deleted, making his only way of seeing a SINGLE forward facing periscope with no traverse.
- the bow machine gunner had a similar periscope to the driver angled 45 degrees to his right, the only way he could see in front of the tank was with the optic on his MG, which was a narrow FOV.
-There is no primary ammunition rack in the turret or turret ring for the loader, meaning he has to have loose spare rounds or reach outside the turret ring to the stationary hull to retrieve ammunition.
For mechanics, the Panther is a nightmare. Unlike the Sherman, in which the transmission and lower plate bolt off as a unit that can be slid out, or earlier panzer that have access hatches to the transmission, the Panther had to be deconstructed. The turret had to be traversed, the roof plate above the driver and MG radio man had to be removed, the forward crews station (radio, MG. Some driver controls, seats, etc) had to be removed, and then the transmission had to be maneuvered inside the tank and lifted out the top of the hull roof. As you can imagine this is terrible.
Other drawbacks are more well known, such as the mud sticking the interviewing road wheels as well as shellfire cause them to jam, gun mantlet on Panther A and D deflecting rounds into the hull, poor side armor, and poor reverse speed (we all feel that one).
Ultimately the Panther is a bad tank in my opinion, it just happens to have good armor and a good gun.
A tank that is more space efficient, ergonomic, and easier on mechanics would have been far more ideal, perhaps enlarging the panzer 4 and increasing its ballistic efficiency with slopd armor would have been a far better choice.
I think it had the possibility of being a good tank but like you said, it's drawbacks drowned it. The was I see the panther is as a tank destroyer in all but name. It's HE was extremely lackluster and like you said the gunner only had the magnified gun sight. Not to mention reliability on top of all that. If the panther was developed by a less methed up fanatic country it could have had some hope.
@@owenlewis1314 personally I think an enlarged panzer 3/4 prototype would have promise, especially with a schmalturm like turret. Something far more reasonable and space efficient. Consider an IS-2s armor compared to a Panther and how the Panther is somehow the same weight
@@kobeh6185 I definitely agree with that idea. I mean Germany had all of their offense successes when they emphasized mobility and reliability over armor and firepower. I feel the only reason they went with the panther was because they were becoming purely defense, something their army had little experience with.
@@owenlewis1314 well I think it was a reaction to how ineffective the panzer 3 and 4 were in terms of armor and firepower. Until the Panzer 4 with long barreled anti tank guns came along, the only tank mounted gun that faired a chance is the long 50, and its unreliable at best at killing T34s and not capable when talking about KV1s.
The Panther is just a rushed attempt to not only match Soviet armor but exceed it
@@kobeh6185 Yeah the Soviet armor definitely caught them off guard but KV1s and t-34s accounted for around 4% of Soviet tanks in 1942. Maybe even less because I'm counting all Soviet heavy tanks as KV1s and ignoring t-28s and other weird tanks. 25k of the 26k Soviet tanks were light tanks such as the t-60 and bt-5. You are right about the shock though. They really never expected the Soviets to have such armor on their tanks and that's why they started fielding bigger guns.
The panther is one of the most beautiful tanks I’ve ever seen and the paint schemes were perfect for it
I take a "welded turret" Leopard 1 (the A3/A4 and Danish A5 variants, the latter is the most attractive) over Panther any time of the day for looks. It is a more refined tank in the same size/weight class, in some ways the "grandson" of Panther in looks and usage profile (speed as part of the defence etc)
Fun fact: a commander of a panther saw an M26 Pershing and ordered his gunners to hold because he thought it was a German tank as it wasn’t a Sherman, within seconds the Pershing set the panther on fire
A pennysylvania class could easily penetrate it smh
@Manuel - I know the one
While I was watching the footage, I noticed you got Gaijin'd at 2:05
even after so many years, volumetric armor continues to be a bitch.
It’s funny how Gaijin claim that they fixed it but optics are still impossible to penetrate (especially the t34)
That's not volumetric armor, his shot hit right after someone else's shot hit first. So the components and crew was already dead.
You should do the Sherman Jumbo or the Chafee next
"80 years ago, things broke down more than they do now"
This is actually a false statement. Today things are built like shit and never fail to break.
My Ford Fusion Would Like To Have A Word With You
This guy is great. He makes videos that aren’t just a rant but they are realistic and he points out problems that actually are relevant. Keep up the good work👍
I love these history videos on tanks. Enjoying your analysis you normally do for your WT videos into some real stuff.
By late war, Germans were running rookie crews in their Panthers vs Allied crews who had combat experience. That alone is going to kill the Panther's combat record.
Lol, if you include the drivers as a main part, transmission failures be everywhere
War Thunder got that part in history quite accurately
What happened to the experienced German tankers? Did they just pack up and leave? Could it be the experienced German crews met the same fate as the inexperienced?
@@treefittyfoh1562 I don't know if the US did the same for the armored force. But I recall hearing that in the air, the US would take experienced pilots and put them in training roles. That way some combat experience could be passed on to green pilots. Thus, by the end of the war, the US standard of training was much better than that of other nations.
@@treefittyfoh1562 more were likely on the eastern front
Nice video overall, but I am starting to have trouble keeping up with how fast the talking goes, especially when the words start blending together.
You can slowdown the playback
@@alanhoff89 Then it'll just sound weird, I would tell them to use the subtitle function
Edit: 0.75 speed does not always sound weird, but in some parts yes
I agree.
It's Dark Docs all over again
Spookston, turning 12 minute videos into 5 minute videos since (whenever)
Very good Video! One thing you could have added is, that test after the war also showed, that a panther engine had a service life of about 1000 to 1500 kilometers. (source: Welt ) (Can add a link if anybody wants it, but its in german)
I would like to point out something I missed my first time watching the Chieftains American myths video.
At the Battle of Arracourt the German 5th Army with 100 Panthers fought Combat Company A (a battalion-sized unit with 74 maximum tanks). I have yet to find exact numbers for the US but there 51 Shermans at full strength making this at least a 2:1 for the Panthers. By the German retreat, there were 20 Panthers with 80 destroyed and only 20 Shermans knocked out. As the Chieftain stated this is mainly due to the US tankers much better training and survivability, as well as their overwhelming support. This is not to understate that an expected 5:1 kill ratio being a 25 times lower than anticipated (1:5) surely says something.
You're forgetting that the Shermans weren't the only Allied armor there. IIRC, Arracourt was one of the few times where US Tank Destroyer doctrine was actually put into effect and the faster M18s managed to savage a lot of the German armor.
yeah, total air dominance, no fuel and APCR ammunition shortages and enough well trained personnel for each tank pay off^^
@Manuel - Cas wasn't all that effective against tanks.
@@stuffzie8329 Right cause CAS totally needed to kill heavily armored tanks and literally forgetting about any light vehicle (trucks etc) and infantry outside, the point of CAS wasn't generally to kill tanks but also to cause massive chaos on the enemy line, do you think if you're in the receiving end being bombard by planes (MG and bombs) and artillery, its just nothing lol, lets not also forget that killing tanks also include that got disabled with tracks etc so Artillery pretty much will do the job.
Okay so, let me get this out of the way: In the late nineties and 2000s, there were a handful of people on various internet forums pushing for recognition of the Sherman and fighting to overturn a lot of its bad reputation. I was one of those people. The uphill battle was grueling and, now that I'm older, I realize it was more trouble than it was worth. That said, I still have a love for the M4 as a piece of hardware.
HOWEVER
The Battle of Arracourt should not be seen as a triumph of the Sherman over the Panther. Rather, the Battle of Arracourt should be studied as a failure in TO&E. The Independent Panzer Brigades, of which the German force involved was (Panzer Brigade 113 being the major constituent), was lacking in several key areas. Notably, and by far the most damning, it didn't have sufficient organic reconnaissance assets. As such, it was essentially bumbling around blindly in a vague direction.
A little pretense, here: The Independent Panzer Brigades were designed for local counter attacks on the Russian Front, against Russian Infantry, who were criminally under-equipped for dealing with tanks. Remember this, because this is the context for how they were designed and formatted. Russian infantry did not have lavish spreads of antitank guns, nor did they have shoulder fired rocket launchers. American and British infantry, however, did. American and British infantry were fully capable of, and designed, to resist armored attack. So, when these Panzer Brigades were thrown onto the west, they tended not to perform well. Even when they were just against Infantry, they got eaten alive.
So, the attack at Arracourt started out badly from the get-go. They were spotted and subjected to rocket attack before they even headed out, so they were already in a damaged state before they made contact with any Allied force. The fog was dense during the attack, and without the eyes and ears of organic reconnaissance elements, they were going in blind. Because of this, they did not know where the enemy was, just what direction to generally sort of *go in* in order to do *something.*
They were spotted by American reconnaissance elements, and Combat Command A (approximately one third of a late-pattern American armored division) of the 4th Armored was able to maneuver its M4s and attached tank destroyers into ideal flanking positions. Individual elements of Panzer Brigade 113 were fixed in place with exchanges of fire through the fog while they were flanked and beaten down in a hail of cannonade. For those of you who might be curious, the 4th Armored was equipped with 75-mm Shermans, so the 76-mm wasn't in play outside of the Tank Destroyers present, which were of the M18 type.
For how bad it was for the Germans, Panthers and M4s were generally slugging it out one-for-one until the weather cleared and Allied fighter-bombers were able to seal the deal, seeing the Germans off the field and putting an end to the battle.
In short, the moral of Arracourt is not that the M4 was a superior tank to the Panther. Rather, it's that no matter how powerful the main body of your formation is, it's operationally useless if it doesn't have the support elements to facilitate informed decision-making on the part of the commanders. Most of us can agree that we wouldn't want to fight with someone like Mike Tyson in his prime. But if you take Mr. Tyson and remove his eyes, his ears, and one arm, he becomes much more takable. *This* was the essence and failure of the Independent Panzer Brigades.
Here's a bit of detail on the transmission. Though the rest of my notes are somewhere so some statement might not be entirely accurate
At the start the transmission itself was a problem problem overall. It would break from something often. Whatever the case in the Ausf. G variant the transmission casing was either redesigned or thickened, but whatever the case the transmission lifespan was significantly increased since the casing itself was more durable. But the gears remained the main problem.
The final drive gears were straight cut single teeth spur gears as opposed to the helical cut gears which would have been preffered. This type of gear n the panther was not well suited and tended to strip prematurely quite often, if the steel quality was worse and resources like molybdenum were missing, it could more or less shatter from brittleness. Helical cut gear would have much been preffered but it came down to a few things. Time and tools being a big part.
People say Panthers were rushed into Kursk, why so? Because the choice of the finak drive gear, spur cut gear are much quicker to produce that helical it's more simpler but if that's the case why not change later? Because they couldn't. A big problem was that Germany lacked the tungsten tooling bits and maybe thr machines to make the helical cut gears. So instead they did a last ditch resort for a gear and made what we have now, a not well suited gear which is not great in dimensions. They could have solved the final drive problem anytime, they know how to, it's just that they lacked the necessary tools required to make the fix.
Next the drive train "I believe", while the Ausf. G resolved some bit of the transmission, the suspensions still acted upon the the 3 gear or something, this led to premature stripping of the gear BUT this gear wasn't too much of a problem if the materials were good in quality. If they were good in quality it would last but it would still prematurely strip. It's main problem stems from design and materials, it's design a somewhat flawed and is the reasons it prematurely strips but since I can work the next problem is materials, this gear tended to shatter and sheer do to the amount of strain it got, the weight plus the suspension made it have a bunch of heavy forces placed on a small local area point, it was to much for this gear so the more brittle the steel the more likely it would shatter due to stress.
Overall the transmission lifespan as a whole was increased.
But two gears remained a problem. One stemming from quality of material.
The other stemming from design.
Both of which were quite hard to deal with
The engineers had suggested switching to the Tiger transmission and delaying production for that. They where aware that the transmission used by Panther had initially been designed for a 30to tank (initial design weight)
When basically the same companies where faced with a similar problem 20 years later the engineers got their way and the "target design weight" for the "Standardpanzer" was raised from "30to class" to "up to 50to class". Resulting in Leopard 1.
The Pz. IV couldn't have kept up till the end of the war. What they needed was some parts interchangeability between *all* their armoured vehicles, so they could've produced more of everything, and improvements to parts would help all the different models.
That what the E series concept was thought up for
Pz IV not only could have kept up but did keep up.
E50 was supposed to be the panther series replacements
A smaller tiger 2 with better armor on steroids
the Pz. Iv could have kept up. it had boggie suspension meaning, like the sherman, they could have easily introduced strengthened suspension systems to both old and new tanks, there was a variant that had a sloped hull (which was canceled in favor of the panther), which would be similar to the sherman's hull slope changeing angle over time, there was a protoytpe tested with the panther's turret (although they did not change the suspension and so it was overloaded). the panzer IV could have easily been a german sherman and a mini-panther, but instead, they went for a completely new design (the historical panther)
@@LordOfChaos.x it wasn't smaller, its literally the same hull as the E-75, just less armour. its actually slightly longer than a tiger 2.
Please keep making these, they are so interesting.
YES! I finally caught a video within an hour of release. Love you man, another great video
Panzer 4: Reliable. Medium. Not too expensive.
Panther: "Hans, the engine is on fire again."
Edit: Please stop debating. I know the Panzer 4 sucked with it's later variants and all but this is a joke comment.
Panzer 4: Gets torn apart by 75mm Sherman Guns, unreliable with the later variants, has a outdated long 75mm cannons.
Panther: Became just as cheap as a Panzer 4, Has Armor that can shrug off some shots, has a perfectly strong gun for almost all Ally tanks, Was close to Fatherland and has better crew training and improved components so breakdowns happened less often.
@@Predator20357 just as cheap? If that's true then that's insane.
The problem with the Panzer IV is the lack of armor, especially on the sides. Also the later variants of the Panzer IV had issues with the transmission once all the armor upgrades were done
@@ushiki2212 Became just as cheap, especially when you compare it to the other tanks.
Should have just built more STUGs
first 200! thanks spookston for the great content!
Another thing I think is how situational its optimal performance is. Coming down to the gun and the optics, the high velocity gun made firing HE unstable and was avoided, making it lose the multirole support aspect the tanks before it had. In another aspect for friendly infantry, being in proximity around the front of the tank was a notable health hazard because of the shockwave from the gun firing due again to the high velocity nature of the gun and ammo. Also the gunner optic was highly magnified, and the gunner had no panoramic site, so he had to rely on the commander to actually spot the target.
gotta love the subnautica soundtrack in the background
Ah yes Subnautica songs are perfect
yes my dude
subnautica ost is very cool
İt tHE fiRsT mBt mAn!
@Manuel - Literally is. It's like calling the trash man "sanitation officer".
It do be like: Neat title you have there, now go do medium tank stuff with extra steps.
Love the subnautica music in the backround
You bought me with the Subnautica music
Friendly reminder that:
The Panther was slower than the Pershing on all terrain in American testing
Interleaved roadwheels were a terrible idea and German tankers had to suffer through 14+ hours of work to change one of the inner wheels
The armor quality on late war German tanks was so bad that the Panther was frontally vulnerable to HE
Meanwhile in War Thunder:
Panther goes pretty smoothly off-road whereas M26 is struggling to reach 40 km/h at paved road and is slower than Tiger off-road
You know, I think you're fibbing about the American testing. Nothing I have read agrees with you - especially considering the M26 was badly underpowered and had pretty poor cross country performance until the M46 replaced the engine and transmission. All the testing results I have read agree the Panther's system gives first class terrain handling and ride, but not nearly enough to justify the complexity of the system. Speaking of which, 14 hours to change one inner wheel is a gross exaggeration. It was certainly a laborious task, but most sources indicate about eight hours as a worst case scenario.
Source? Not saying your wrong, but a lot of “American testing” are just telling lies just to promote American vehicles to other clients in the world.
@@alexisgauthier7665 so like german testing
@@fulcrum2951 Germany had no clients. Also, american testing? What a joke.
"the genralhullshemainsimliarto the Panzer IV" uhh...what?
Very intriguing insights as always! 👍👍
One thing to keep in mind with the Panther was that the final drive wasn't just inadequate for its final 45 tonne weight, but was more than likely inadequate for its original ~35 tonne weight.
tbh i personally think the Diamler Benz design was the best one
@@jammygamer8961 Not necessarily, the only way it would have been able to mount the 7.5cm L/70 would have required the DB design to only have a two man turret crew, which is a very bad idea.
@@XanderTuron good point
Weight isn't the only factor, either. German steel quality was comparatively poor by the closing years of the war. Even if it wasn't stressed by weight limitations, brittle steel will only get you so far.
Is gear choice was an overall flaw, no matter the design the spur gear was the problem.
A helical cut gear was preffered and a known option to solve the final drive issue, the problem is Germany lack the tools to make the gear, so the gear we have right now is a halfassed version if what they designers wanted
You might want to try slowing down your speech.
I've noticed that over time it's become faster and more slurred due to the fast speed of your speech.
If you just make a conscious effort to slow down your speech, I'm convinced that your videos will become even better.
Keep up the great work, your videos are very good!
German transmissions after driving for .00000001 miles :hehe I go cracc
Americans trying to cramp any possable engine on the m4 sherman to see woch wouldnt crack in the slightly slope: oh well
The turret rotation is a nightmare
Only one of them has horrible turret rotation, the rest are pretty fine.
Could you cover the Sherman and the argument between "death trap" vs survivability along with the issue of its matchups? I am curious as to what your conclusion is
Lets be real here the reason shermana are known to be death traps is because of the amount of shermans lost in battle if we are being real i think the t34 deserves the name death trap because they were the tank that were destroyed the most on the battlefield
What is your opinion on the supposed war thunder 'hackers', would you do a video on it?
They exist, they’re a big and growing problem, Gaijin won’t do anything.
What hackers? Are these the Chinese bots going around? The ones with just random letters or numbers for names?
@@Azylath No, the ones with aimbot, wallhack, etc.
@@jamesharding3459 thorq is right, most of the hackers r Chinese players with barcode number names
having a kill shot at the beginning of every single video is so god damn satisfying
Love a underwater game’s music in a tank video.
(I love Subnautica’s into the unknown by the way)
Can you make a video about the performance of the M26 Pershing and if it looked eye to eye with the T44, please? I would like to hear your opinion.
I can give a sort of over summarized evaluation based off of playing both a little although this won't be accurate to IRL. The t-44 basically is a slightly uparmored and more maneuverable t-34-85 whereas the Pershing had better armor and was slightly sluggish iirc but had a way punchier gun.
If sturer emil was historically accurate? pls its my favorite vehicle in the game
You must be the masochist I've been hearing so much about
1.5 kd with 53% win ratio dont seem like suffering
Heavy tank in medium tank's clothes (or the other way round?) and certainly not an MBT. Undoubtedly a looker.
By weight and looks a heavy tank, by role a medium tank in all aspects
It may not be great, but it wasn't bad.
That L70 could definitely reach out and touch someone.
Fellas the touch screen on my phone doesn’t work where the RUclips searchbar is, can someone pls link me the Barkley Shut up and Jam: Gaiden theme?
More “everything wrong with the vehicles from” vids when?
I've always wanted to know why the Germans had such issues building/designing a transmission that wasnt dogshit.
How we got to this point.
1)Start out with a smaller tank as the base design
2)Use an older gear design that doesn't handle overstress the best
3)Increase weight to meet new needs
4)Don't immediately upgrade the transmission, to keep resource strain down
5)Get sabotaged by willful doorknobs from the labor camps, making it look worse
6)Have victors writing the history spread rumors
7)The internet lost its barrier to access, allowing the lowest intelligence levels to spam fart jokes about it
It's probably mostly that actually upgrading the transmission would potentially require a massive rework of the entire tank. The IS-2 for example started out as just a program to develop a better transmission for the KV line and it went through a handful of different designs until it ended up with a completely different and almost unrecognizable tank and it wasn't until 1944 it saw combat. The Soviets were at least motivated to do this because the KV-1 was becoming obsolete and they were focusing on the T-34 anyways, plus it was a heavy tank and you can survive without those, but imagine doing this with your brand new medium tank that at least on paper should be cutting edge and not need to be taken off the front line for years. Not only would it mean that a tank that you introduced might not have a functional replacement for years, at a time where things are really dire for you, but you'd probably basically need to make an entirely new tank to counter whatever your enemies have introduced in the mean time. It's a hard pill to swallow and you can see why the Germans were resistant to initiate such a program when the war wasn't going that well for them in the first place, so they ended up just settling for the work-arounds and quick fixes they could find and those were good enough for the moment.
Though it does also seem like whoever was in charge of tank development in Germany failed to realize the importance of such issues since the Panther 2 program was started when they found that Soviet AT rifles were able to penetrate the side of the armor so I think there was perhaps also just an institutional bias towards valuing armor and guns over other parts of a tank.
1. Transmission wasn't shot for all tanks.
2. Panther had a severe problem with transmission due to its design. They knew how to solve this issue but the problem is that they couldn't fix it because they lacked the tools to make the part so they half assed it to get a powerful tank up and partially running.
3. Slave labor contributes to mechanical failures.
4. Same goes for the Tiger I in that the correct get couldn't be made since they lacked tools to do so. But at least that transmission didnt have badly designed gears.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 don't immediately upgrade the transmission?
Th ats how thatte hermana never truly reached mass production.
The Soviets took time complimenting their changes after abo it a year. So production only grows, then slows down one the big change happens, then the production slowly rises up and without changes or upgrades the production stays streamlined.
The Germans tended to implement upgrades and designs every couple of months or so. This slowly adds up and drags down production, it is why the Germans didnt produce tanks as quickly, any small changes has to be implemented in all factories which slows do production overall. It works best for dealing with problems immediately but is bad for mass production. The Soviet method works well for solving all issues but takes time and your flaws will remain for a while.
In this case transmission should be changes immediately one the time comes.
well for one they weren't getting fbombed by US & the Bri ish
Have you considered using more visuals like blueprints and cross-section pictures? I think this is an interesting way to add more depth to this kind of content
it's worth pointing out that by the end of simultaneous industrial scale manufacturing the Panther ended up being cheaper and faster to produce, requiring only 2,000 man-hours compared to 5,500 man-hours for a Pz. IV to manufacture since there were less welded components and the modules in the drivetrain could be inserted as a unit rather than being installed seperately like the older Pz. IV, however a large part of improved reliability on the Panther in the late war can be attributed to Germany instructing Drivers to not attempt any neutral steer operations as that would put excessive stress on the final drive, to bandaid the backfiring issue you would simply operate the throttle more slowly since sudden throttle changes on a poorly tuned carbureted engine cause backfires, and the Panther 4 carburetor setup with a single intake manifold is a setup which would be hard to set up on a wide scale as any change in tune on one carb affects the operation of all the others, leading to performance issues, this was planned to be fixed by switching to a mechanical fuel injection unit which combined with a supercharger was expected to provide more HP and better reliability in the field.
Next do "How good was the Sherman really"
very good
done
very bad
done
@@justzzzx623 Wehraboo spottet
@@teox7967 average Yankee grammar
Freeaboo spotted
If you ask me the Panther had a pretty big profile. Not the best attribute.
T-44 was better
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 T-44 didnt even fight in WW2...
You say that, but Shermans are a lot larget than you'd think, they're basically the same height as a Tiger
Tanks in general (hell planes in WWII even) are a lot larger than people think. Also a taller profile doesn’t necessarily mean a bad thing for tanks. There are pros and cons to both
@@CrazyDutchguys he didn't say it did tho
I may have missed it in the video but I do remember a report a few years ago about German tank production of the late war being rated more unreliable than actually should have been due to slave labor to build the components and it being consistently sabotaged. A good example is the front sprocket on the tracks (Germans used very large sprockets with all preasure on a few teeth , 6 or so, while allied versions used 18+ to minimize the strain on the part) having teeth broken and glued together so it broke down very shortly after leaving the factory. I always thought this was one of the reasons it's reliability was called into question. It obviously had other issues though as well. I always wondered how good the tiger/panthers would have been under professional grade production.
I remember once watching military history and in one document was mentioned something about final drive problem was almost resolved
Talkes about panther
Uses the french dauphine panther to get easy kill montages because of tiger problem
OKW: We want to make the Panther as reliable as Panzer IV
Tank crews: By making the Panther reliable, right?
OKW:...
Tank crews: BY MAKING THE PANTHER RELIABLE, RIGHT?!
i love the background subnautica music
It was basically the same situation as early T-34(maybe it's just a sign of how hard it is to put a new tanks into production during wartime?). Same problems, same drawbacks, different solutions though. We haven't thankfully found out if Panther F would have been the same definite model that fixed most of the issues like 1943 model was for T-34.
Funnily enough, Tiger also had KV-1 trouble, BUT they have gone in opposite direction from actually fixing them. KV-1S, KV-85, KV-13, IS-1, IS-2 and finally IS-3. Soviets had put priority on fixing the reliability trouble and that meant cutting weight and making new transmission. But with Tiger germans had gone for the opposite direction on that progression - they decided to tackle armor and armament increase first and only then fix reliability. I wonder how a Tiger 1S would have looked like though:D
the F was mostly just a turret, the initial Fs were just going to be G hulls with a new turret. the automotive components would be changed in a later design.
Its not bad, it was considered one of the best tanks in ww2
I guess plenty of tanks at the time had mechanical issues. That's what happens when development is happening under war and there is no time for proper testing or such. Early T-34 was a pretty bad tank for example
T34s are considered bad, especially the early version but they are considered the best tanks of the war. What's your point?
Idk if you really care about improving your speaking in videos, all up to you, but if you're interested I think your speaking would be *greatly* improved if you didn't rush your sentences so much- your speaking voice is actually really pleasant, but it gets ruined when you garble pronunciation from rushing your sentences.
Not to say you *have* to speak more slowly even, if you run through your line once or twice to make sure you aren't garbling or missing out on syllables, it'd sound just as good- bringing the tempo down a notch is probably a bit easier though
I kind of want to see you do a video on the future of air combat, and I'd like you to talk about why modern aircraft have a gun, despite it not being the primary weapon. I've seen a ton of arguments about this subject.
It's the same type of reason military personnel still carry knives and the like despite the fact that firearms of all kinds have lengthened standard engagement ranges to far beyond the usable range of a knife. It's better to have it and not need it in most engagements than to not have it when that one rare close-up fight takes place and your opponent ends up the victor because of its absence.
As a last resort on the very off chance that it comes down to a dogfight. Also akiiira says hello
The thing that struck me about the Panther watching the chieftain video is how the gunners only view of the world is the narrow gun sight.
Even in something as crude as a T34-85 the gunner had his own 360 degree periscope.
Situational awareness can't have been great in close in situations.
the gunner isn't the only crewman, and the gunners job is to look down the sight, the tank overall had superior situational awareness compaired to soviet tanks (better commander's vision)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 But not being able to see doesn't help when setting the gun on the target. Also, the gunner being able to independently look takes a bit of the workload off the commander
I’m starting to notice a pattern of spook either hating on Germany in war thunder or Germany irl
l2p
Honestly i think the vk 30.01 just looks better than the panther
The Subnautica Music is such a vibe
Erm, Spookston, I continually enjoy the Subnautica soundtrack,
On another note, have you done a “If the Chieftain was realistic in WT” video? I think it might be interesting to research.
In before the angry wehraboos
Says the angry burgerboo.
"make more pz4" HA one of most funny things i saw, instead of more tanks they would get same amount of worse tanks, Imagine having no fuel because your Marshal thought that your order to get oil first was stupid and did his own thing thne blaming it on you
>Implying the Panzer 4 was a bad tank
@@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334 >Implying there were no better alternatives
@@wojszach4443 >implying that the late war German economy could handle mass production of the panther compared to the pz4 when it has been bombed to oblivion
@@magicelf7559 Implying they had oil for mass producing anything
oil, oil is the limit not industry. they had barely oil for low numbers they had already. Hitler wet east for oil, Halder decided that Moscow is better target, we know results.
You do realise how much more steel and reichmarks the Panthers and Tigers needed to be produced right? On top of that, they would have easily used more than double the amount of fuel as the earlier mediums, as well as many more man hours. All of which was scarce at the end of the war for Germany.
Oddball was on the $; I also thought you were speaking too quickly. Good vid regardless.
Maybe more analysis from soldiers vs historians POV in the future.
Darnet every time I watch a Spookston video I wanna play Warthunder
Also I just subscribed :]
The cries of Wehraboos, I can hear them already
Das panther is the best ja well it has alot of problems but we don't we talk about that here
unfunny and unoriginal
@@jaxrammus9165 have not asked for your opinion
I like that the background footage used for this is of what I call the "Spy Panther". So easy to confuse some German players when they just glance at you, see a Panther, then get KO'd immediately after.
The change of the UFP from 60 mm to 80 mm probably added about half a ton of weight.
Can we see jumbo next as a lover of the jumbo I would love more info about it and it’s flaws
You should do the t34 in two segments one half talking about the 76 and the second about the 85mm
As a former tanker, I cringe everytime I see that interleaved suspension system
My father fought in East (Kursk) and West (Ardennes ) with the 1.SS Panzer, Leibstandarte . He said the Tiger I was brutal, Tiger II was called Life Insurance , but he would have never switched formlos Panther. They took out 11 T34/85 in 15 minutes and two ISII at 1945 Spring Awakening offensive in Hungary. Ehe French Army used the Panther Till the mid 1950s which was with a trained crew a killing machine ….March 16 they battled some well hidden IS2 Inna village , destroyed several but one hit him from the side ….
what about German armor QC issues, and hardening problems that specifically plagued the panther?
You touched on this, but it should be re-emphasized: one of the major problems, if not is biggest, was the fact that Hitler had placed such a low priority on logistics that he had damaged/crippled the Panzer divisions throughout the war. You may also want to consider this: The Germans were using forced labor to build their tanks. The workers came from conquered countries. These workers were sabotaging the gear boxes and other items during construction. I once read a report of workers breaking off teeth of gears.
more subnautica music? i approve
Do one on the stug pls!!!
Good video!