best medium WW2 tank thread

[plasticpanzers]

Probably about your mention of the Brits destroying all the Tigers they met...data without context or what info you base that on.
Since you and some others keep talking about lost tanks or lost battles about tanks I felt shoving some more information into the
post might help someone make a more informed response, not a 'pop' one.

If you can't understand that a Battle is made up of a number (a whole lot at times) of engagements between small groups and not
like the big battle at the end of the 60s movie "Battle of the Bulge" you might understand what a battle is composed of. If you
can't understand that what are you doing working on a WW2 game?

Oh dear, you never said a Panther never lost a battle, you said a Panther never won one.....now that is just plain wierd!

If the idea of actually reading the offical history of the US Army that fought at Arracourt mystifies you then you have serious issues
in research abilities. This is 1st source infomation based from participants. Its not an "Authors" opinion. This is the OFFICAL work
discussing the battles and engagments in the Lorraine campaign.

And yes I have issues with Wiki at times as its not original source material. Some is quite good and some is weak. Always go to
the original source material if you can. I am sure that folks that write books and articles or post on hobby boards 40-69 years after
the war have access to more info but that does NOT detract from the original sources unless you can dismiss them with factual material
that desputes them. You simply ignore it all and cherry pick info.

I do not consider WoT a credible source for information on WW2 history. I am sure there are plenty of folks there that know alot but its
a game site, not a history site. Were argueing history here on this forum and not discussing HOI4 (which means perhaps this will now get
moved to the history section...hmmm shot ourselves in the foot with that one....).

I am sad to say it but you are doing 'poplular' research based upon preference and personal opinion and not basing your opionion of facts that
are clear. You have to include ALL credible data to get a proper answer to a question. You cannot cherry pick information and say thats the
truth. It does not work that way. I never said (and you can't prove it..nananaa!) that i said you read only WIki or Wot (do you?)

I have stupendious respect for PI and its folks but attacking me for your failures to apply proper research to a problem and continually state info
that is based upon incomplete or irrevant data does not help at all. Look at the whole picture. ZOOM OUT ON YOUR MAP OF RESEARCH!

 

[plasticpanzers]

Just to show that I am aware of issues with the Panther for the Panther haters out there I include this. Tho I always remember
to remember that you have to look at a subject in its entirety to see it properly, not at just parts of the subject.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf

 

[Darkrenown]

Probably about your mention of the Brits destroying all the Tigers they met...data without context or what info you base that on.
Since you and some others keep talking about lost tanks pr lost battles about tanks I felt shoving some more information into the
post might help someone make a more informed response, not a 'pop' one.

Just posting loss numbers does nothing to disprove, or even shed any light at all on, what I said though. Did I said the Brits lost 0 tanks? Did I say the Brits lost X tanks? I didn't say either, so what do you imagine posting that they lost Y tanks shows? Again, just spewing out data with no context is worthless.

If you can't understand that a Battle is made up of a number (a whole lot at times)of engagements between small groups and not
like the big battle at the end of the 60s movie "Battle of the Bulge" you might understand what a battle is composed of. If you
can't understand that what are you doing working on a WW2 game?

I understand that a battle is made up of engagements, but I have no clue what point you are trying to make by pointing this out. We were talking about Arracourt then you said "2-4 tanks fighting 2-4 tanks is an engagement, not a battle." I pointed out that there were more than 4-9 tanks on each side at Arracourt and you said "A battle is alot of engagements. Arracourt is alot of engagements. Therefore alot of small tank engagements equals a battle.", so we've established that battles are made up of engagements, a point that was never in dispute.

If the idea of actually reading the offical history of the US Army that fought at Arracourt mystifies you then you have serious issues
in research abilities. This is 1st source infomation based from participants. Its not an "Authors" opinion. This is the OFFICAL work
discussing the battles and engagments in the Lorraine campaign.

Look, the point of recommending another source would be that you feel it would prove something about the battle is not as I describe. The fact that you have failed to say what you think this would be is your error, not from any fault with my research ability. Tell me what point you want to make and cite the relevant part of the book.

And yes I have issues with Wiki at times as its not original source material. Some is quite good and some is weak. Always go to
the original source material if you can. I am sure that folks that write books and articles or post on hobby boards 40-69 years after
the war have access to more info but that does NOT detract from the original sources unless you can dismiss them with factual material
that desputes them. You simply ignore it all and cherry pick info.

I don't think I've linked to a single wiki article in this thread, why do you keep going on about it?

I do not consider WoT a credible source for information on WW2 history. I am sure there are plenty of folks there that know alot but its
a game site, not a history site. Were argueing history here on this forum and not discussing HOI4 (which means perhaps this will now get
moved to the history section...hmmm shot ourselves in the foot with that one....).

There's no "WoT" that spouts out information, there's just people on a forum just like we are who discuss history by posting their opinions, research, and historical citations. That you dismiss them just because of where they post is yet more ignorance on your part. If they are wrong, dispute their arguments with sources of your own. WoT does have a "tank expert" on staff, who writes historical articles on their website too; he was a US officer who commanded tanks in the Gulf war, spends his free time researching the history of tanks, and worked in a tank museum between his army career and working for Wargaming - that seems to me like a decent enough pedigree that you should argue with his writing, if you can, rather than dismissing him because of where he works.

I am sad to say it but you are doing 'poplular' research based upon preference and personal opinion and not basing your opionion of facts that
are clear. You have to include ALL credible data to get a proper answer to a question. You cannot cherry pick information and say thats the
truth. It does not work that way.

I have posted lots of facts, if you think they are incorrect try disproving them instead of posting random bits of data with no context.

Just to show that I am aware of issues with the Panther for the Panther haters out there I include this. Tho I always remember
to remember that you have to look at a subject in its entirety to see it properly, not at just parts of the subject.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf

So the only problem with the Panther, in your view, was its brittle armour?

 

[xthetenth]

'Pretending' would mean this is wrong.
Only it isn't.
The utility of a tank is in how many casualties it can inflict without sustaining as few as possible itself.
If the T-34 were an infantrymen it would be an ill-trained peasant with a rusty single-shot bolt-action and one eye.
Loss rates attack vs. defense are of course important, but even then the T-34s are to high especially if you consider that the Soviets could repair any not completly detroyed, having command of the battlefields for most of the war.
The above peasant i managed, would, btw, absolutely be able to defeat a superior foe.
If there were 3 to 4 times as many of him as of his opponents and even then 75% of those peasants would probably die before victory.
Which mirrors the T-34 performance exactly.

Funnily enough, you're still wrong and you said part of why. If the utility of a tank is in how many casualties it can inflict without sustaining as few as possible itself [sic, I think you meant while sustaining...], then a discussion of one tank's losses is one piece of four in the puzzle of which tank is better. If you don't know how many casualties the T-34 inflicted, and the ~*MLG PRO KDR*~ of the Panther, what are you doing with a half-formed opinion? Why are you pretending to know about something when you self-evidently only have a quarter of your own argument?

As long as Arracourt does not answer the why-question (why where the IVs superior to the Vs even though the Vs were better motorized and better armoured) it is useless and little more than a curious oddity.

Okay, let's go! Here in the lovely book Lorraine 1944: Patton versus Manteuffel by the excellent Steven Zaloga, he discusses the layout of the Panther's periscopes, and how the gunner and the radio operator both lacked periscopes with any view of their firing arc (kind of an achievement considering the gunner's in a turret so any periscope would do the job), so they were unable to acquire targets quickly, especially after moving, while the Sherman's crew had a good layout of unity periscopes which meant they were able to search in their fire arc for enemies quickly, and the gunner was able to watch the terrain while moving in a meaningful manner, so he'd be able to react faster on stopping due to that situational awareness. In fact, these are the factors discussed in this very thread when we talked about how long the Panther took to acquire the enemy and get a firing solution. What Arracourt does is shows evidence that the outcomes predicted by the relative weakness of the panther compared to other tanks did in fact occur in battles.

In short, Arracourt isn't an argument on its own, but if you'd been reading the thread it's supporting evidence for a theory promoted throughout the thread that the Panther was very bad at reacting to spotted enemies in a timely manner, and that this had a measurable impact on combat performance.

Alexy's right on that. Too tall (US M3 Lee) and your can see well but it screams 'shoot me!' or too low and you can't see or
fire your gun. Battles were a mix of so many mydrid things basing it on one factor skews the entire view of the battle and
leads you to strange observations.

More than that, gun depression, crew space and other things that are generally considered good things (such as being able to mount a long gun without stuffing it full of mud in rough terrain) are customarily purchased with height (it doesn't have to be that normal, the Sherman's big gain from being tall was the ability to use aircraft radials that were very common for the engine of some of its variants, which made a big deal given the general shape of production in the US). Height, as with weight is a matter of sacrifice and optimization. If a height or weight increase buys you a noticeable increase in capability, then it's a good thing. If you make a very tall, very heavy tank and have to get into a huge argument whether it's even better in the places its advantages should theoretically shine the brightest, then it's probably a bad tank.

Actually the reports of spare transmissions carried on the back of T34s I will look into as well as refinding the Russian site on where
elite crews were given Panthers as a reward and indeed told to go ahead and drive them into the ground but still use them in combat.
That would make a strange contradiction of Russian crews spurning T34s and they even rebuilt and used PZIIIs and IVs in combat.

The Panzer III and IV were pretty liked in the USSR. In fact they went to the effort of making translated manuals and especially liked to use them as command tanks because they were well appointed. Meanwhile as often as not, Guards units were driving the inimitable Sherman.

DR will take me a few days for that book. Never sell a book and have to buy it again...

240 hours engine/transmission life is not very much for the T34 or any tank. If you think raw Russian tank crews never did what they
did at Aberdeen (and they tested a T34/85 too) you'd be crazy. Also the tank sent to them, if you read the report, was a specially
overseen uberbuilt to very high standards (one of 5) so the US could get a feeling for the T34. To disreguard that report is to again
fail to do proper research and see the value in the report on actual field conditions it would have fought under.

Please re-read post 230 the bottom report in its entirety and on the Russian response and input on issues with the T34 before you
dismiss another report. You cannot pick and choose information based on you don't like it or you like it.

You've been doing this all thread. Why can't I decide that, for example, breaking when used improperly for the entire use life of the engine isn't actually that huge a deal when compared to the final drive lasting about as long as a tank of gas? Why can you decide that there's no difference between mechanical difficulty that could be and was fixed and mechanical difficulty that was an inevitable consequence of the german machine tool situation and the design as built? Why do you get to substitute idle speculation on the practices of Soviet tank crews for any form of knowledge. For someone who brags so much about their book collection, you're not very good at using it.

On that French report DR waves like flag carried by a French street urchin in "leMiserabe" The report does not cover nor bring up any
issues that Germany was not aware of from 1943-45 and nowhere in the report is hours put into each machine or how many were in
the French unit other than the 17 mentioned in a post earlier and how many were for spare parts.

That's great. Meanwhile in reality, the problem Germany was aware of was a problem that measurably impacted the use of the tank on an operational and strategic scale, and could not fix. If you are aware that there is a round hole, designing a square peg is still a bad decision.

Hopefully you would read the offical history not the Wiki history or the WoT history of WW2...

Someone (hmmm) keeps mentioning battles "lost" by Panthers. Strange I remember other tanks being there too. No single tank type
'won' or 'lost' a battle. That is just a made up arguement that I have seen stated here. No more than a single rifle, truck, or cannon
won or lost a battle. you win or loose engagements over a period of time and that is a battle.

A battle is alot of engagements. Arracourt is alot of engagements. Therefore alot of small tank engagements equals a battle. Look at the
details please.

Naturally enough, the most successful engagement in the battle for the Germans was Panzer IVs against Shermans. But no, seriously, if the Panther was such a superior design, where are the battles where it made a large contribution to German efforts? Because if it's a 45 ton tank that's contributing only as much as any other 30 ton tank, that's not that great, especially when it seems like in action it gets outperformed by a not even 28 ton tank three years older than it reasonably often.

Incidentally, why are you railing about people reading wiki? Wiki agrees with you. If you'd read the relevant wiki, you'd realize that you're the one coming out with wiki history.

British tank losses (i am not sure if Canada is included here, I have to check) and not including US losses
from June to August

799 Shermans lost (inc all types)
213 Cromwells lost (I think including some Challengers)
175 Churchills (all marks)

1187 tanks lost in 3 months. Does not include light tanks or armored cars of any type.

That would be the entire compliment of medium tanks lost as 7 US Armored Divisions in 3 months with full Allied airpower and naval fire support.

And? I don't understand how there are so many people literally incapable of grasping that on their own, loss numbers mean literally nothing. You have nothing in that post to suggest that they took disproportionate losses for what they accomplished (and equally importantly how they fought, since Britain leaned pretty heavily on armor to preserve manpower)

 

[plasticpanzers]

DR, This is fun!

Basically the info provided was to show information of losses on both sides and some side info on loss reasons for German armor. This
post is not just about you (you nasty man) but about information. There were other posts before yours. Plus I like information and
like to share it... (edit add: those losses show knocking out those Tigers wasn't 'free').

You and a few others keep quoting Arracourt as some type of 'proof of life' that the Sherman was superior to the Panther or that having
the Panther at all was hurting the Germans. At the range they were fighting hitting a Panther in the side certainly would kill it but the
sources you keep quoting don't go into the detail needed to show WHY the Germans lost that engagement. You keep saying the won/
lost the battle. The battle took place over several days and was inclusive of several divisions and brigades as well as artillery, air, and
weather. Each part of the battle is an engagement. You keep talking about the battle instead of breaking it down into its components
to see what actually happened. To your mind battle won don't need to know more or why....and you did not seem to understand that
battles are made of smaller and smaller battles called engagements. The "Band of Brothers" company at Bastogne fought a series of
engagements in the battle. Its was not the battle of the "band of brothers". That shows your bonocular vision of history/facts. You
look too close and need to back off and see more of a question to see the proper answer.

If you didn't read the free account of the battle just say so. Why does official US historical archives frighten some people in Europe?
They are quite objective, amazingly so. The only time they wander is to mention instances where a soldier earns a particluar medal
and its usually a footnote... What info source exactly did you base your initial Arracourt position on?

Probably because you mentioned Wiki when you complained about my complaints about Wiki. Were going in strange circles here like the
Panther won and lost battles issue....

I am truely glad WoT has a tanker on its staff. Fine by me tho having an F15 pilot tell me about flying aircraft in 1944 might be a bit odd. I base
my information on years of research myself. I have never fought in a Sherman tank and I suspect the WoT fellow, tho most certainly a honored
member of the military, did not either. Hearing stories from my Grandfather about flying for the RAF in WWI and knowing about WW2 air combat
I can see the difference there clearly. Your expert at WoT is doing exactly what I do here, research with books and articles.

You have posted alot of facts repeatidly using the same sources over and over and I keep providing you with conflicting and accurate information
that you choose not to use nor acknowledge. This is your failing, not mine. Data is never random.

I suspect your in your late 20s-mid 30s. Give yourself another 30 years or so doing this and you can be a big "know it all" as well!

Funny is that I talked to my wife and since my brother (an ex-Marine of 37 years service who provides me info too on warfare) is 72 does not need
them I may will all my WW2 history books and have them sent after I fall off the perch to you fellas in Sweden. Would make good doorstops if you
have that many doors and I am sure Ikea is nearby if you need some more bookcases. I hate to see good stuff wasted.

Edit: I see that providing you with supporting information on Panther 'issues' other than the 'final drive' issue does not please you. darn...

 

[1alexey]

You're being rather obtuse here, a jeep with a MG doesn't fit any reasonable definition of a medium tank.

That is all you take from the post?

Not even an attempt to explain why, under your ranking of the most important thing in medium tank, Pz-3 or M24 would be better then Pz-4 or M4 would be given?
Pretty sure all 4 fit some reasonable definition of medium tank.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Alexy! Where is that jawbone?

Yes and strangely they translated a Panther book as well for their crews to use...

They were nice stable tanks tho in some cases they removed the turret and made them a 76mm SPG version
like the SU-76. Being the 50mm on the PZIII was useless.

Using your strange argument all tanks over 40 tons automatically sink into the soil and are useless. I have no idea
where you get your info but i suspect your bellybutton fuzz is the culpret....

Strange the Tiger I and Panther moved well over poor terrrain with their wider tracks.

Most Shermans given to the Russians were a particular mark. I can't remember it at the mo but the US did not use that
particular mark. Made servicing easier for the Russians. BT-7s were seen driving into Berlin in 1945. Russians did not
waste anything as so much was breaking down due to the extended offensives of 44-45.

I'm sorry, you must think T-34s only drove on freeways that were empty. Have you seen videos on how actually tank
formations move cross country or down a 1 or 2 lane road? They don't leave all their other units like trucks and towed
equipement behind except in battle and any bottleneck slows a formation of vehices. Do you think by your earlier post
that driving a T-34 at max speed on fine roads, unhindered by traffic, warming up, or weather, would allow it to drive
1000s of miles without stopping or refueling? Are you really that bad at thinking that thru????

Just as infantry units move like acordions (getting shorter and longer due to bottlenecks/time/weather) so do motorized
formations. You have been watching too many Youtube videos of T34s slicing thru the snow at speed and thinking that
is the norm.

Bad engines and burnt out transmissions on T34s and your saying thats a techincal difficulty???? Really??? How many other
tanks strapped extra transmission on their tanks backs. You really have to recoginze that ALL tanks (including the wonderful
Sherman that I like, especially the Jumbo) have issues and that to focus only on one tank, the Panther, and dismiss all other
information on other tanks because it does not jive with your feelings rather than facts does not do you service.

I am not trying so much to defend the Panther but to get folks to look at the tanks as a whole system. Gee, Germans kinda
knew there were problems with the Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II. They were not blind to it but adapted to work with the issues
as best they could. JUST like the Russians with poor engines and stripped transmissions. You have to see ALL or you see
NOTHING.

What speculation? I keep quoting books, articles, and websites to look at yourself. Your the one ignoring everything or dismiss
it because you have a preconcieved decision not based on facts, faulty facts, or irrelevent facts.

Funny, funny, funny. The only mention I can find of a 'Strategic' value of a tank is a French report on used, damaged tanks in
limited peacetime service post WW2. That is a great source of comfort to us all. Vive la France... I don't find any other tank
mentioned as having a 'strategic value'. No more than the M1 rifle or the Panzer III.

The only Strategic weapons I know of are atomic weapons or heavy bombers. All else are TACTICAL.

The information on losses I provided is for both Allied and German tank losses. It was provided as general information only. You
and DR are making more of that as some type of Panther arguement. I provided it as 'fun' data. Go look up your own if you don't
like it. We are discussing medium tanks in WW2 and showing losses is part of the information needed to make decisions of not
only a tanks build but its combat effects and what effects it.

Whew...you guys are trying to wear my poor typing fingers out.

 

[Bullfrog]

Everyone seems to be looking for a reason to argue but largely all these posts can be whittled down for the purpose of coming to the same conclusion.

That would be that a medium tank is defined as the mainstay and workhorse of the armored force; requiring at least capability of destroying enemy strongpoints and enemy medium armor, while also being protected enough to survive hits by less powerful guns it may face. It must be somewhat mobile so that it can exploit a breakthrough. So a balance of armor, protection and speed...

The only contention really is whether the medium tank has to be efficiently built in order to be available in great number. One side says, "the Panther was more complicated but superior enough to enemy mediums to offset its lower numbers." The other side is saying, "the Panther wasn't superior enough to enemy mediums to offset its lesser numbers."

The Panther was in many ways a step towards the MBT concept, and despite it being problematic, would have been a boon to the Germans, had it been built in numbers that would have made a difference. But it wasn't for whatever reason, likely a combination of many factors. It was also prone to break down and was not fuel efficient, two things the Germans could ill afford. Had the kinks been worked out and the war magically dragged on far longer, we'd perhaps be telling a different story. Since that isn't the case, the Panther must be evaluated as a poor choice for the Germans given their strategic position at its debut.

Which brings me to another point: the standardization and production streamlining of the E-series did not take place until far too late. Had such a process been introduced in 1940-41, perhaps there could be much greater effect to speak of today regarding German production, perhaps along the lines of the T-34 or M4.

Also, most tank losses were incurred by other-than-tank means, so the argument of "my tank wins _____ battle" is rather moot. If WW2 can be compartmentalized in such a degree at all it would be thus: it was a war of production. If you insist on comparing tank to tank, then compare the numbers. 110,000 T-34 and M4 versus 14,000 Pz IV and Panthers.

 

[xthetenth]

You and a few others keep quoting Arracourt as some type of 'proof of life' that the Sherman was superior to the Panther or that having
the Panther at all was hurting the Germans. At the range they were fighting hitting a Panther in the side certainly would kill it but the
sources you keep quoting don't go into the detail needed to show WHY the Germans lost that engagement. You keep saying the won/
lost the battle. The battle took place over several days and was inclusive of several divisions and brigades as well as artillery, air, and
weather. Each part of the battle is an engagement. You keep talking about the battle instead of breaking it down into its components
to see what actually happened. To your mind battle won don't need to know more or why....and you did not seem to understand that
battles are made of smaller and smaller battles called engagements. The "Band of Brothers" company at Bastogne fought a series of
engagements in the battle. Its was not the battle of the "band of brothers". That shows your bonocular vision of history/facts. You
look too close and need to back off and see more of a question to see the proper answer.

If you read what I'm saying about Arracourt (sorry, posting big but infrequent posts makes it easy to gloss over), I'm actually more talking about how the Panthers and Panzer IVs in the same unit performed against the Shermans. I mean it's indisputable that the Shermans, despite being outnumbered were a modern unit against a sad reminder of how far Nazi Germany had declined, and they put in a huge performance because of good organization, leadership and tanks that let that happen. What I'm more interested in is demonstrating my thesis that the Panther was flawed by having a bad layout of vision apparatus for the crew that made it slow to react, and because its main advantage was only in a sixty or maybe a bit more degree off its front arc, there's a 270 degree arc at the very least where the Panther basically has no advantage in protection over other mediums, which meant that unless the Panther was able to control the range and relative positioning of the tanks in the engagement, it wasn't actually better than other mediums, and when the bad visibility hurt it could perform significantly worse. The small fight in Arracourt where Panzer IVs hit Shermans for 12 losses to their 11 losses seems to back up the idea that unlike the Panther, the Panzer IV was able to effectively react to the enemy and respond to their maneuver (I'm mainly working from Zaloga's Lorraine 1944: Patton versus Manteuffel, for the record). In fact, my argument is contingent on the differences between individual engagements, and how the Shermans breaking contact and re-engaging from a more advantageous position didn't do as much against Panzer IVs as it did against Panthers, who continually prove themselves unable to react in time.

If you didn't read the free account of the battle just say so. Why does official US historical archives frighten some people in Europe?
They are quite objective, amazingly so. The only time they wander is to mention instances where a soldier earns a particluar medal
and its usually a footnote... What info source exactly did you base your initial Arracourt position on?

Mainly Zaloga's Lorraine 1944: Patton versus Manteuffel for me, because it was a focused look at that particular campaign and I have a synopsis of it I wrote for quick reference, so I can look things up very quickly. Also I'm not retired and don't have the benefit of a lovingly assembled library and I generally keep my library card tapped out on naval engineering works.

Probably because you mentioned Wiki when you complained about my complaints about Wiki. Were going in strange circles here like the
Panther won and lost battles issue....

I am truely glad WoT has a tanker on its staff. Fine by me tho having an F15 pilot tell me about flying aircraft in 1944 might be a bit odd. I base
my information on years of research myself. I have never fought in a Sherman tank and I suspect the WoT fellow, tho most certainly a honored
member of the military, did not either. Hearing stories from my Grandfather about flying for the RAF in WWI and knowing about WW2 air combat
I can see the difference there clearly. Your expert at WoT is doing exactly what I do here, research with books and articles.

Yes, his main value is as an archive researcher, and he turns up a rather significant amount of information, considering it is literally his job to comb through archives and make interesting information publicly available. He also has the benefit of going through years in an analagous activity.

You have posted alot of facts repeatidly using the same sources over and over and I keep providing you with conflicting and accurate information
that you choose not to use nor acknowledge. This is your failing, not mine. Data is never random.

I post a lot of the same facts over and over again because they are part of a coherent argument about the relative virtues of the tank.

I suspect your in your late 20s-mid 30s. Give yourself another 30 years or so doing this and you can be a big "know it all" as well!

Why not now?

Bad engines and burnt out transmissions on T34s and your saying thats a techincal difficulty???? Really??? How many other
tanks strapped extra transmission on their tanks backs. You really have to recoginze that ALL tanks (including the wonderful
Sherman that I like, especially the Jumbo) have issues and that to focus only on one tank, the Panther, and dismiss all other
information on other tanks because it does not jive with your feelings rather than facts does not do you service.

You're talking about the problems with the early T-34s as if they affected all T-34s built. Yes, the early ones were unreliable, partly because they were a significant leap and partly because they simply were terribly maintained because the RKKA of 1941 was in terrible shape. However, these were problems that were resolved with time. Meanwhile the Panther even two years after introduction needs a new final drive about as often as a tank of gas, and you're saying that it wasn't that big a deal because the Germans knew of this problem even though they had no way of fixing it. Frankly, the Panther, considering it took 45 tons of resources and as shown by its suspension among most other components should have had a very significant advantage over other tanks in its weight class if it was to be a mainstay design that cost that much more than its competitors. Instead Germany got a tank with serious flaws that compromised its use in a large fraction if not majority of the roles a tank is expected to be used in, and was still paying that swollen price tag.

I am not trying so much to defend the Panther but to get folks to look at the tanks as a whole system. Gee, Germans kinda
knew there were problems with the Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II. They were not blind to it but adapted to work with the issues
as best they could. JUST like the Russians with poor engines and stripped transmissions. You have to see ALL or you see
NOTHING.

What speculation? I keep quoting books, articles, and websites to look at yourself. Your the one ignoring everything or dismiss
it because you have a preconcieved decision not based on facts, faulty facts, or irrelevent facts.

The tank as a system is a cog in a much larger machine, and the Panther was a disproportionate allocation of expense into that cog that didn't even result in a particularly good cog. Regarding speculation, I've forgotten, it's like three walls of text ago.

Funny, funny, funny. The only mention I can find of a 'Strategic' value of a tank is a French report on used, damaged tanks in
limited peacetime service post WW2. That is a great source of comfort to us all. Vive la France... I don't find any other tank
mentioned as having a 'strategic value'. No more than the M1 rifle or the Panzer III.

The only Strategic weapons I know of are atomic weapons or heavy bombers. All else are TACTICAL.

Atomic weapons are the only weapons able to individually have an effect on the strategic scale, and bombing is an attempt to take a weapon and skip the tactical and operational levels while engaging on the strategic, but much like the battle being built from engagements, the war is built from operations which are built from battles. A weapon which individually only has a tactical effect can, when built tens of thousands of times, have a significant strategic impact. The important questions are how large the strategic-scale cost is, and how significant the tactical-scale effects of that expenditure are when multiplied thousands of times over. Modern weapons aren't built for the tactical. They're built in huge numbers for the strategic scale, and the strategic implications of their costs and effects are vital to understanding their value.

The information on losses I provided is for both Allied and German tank losses. It was provided as general information only. You
and DR are making more of that as some type of Panther arguement. I provided it as 'fun' data. Go look up your own if you don't
like it. We are discussing medium tanks in WW2 and showing losses is part of the information needed to make decisions of not
only a tanks build but its combat effects and what effects it.

Whew...you guys are trying to wear my poor typing fingers out.

Losses in and of themselves are largely useless though because they don't provide a comprehensive picture. Information that is insufficient to construct a complete argument can only mislead, even if it is in the wrong direction, if believed the right thing is believed for the wrong reason. If a view isn't backed by a coherent set of evidence and predictive, falsifiable but unfalsified conjecture, it isn't worth holding.


Minor note: does anyone else find the avatars and posts in this argument really funny?

 

[1alexey]

The only contention really is whether the medium tank has to be efficiently built in order to be available in great number. One side says, "the Panther was more complicated but superior enough to enemy mediums to offset its lower numbers." The other side is saying, "the Panther wasn't superior enough to enemy mediums to offset its lesser numbers."

That is quite wrong way of looking at it, as the debate largely is there, because superiority of Panther piece for piece is not an established fact.

Mainly due to it having not very conventional balance of armor and firepower for a medium tank, being more comparable to a TD,
and it`s numerous flaws that diminish it`s usefulness in the typical role of a medium tank.

It arguably is kind of similar to what happened to US TDs, and it actually seem more of a variation of a turreted TD, then a typical medium tank. As such, the "evidence" of it`s "superiority" are based on the same criteria, by which M18 Hellcat of M36 would be superior to M4. But, are M18 and M36 really superior medium tanks than M4?
While they were intended to be great at fighting tanks, and they were fighting tanks well, they spent most of the war fighting infantry. Also if superior anti tank capability makes medium tank better why weren`t allies willing to create divisions armed with Sherman firefly, preferring to only keep a handful in any division?

Panther, while being very different to a typical medium tank, is still classified as such, but was it actually a good "medium tank"?
That is, should we say, very debatable.
Maybe it should rather be compared to TDs, as fighting tanks is it`s only strong side.

The Panther was in many ways a step towards the MBT concept, and despite it being problematic, would have been a boon to the Germans, had it been built in numbers that would have made a difference.

In what ways?
Panther couldn`t do the job of heavy tank, at all, wasn`t very good at being medium, and wasn`t a good TD, seeing Jagdpanther being build from it, and Germans still had a heavy tank after it was developed.

With even better success IS-2 can be called a step towards MBT, as it was relatively fast heavy tank, and fairly mass-produced.

 

[Bullfrog]

That is quite wrong way of looking at it, as the debate largely is there, because superiority of Panther piece for piece is not an established fact.

I didn't say that it was superior. I said some are arguing that since they think it was better than its contemporaries that it didn't have to be as numerous. My assertion is that numbers matter more than "quality" though I'm not saying the Panther was better quality. It was just an example of the most contentious part of the debate here.

Mainly due to it having not very conventional balance of armor and firepower for a medium tank, being more comparable to a TD,
and it`s numerous flaws that diminish it`s usefulness in the typical role of a medium tank.

It arguably is kind of similar to what happened to US TDs, and it actually seem a variation of a turreted TD, then a typical medium tank.

I'd agree somewhat, though that was certainly not its intended role. Perhaps if the problems had been worked out it would be more capable of fulfilling the medium tank role.

In what ways?
Panther couldn`t do the job of heavy tank, at all, wasn`t very good at being medium, and wasn`t a good TD, seeing Jagdpanther being build from it, and Germans still had a heavy tank after it was developed.

With even better success IS-2 can be called a step towards MBT, as it was relatively fast heavy tank, and fairly mass-produced.

The Panther was a medium-heavy tank, with a good AT gun, which is sort of the MBT concept. The lack of guaranteed mobility certainly takes away from its capability as a MBT, but it was a step in that direction. But yes, its problems are precisely why it failed to fulfill either medium or heavy roles, or the MBT role for that matter.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Ummm....your responding to my response to Darkrenown which will look out of context in a way...

I have had some of Zaloga's work. He is also an expert on model building. I have sold my Zaloga's as I cannot find anything in them more
than what i have now. Also some of his works are Osprey which are nice but not exactly deep subject material. I use alot of them for my work
in Napoleonics.

Its not really Patton vs Manteufel as they were not involved tactically in the battle but were just area commanders. The German commander
thought (and rightly so) that Panzer Brigades were useless as they were full of green troops and not outfitted fully (no organic recon) which is
why they drive right into an ambush. The US troops there did darn well. Abrams and the other commanders were "Johnny on the spot" and
really kicked the Germans' ass. This has nothing tho to do with the Panther tank. Like all German tanks the commanders go into combat
sitting up in the turret with their heads out (which did shorten their lifespans greatly).

The US ambushed them in fog. The Germans did not know they were there. It did not make any difference what tanks they were in in that initial
fight the German's were slapped silly. That their Panzer Grenidiers were also defeated does not mean that their Panzer Grenidiers were defective.
The Germans lost the battle because they earned that loss with poor tactics, bad weather, and no luck whatsoever (remember Napoleon on 'Luck'

Saying the battle was won or lost by the use or non use of Panzer IVs or Panthers is exactly like saying that the French lost Waterloo because their
muskets were poorer than the British ones. It was poor tactics, bad weather, and no luck whatsover that lost the French that battle. (sound firmilar?)

I have no issues whatsoever with the fellow at WoT. I'm sure he is a superb researcher and i have seen some work done by them to recover and rebuild
some WW2 tanks. Very good. Like i said also I have a brother with 37 years in the USMC and 4 wars under his belt for input on combat and weapons
and that includes mobile warfare in Iraq.

I am not quoting your sources but DRs. You are quoting my response to his post.

Yes indeed, grow a gigantic brain like mine (lol!). I use two pencils to keep it from plopping on the table. I had to learn to put the eraser part up and
the pointy part down. Still slide off sometimes... again tho that was a response to DR.

Now were on your post..

Well thats 41 to 43 and the T34s made in one plant were not always able to use parts done in the 2nd plant. On the T34/85 they were pretty new ones
given to the N. Koreans but the Aberdeen proving grounds did not find much different in problems than with the T34/76 mechanically.

On the Panther in combat in Arracourt you hear of none of the 100s involved in breaking down in combat do you. If, in a perfect world, which no army
at war lives in, you get perfect vehicles then you are blessed. When they had fully equipped repair units fixing any tank problem was just a time issue.
The Germans had a serious time issue in June 1944 as their tanks were moved into combat and fought continually for months until Falaise. Include the
fact their rear area units (like their repair battalions) were getting slaughtered in air attacks makes the issue for them for sure. Its not a problem that
US or Uk forces had to face for repair/mait so using that arguement is not equitable.

The fact ignored over and over (and which i keep having to repeat) is that Germany was in the process of switching over to full Panther production. Only
issues with tank shortages keep that from happening. The PZIV was obsolete. Issues with the final drive were actually being fixed for the Jagdpanther.
All future tank designs planned were for Panthers, Panther improved, Panther II, Panther AAA vehicle, PZ38 chassis vehicles. All PZIV chassis were to be
converted to SPGs or TD/Stug. The PZIV was at a dead end. It could not be improved further. Germany fully planned this but if you only base your
agreuments on the technical issue of the final drive of a single tank and not the entire war and its effects upon German production as a whole your going
to paint yourself into an intelectual corner. (edit: I may be smart but I could never spell worth a darn..)

Germany did not abandon the Panther, they embraced it. It and its improved versions were to be THE mbt of Germany. To look at it 70 years later with
hindsight and call it a failure pretty much blows any real true view of WW2 of that time, their time. That is a mistake in seeing what you research. Its just
so darn easy to bend over, look back between your legs, and say: wow they were stupid! I can see the truth from here! If your doing that and can't smell
the problem with that you do have a problem my friend!

Depends on the cog. If you make up the cog it can be huge. The Germans decided their cog of the Panther worked. The US Army of WW2 agreed. I have
yet to find an OFFICAL USSR full report on the Panther nor an English one. I am still looking. The 17pdr was a wonderful weapon and the first one the
Germans shot at if they saw one. Since they could never build enough its effects can be seen as limited tho succesful as they could be.

Strategic weapons are just that. Not the sub but the Polaris on it. Not the 500 pound bomb, the B17, not the Panther but the Abomb. I still have seen
nothing called a 'stragetic value' tactical weapon that does not include KT or MT after it after 1945 where strategic bombing became obsolete as well.

The inclusion of the tank losses info is info and of itself is valuable in seeing what war costs. We are discussing only favorite medium tanks in a war
with 100s of weapon types. Part of my inclusion was for DR edification (didn't seem to help) and part for folks to follow up for themselves. I just opened
the door...go inside and look around yourself then

I don't know on the humor. I try and keep it light and actually never insult strangers only friends which i still consider everybody on this board
(even 1Alexy) one. Anyhow I seem to have half the smiley avatars i used to be able to use here which is cramping my sarcasm...(SMILE)

PS: thanks xthetenth and Darkrenown for quoting me in all your responses. Makes my responses look so much better! lol!

 

[Zinegata]

I go away for a few days and the thread devolves into plasticpanzer reposting ad-infinitum a very outdated source that makes outright incorrect assertions like how the Panther is 50 tons when in reality it's only 45 tons.

Anyway, to less hopeless causes...

My point was completely ignored, but theres also the fact that the increase of engine power also generally means bigger tanks. During early World War 2, your average 'medium' tank was ~30 tonnes, by the end of it, ~45 tonnes, fast forward to modern day, and most MBTs are now weighing more than ~60 tonnes, or roughly the same as the Tiger II.

----

I disagree with this. Ideally, you want a mix of everything. Theres a reason why MBTs became a fad, they were the embodiment of a balance of armor, speed, firepower, and reliability. World War 2 was basically a massive exercise finding the right balance, and the Panther found a sweet spot, even if the reliability was shit because the Germans skimped on the drive system. Note that the M26 Pershing/T-55, both designs which were widely adopted post-WW2, tended to have armor and firepower closer to the Panther than the Sherman or T-34, which were both obsolete by the time the war ended.

The problem with most amateur commentary on tanks is that they are unable to seperate the difference between "armament" and "doctrine". These are very different things, and the inability of amateur commentators on the Internet to seperate these two things is why they'll never be able to maintain an serious discussion with a real expert like say Stephen Zaloga who has a Magna Cumlaude because of his tank research

(And Zaloga, for those who pointlessly bad-mouth World of Tanks, is one of the experts regularly consulted by WoT's resident historian because WoT the company really, really loves tanks and have devoted far more resources to researching, cataloging, and even restoring tanks than any commentator who is still relying on a source that believes Panthers are 50 tons heavy).

You say that the modern MBT now weighs 60+ tonnes, but that only applies to Western MBTs. The T-72 by contrast only weighs around 45 tons (the same as a Panther), and the T-90 similarly hovers at a similar weight level. The latter in particular is widely seen as a peer competitor of the M1Abrams, with similar levels of armoring (albeit the use of classified ERA or composites materials by both sides means we will never know for certain which tank actually has better armor), a gun just as big and powerful, and moves just as fast. "Bigger" is in fact not necessarily "better".

Secondly, the idea that the Western MBT is a balance of speed, armor, firepower, and reliability is one of the most well-repeated pieces of marketing-speak by BAE and other tank manufacturers, but in reality is pretty nonsensical because people are not looking at the doctrine that created the Western MBT. In reality, the Western MBT is actually a specialist anti-tank vehicle - it was meant to take on the hordes of Soviet tanks in the inventory of Group of Soviet Forces Germany. This is why its main gun only really has ammunition suitable for destroying armored vehicles, as opposed to a much wider array of ammunition available for the 105mm L7 of the M60 Patton. This is why its armor is meant to defeat 125mm tank rounds, not dinky RPG-7s carried by your regular Taliban or Iraqi insurgent.

They actually aren't terribly reliable outside of the West German plains and are extremely logistically intensive - which is why the Abrams was essentially withdrawn from combat in Iraq in favor of lighter vehicles like the Stryker once all of the Iraqi T-72 Divisions had been destroyed. Only for intense urban combat scenarios were the Abrams ever deployed again - and even in these situations specialized Urban Warfare kits were developed as the Abrams doesn't even have basic infantry-armor coordination kit like a plug-in set for a telephone so that the infantrymen could talk to buttoned-up tank crews.

Hence, the Panther's place as the "first MBT" a quote made by Zaloga, does not mean it was the bestest tank of the war; that's a gross misunderstanding of what the MBT really is in the first place. The modern MBT is in fact a dedicated tank-killer, with first and foremost the gunpower level of a heavy tank, the armor sufficient to somewhat deal with peer-equivalents, and the mobility of the medium. Reliability and logistics-wise, these things are hugely inefficient monsters especially against infantry.

=====

The Panther, in fact, never found the sweet spot in "armor, speed, reliability, and firepower" in the Second World War. That's just tankery myths by people looking at penetration tables without comprehending what the Panzer Divisions were actually for.

The Panzer Division, contrary to popular belief, was never meant to be the primary anti-tank component of the German army in the Second World War. Those who contest this are unaware that the Germans had an entirely different set of units that were meant to perform anti-tank work - the "Panzerjaeger" - of which one abteilung (battalion) was present in every first-class German infantry Division and efforts were made to have one even in the Volksgrenadier outfits.

Instead, Panzer Divisions - of which no more than 20 were available in most cases - were meant to form a highly mobile reserve for deep penetrations and counter-attacks; meant to keep the enemy off-balance. This is why Guderian famously said that the tank relies on its engine to be its main weapon, and really it matters less whether your tank is equipped with a 75mm L70 instead of a 50mm Pak when you're surprising T-34s and taking them by flank.

Panthers were in fact a complete failure with regards to Panzer Division doctrine, because they were incapable of making long road marches that allowed for these deep penetrations and counter-attacks, with only 50% of Panthers being available at any given time because the rest were broken down. No Soviet Commissar proportionately shot as many of their own men compared to the number of Panthers murdered by their own obesity and faulty final drive. It's thus no coincidence that in 1944 - with the Panther now close to the majority of the German tank force - that the Panzer Divisions proved less able to respond to enemy offensives and thus resulted in utterly calamitous losses like Bagration.

Finally, the idea that the T-34 or Sherman went obsolete after the war is false. The T-34 is in fact still suspected to be in use in some African countries, because they serve perfectly fine against enemies with no anti-tank weapon heavier than an RPG-7. The Sherman had a glorious post-war career with the Indians and Israelies. The former - using unupgraded Shermans - were instrumental in several armor vs armor engagements that humiliated the Pakistanis using M48 Pattons (a tank supposedly better than the Pershing), while the Israelis - using Shermans upgunned to a 75mm roughly equivalent to the performance of the L70s - are confirmed to have taken on and destroyed T-62 tanks at Yom Kippur. The Panther by contrast was never used as a tank by anyone but the French, as the Bulgarians used theirs as pillboxes post-war.

Hence, this idea that gunpower and armor are so important vs reliability is false. This is contrary to what Guderian and all the good German Panzer commanders knew and practices. It's actually ridiculously and childishly easy to just say "Bigger gun! Bigger armor!" which is precisely what happened with the Panther due to Hitler's meddling. In reality, it takes engineering skill to fit as much capability into a 45 ton chassis; which should be apparent even in the context of the Second World War when the Soviet IS-2 has the same weight, has a much larger gun (capable of killing Tiger IIs with frontal hits), better armor, similar mobility, and much higher reliability. Heck, even the fabled German Tiger - which the fanboys keep raving about as having good reliability - required a logistical tail of 130 trucks, a dozen prime movers, and three gantry cranes for every forty-five Tigers (Schneider: Tigers in Combat), as opposed to the logistical tail of a 60-tank Sherman battalion that only needs 30 trucks. The German cats were in fact enormously inefficient and that makes them extremely bad machines for an industrial war.

 

[plasticpanzers]

I suppose the single error in that one Offical US Army history on the weight of a Panther tank (45 or 50 tons) can be explained in that
there were few bathroom scales available in the size required to accuratly weigh a Panther tank in 1944-5...


I think I have done enough damage this day. Off to finish reading the Ringworld series again...aliens, what a relief....so much easier
to deal with...

 

[Zinegata]

That would be that a medium tank is defined as the mainstay and workhorse of the armored force; requiring at least capability of destroying enemy strongpoints and enemy medium armor, while also being protected enough to survive hits by less powerful guns it may face. It must be somewhat mobile so that it can exploit a breakthrough. So a balance of armor, protection and speed...

The problem in part really is that "medium tank" is a semantic classification, and is actually meaningless on the battlefield. A modern Arleigh Burke class "destroyer" for instance is as large and heavy as a World War 2 "cruiser" - and you can't really have a good definition of what a "medium" tank is when the tanks claimed to be mediums range from 25 to 45 tons and some countries already classified their 45 ton tanks as heavies (the Soviets considered both the 45 ton IS-2 and KV tanks as heavies).

Doctrinally, "medium" tanks also varied widely in role. Shermans were officially exploitation units under Armored Divisions, but were infantry support elements in the case of individual independent battalions attached to the infantry. And really, comparing a tank versus its doctrine is a much better determinant of whether the design is good or not.

 

[Zinegata]

I suppose the single error in that one Offical US Army history on the weight of a Panther tank (45 or 50 tons) can be explained in that
there were few bathroom scales available in the size required to accuratly weigh a Panther tank in 1944-5...

It has a lot of errors. Heck, every time you posted something it had an error.

Your source for instance also claimed that the US Army first encounted Panthers in June 1944. This is wrong. German records show Panzer-Lehr, the only Panther-armed Division to face the Americans, only moved to the St Lo sector on July 9.

That you then completely miss that the US Army destroyed 90 enemy AFVs - mostly Panthers - at Arracourt shows that even in the cases when your sources are not completely inaccurate you're off butchering its actual contents for the sake of manipulating data and pretend that you aren't wrong.

Again, no one is impressed with this embarassing display of hubris and pretending to know things that you are clearly ignorant about; which should be obvious the moment you claimed D-day was June 4.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Yes, and if my grandmother had wheels she would be a wagon....

sorry, couldn't help it...

I'll leave now.

The rest of you play with him for awhile. Papa's tired...:blink:


wait...Hubris? What to you mean! I gargled today!

 

[_Sohei_]

Regardless of whether the Panther was good or bad it was too late to be of strategic importance because the end state of the war was already inevitable by that point. I personally think it was not the right tank to meet the needs of Germany at the time even if the final drive had been upgraded.

 

[xthetenth]

Ummm....your responding to my response to Darkrenown which will look out of context in a way...

I have had some of Zaloga's work. He is also an expert on model building. I have sold my Zaloga's as I cannot find anything in them more
than what i have now. Also some of his works are Osprey which are nice but not exactly deep subject material. I use alot of them for my work
in Napoleonics.

It's a good synopsis that I prefer to use when it does cover the material I want to refer to because it's overall reliable work that's well written and covers a lot of the important stuff.

Its not really Patton vs Manteufel as they were not involved tactically in the battle but were just area commanders. The German commander
thought (and rightly so) that Panzer Brigades were useless as they were full of green troops and not outfitted fully (no organic recon) which is
why they drive right into an ambush. The US troops there did darn well. Abrams and the other commanders were "Johnny on the spot" and
really kicked the Germans' ass. This has nothing tho to do with the Panther tank. Like all German tanks the commanders go into combat
sitting up in the turret with their heads out (which did shorten their lifespans greatly).

The US ambushed them in fog. The Germans did not know they were there. It did not make any difference what tanks they were in in that initial
fight the German's were slapped silly. That their Panzer Grenidiers were also defeated does not mean that their Panzer Grenidiers were defective.
The Germans lost the battle because they earned that loss with poor tactics, bad weather, and no luck whatsoever (remember Napoleon on 'Luck'

Saying the battle was won or lost by the use or non use of Panzer IVs or Panthers is exactly like saying that the French lost Waterloo because their
muskets were poorer than the British ones. It was poor tactics, bad weather, and no luck whatsover that lost the French that battle. (sound firmilar?)

I rather doubt that it's an or matter of luck that the better trained force with a far better organization that was based from top to bottom on combined arms teams with good officers all in vehicles that allowed good situational awareness won the battle. I personally feel that the late war US Armored division is a far stronger unit than most people give it credit for. I also don't think that merely being in Panzer IVs would have let the Germans win or anything. However, I feel it's very illustrative of my point that the Panther had serious problems in its visibility and other arrangements that prevented it from being superior to the Panzer IV in all situations like it should have been given half again the weight and the lessons of three years of war. Instead the Panther and Panzer IV are placed side by side in a situation and the Panzer IVs outperform the Panthers by a considerable margin.

The fact ignored over and over (and which i keep having to repeat) is that Germany was in the process of switching over to full Panther production. Only
issues with tank shortages keep that from happening. The PZIV was obsolete. Issues with the final drive were actually being fixed for the Jagdpanther.
All future tank designs planned were for Panthers, Panther improved, Panther II, Panther AAA vehicle, PZ38 chassis vehicles. All PZIV chassis were to be
converted to SPGs or TD/Stug. The PZIV was at a dead end. It could not be improved further. Germany fully planned this but if you only base your
agreuments on the technical issue of the final drive of a single tank and not the entire war and its effects upon German production as a whole your going
to paint yourself into an intelectual corner. (edit: I may be smart but I could never spell worth a darn..)

Germany did not abandon the Panther, they embraced it. It and its improved versions were to be THE mbt of Germany. To look at it 70 years later with
hindsight and call it a failure pretty much blows any real true view of WW2 of that time, their time. That is a mistake in seeing what you research. Its just
so darn easy to bend over, look back between your legs, and say: wow they were stupid! I can see the truth from here! If your doing that and can't smell
the problem with that you do have a problem my friend!

The Germans decided to do a great many intensely foolhardy things. I don't even think this is even a particularly controversial view.

Depends on the cog. If you make up the cog it can be huge. The Germans decided their cog of the Panther worked. The US Army of WW2 agreed. I have
yet to find an OFFICAL USSR full report on the Panther nor an English one. I am still looking. The 17pdr was a wonderful weapon and the first one the
Germans shot at if they saw one. Since they could never build enough its effects can be seen as limited tho succesful as they could be.

Strategic weapons are just that. Not the sub but the Polaris on it. Not the 500 pound bomb, the B17, not the Panther but the Abomb. I still have seen
nothing called a 'stragetic value' tactical weapon that does not include KT or MT after it after 1945 where strategic bombing became obsolete as well.

In an industrial war, every piece of materiel worth building has some strategic impact when all of its examples are taken into account. I think you're having a hard time differentiating between the Panther as a 45 ton piece of machinery and as a design 6,000 examples of which were built, using large amounts of strategic resources, man-hours and factories, and taken into battle. The sum of their expense and achievements most certainly had an impact on a strategic scale.

The inclusion of the tank losses info is info and of itself is valuable in seeing what war costs. We are discussing only favorite medium tanks in a war
with 100s of weapon types. Part of my inclusion was for DR edification (didn't seem to help) and part for folks to follow up for themselves. I just opened
the door...go inside and look around yourself then

I don't know on the humor. I try and keep it light and actually never insult strangers only friends which i still consider everybody on this board
(even 1Alexy) one. Anyhow I seem to have half the smiley avatars i used to be able to use here which is cramping my sarcasm...(SMILE)

PS: thanks xthetenth and Darkrenown for quoting me in all your responses. Makes my responses look so much better! lol!

It's honestly an organizational thing, I can hardly keep track of what I'm arguing against without it right in front of me.

I suppose the single error in that one Offical US Army history on the weight of a Panther tank (45 or 50 tons) can be explained in that
there were few bathroom scales available in the size required to accuratly weigh a Panther tank in 1944-5...


I think I have done enough damage this day. Off to finish reading the Ringworld series again...aliens, what a relief....so much easier
to deal with...

That error is small in itself but serves as a reminder that that document was written when the US had no access to the information from the German side of the lines that's utterly vital for getting a complete picture of the strategic impact of the Panther design. Numbers like how much stuff was in a tank unit's logistics trail, how often certain parts need replacement and what fraction of a tank unit is incapable of action at a given time are utterly vital to get an understanding of the massive virtual attrition the Germans inflicted on themselves with the Panther design.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Sohei, Too little too late would be quite accurate. That can be said for much of Germany's efforts in WW2.

The PZVs were being given more and more to green crews (like in the Panzer Brigades). Older crews were still in
the PZIVs (at least those surviving longer). Much the same situation with the Volksgrenidiers getting the new
Sturmgehwer44 rather than giving them to veteran units. Give a 15 year old a state of the art weapon with no
training worth a damn and give your professionals KAR98s...yeah, that works well. Its an overall problem with
German resourse handeling and has little to do with the final drive of the Panther in the greater world.

Again, the battle lasted what 96 hours or 4 days but the Germans were bushwacked in the first fight due to no recon
being done of enemy positions IN THE FOG. I mean, driving tanks BLIND right into a waiting force doesn't matter if
your driving a Cadallac or a Hugo. Nowhere in any report is the cause given in any source that the cause was "use
of Panthers". it was piss poor tactics and too many green crews. Like Sohei pointed out it was too late (and i elaborated
"too little too late") for the Panther or ANY weapon short of a bunch of A bombs for Germany to win. Again if you know
German tankers you know their commanders go into battle with their commanders standing in the turret. That they were
so blind (and stupid) to drive right into and thru the fog into a trap has little to do with 'final drives in a Panther'. I don't
remember seeing any Panthers mentioned in the battle being captured/abandoned due to final drive failure.....

We have to take into account what was in trasistion in the German armed forces. To discount that is not to understand
why you have panzer IVs and Vs in tank regiments. Its not because the PZIV is better its because they don't have enough
Panthers. The decision was already made but German industry could not keep up with tanks nor repairs.

Remember what i mentioned earlier that most Panzer units had their repair tail not only cut off but chewed up and spit out.
Repair rates were so poor as there were no parts. To say tanks got abandoned you HAVE to take into account the massive
lack of fuel both in Normady and then thru the end of the war. It has to be clear that an abandoned Panther does not mean
at all a 'failed final drive'. As the Germans knew of this problem it becomes a mait. problem, not a combat problem. If you
don't have the spares or live mechanics you cannot keep your tanks in action. Most Tiger IIs broke down and were not
destroyed in combat.

Again your taking strategic value out of context. We are talking about the famous (infamous) Panther 47 report on the Panther
being a 'strategic failure'. Since it moved and fought on both the East and relatively smaller West Front it certainly had strategic
range as any other German tank inc the Tiger I and II. All German vehicles were moved by rail and the German rail system was
massive. Enough to suppliment the Italian front as well. The French 1940 tank forces were supposed to move by rail as well but
did not so they never got anywhere in time (breakdowns...deficent tanks?) so they lost. A strategic weapon is only a weapon that
has a strategic value in combat. Massive bomber attacks were replaced with the A bomb....err...more bang for the buck? there
are no other strategic weapons but nuclear after heavy bombers are removed and they are the only other.

Just because they can have more bananas than I do does not make their bananas a strategic weapon.

I have never been able to 'quote' others without screwing up. Tho I have used computeres since the 8088
processors I am still basically a stone age fella....I show my computer a hammer when it stops working to
scare it....

That single error on the weight of the tank may be a simple error in computing the difference in metric to SAE that the
US used. Its not an important error whatsoever and does not in the least reduce the entire and definative opinon of
the US Army on the Panther tank. They didn't like it because it had a 'bad final drive' they didn't like it because it was
dangerous.

I can pretty much be sure as s$(@ that those US tankers at Arracourt were not slapping each other on the back when
they saw those were Panthers coming out of the fog. I am sure some were scared sh(#&less. There was no arrogance
in seeing the Panther as a pushover then. They sure did not think it. Only we do now with the benifit of massive hind-
sight. No Allied tanker underestimated the Panther.

Just like the US in keeping the Sherman in the war far past its obsolence and not rushing the M26 was an error on the
part of US leadership (mostly McNair who did everybody a favor getting blown up at St. Lo by US bombers). The US kept
producing a poor tank (the Sherman) whose sole shining values were they could make em by the 1000s and they were
mechainically reliable. They had to overlook and deal with the poor gun and poor armor (just like the Germans had to
with the 'final drive' issue by continueing to build the Panther and hope to fix it or upgrade past it later). The Panzer IV
is a dead end tank. it is not the final and best choice for Germany but kept in production only because they could not
change over fast enough to the Panther and they needed the chassis for other purposes.

whew. if these responses keep getting longer and longer we may beat the 50 page total before the Air/Vacation DD.....