best medium WW2 tank thread

[balmung60]

Well the Brits fitted Shermans with 17-pdrs for a while but the urgency died after the Americans shifted towards M4(76) and phased out M10 production.

The Sherman was a generalist vehicle. The impression I have is that the Jumbo sacrificed general performance towards specific aims. Another 12 tons of armor strained the suspension and sacrificed the Sherman's vaunted mobility. Reliability probably suffered too but with only 300 some built I cant say for sure. AFAIK this tank was to serve two roles:
1) Put it at the head of a column so that it's more likely to survive nasty surprises.
2) Lob shells at concrete fortifications head on

In the second role you'd probably prefer the 75 mm over the 76 mm because you want big boom, not tank armor penetration. In the first role you probably want the 75mm and if you dont the tanks behind you have the 76 mm.

I would say that the Jumbo couldn't out Panther the Panther on account of the insufficient suspension but there were a handful of HVSS Jumbos that wouldn't have had that problem. There were also a minority of Jumbo's refitted with 76mm late in the war. These refits seem to have cropped up mostly in a few gung-ho organizations in France. So if we are talking about 100 tanks out of 10,000 each time that means statistically there was probably one M4e2e8(76) somewhere in Germany or France in 1945 or 1946.

And that one M4e2e8(76) would be the best tank of WWII.

Yes, but so far as I know, there was no Sherman Jumbo Firefly produced.

The Sherman Jumbo was an effort to make an assault tank out of the Sherman, hence all of the armor. It was also actually originally intended to mount the 76mm gun M1A1, but was only built with the 75mm gun M3 (though the 76mm upgrade was quite common in the field, especially due to the relative ease of mounting it on the Jumbo, since the turret and mantlet were originally designed to accept it).

And so far as I know, the Sherman Jumbo was still more reliable than the Panther (even if it was less reliable than the baseline Sherman), and since its frontal armor was roughly equal and its side armor was better and the gun would add negligible weight, it's my impression that the end result of a hypothetical 17-pdr/KwK42 upgunning of the Jumbo would have the main strengths of the Panther (armor, tank-killing firepower) without its most glaring weakness (terrible reliability). Of course, this is all theorycraft and not actually testable or terribly relevant to the actual discussion at hand.

Also, I doubt that you'd find many A2 Shermans in France, since the US Army had pretty much no interest in the diesel-engined Sherman as it would complicate logistics (everything else the army was using used gasoline) for little gain, so they gave the diesel Shermans to their red-haired stepchild, the Marine Corps and to the Soviets, who were using diesel for pretty much everything else anyway.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Strange the US found that the T34 had terrible problems with engines and transmissions as well. The glorifed tank is often shown
as driving from the Ural factory straight to the battlefield and that is supreme fiction. The aluminum block of the T34 had a very lucky
if its lifetime was 240 hours. less if it ground off all its tranny teeth. A problem shared fully by the KV series.

Folks moan on and on about the Panther reliability but that is based upon Kursk and overall the tank did as well and better than the
Tiger I or II and did very well overall. Nowhere do i read about mass failiing of Panthers and them lying like fallen leaves all over the
battlefield. The reliability problem was inherent in having a larger tank than the engine was designed for yet the US considered it the
best of the German tanks so did the UK. Of course their input is not needed. Some folks just KNOW better.

I suppose folks will po po and say Russians would rather have a T34 anyday but sure as s$@# its not when they are facing one nor
any US tanker either. And isn't it nice that used Panthers in 1946 don't run well! Funny if I drove a 2011 car for three years in all weather
and terrain and never could do any decent mait. on it I wonder if it would fail me after 3 years.

I keep seeing people looking at issues with bonoculars instead of their eyes. You don't see better it just makes you blind.

Do your damn homework. And Zinegata thats another racist remark I don't freakin care for either. Have you ever read any US histories
(the serious ones) on WW2? I am not talking about paperbacks, I mean SERIOUS works? If you look for issues with a tank you will find
THEM IN EVERY ONE. Its overall tanks were talking here. Which one makes the other guy tinkle his pants when he sees it.

For some of you kids out there World of Tanks is not a WW2 tank simulator, its a toy action game. Nor is it a serious contributor to the
history of WW2. They are there to make money by sucking folks into playing, not real history.

 

[keynes2.0]

I wrote "e2" not "a2". And I was talking about the 76mm, not the 17pdr. I know they are very similar guns but I was talking about the 76mm because that was hitting the front line at the same time that a few Shermans got re-armored along Jumbo lines.

I'm just trying to have fun and say that plausibly it could have happened.

Also if the Panthers need to compare to the T-34 for transmission lifespan that's pretty pathetic. The T-34 transmission was a result of value engineering where they didn't need it to last any longer so they designed it to fail at that point. This let them cut on costs by using cheaper parts in the '43 and '44 tanks then they did in the '42 and '46 tanks. This was a deliberate choice on their part. If your failure rate when you are trying to do your best is as bad as someone deliberately doing the absolute minimum you've got a problem.

 

[Zinegata]

Folks moan on and on about the Panther reliability but that is based upon Kursk and overall the tank did as well and better than the
Tiger I or II and did very well overall.

Uh, no, that's a post full of ignorance.

Only 15% of Panthers were available at the start of Kursk, the rest were broken down and the majority of the few remaining ones were out of action by the end of the first week. Now, it was reported by the Wermacht that they claim to have killed 180+ enemy tanks, but given that the Panther units were nowhere near the thick of the fighting to begin with this was clearly just a fairy tale to make Hitler feel better.

The reality is that the lion's share of the fighting at Kursk was done by the Mk IV, the Stug III, and the Tiger I (there were no Tiger IIs at Kursk at all). The units taking out the Soviet armored counter-attacks - the most famous and notable one being a Prokorovka - was conducted by units armed with these three vehicles, not Panthers.

So while you can make a case that Tigers did well at Kursk (even though only 3 of them were at Prokorovka, while the rest of the German tank force were Mk IVs and Stugs), the idea that the Panthers did well there is illusory. They were too busy setting themselves on fire.

The reliability problem was inherent in having a larger tank than the engine was designed for yet the US considered it the
best of the German tanks so did the UK.

Untrue. Nobody actually considered it the best tank until after the war and this entire Wermacht fetishism sprung up. The Soviets in particular thought very poorly of it.

And isn't it nice that used Panthers in 1946 don't run well!

Again, half of recovered Panthers in 1944 had broken final drives. The idea that the French were bad at maintenance is not borne out by reality. They sucked even in 1944.

Have you ever read any US histories
(the serious ones) on WW2?

Yes, and they are actually full of US Armored victories against the overrated Panther. The only one claiming otherwise is Stephen Ambrose and Belton Cooper (and those trying to cash in on similar "greatest generation" milking), both of which are enormously popular but both were also extremely bad historians. Ambrose was a known plagiarizer and by all accounts was a propagandist for Ike. Cooper outright lied about what he knew. Both only escaped castigation because they died before their crimes against history were known; and no serious academic paper would now accept these "historians" as sources.

So again, name some actual battles where the Panther won against the US Armored Forces. I like playing this game because every time I challenge Panther fans to this game, they inevitably can't even name a single engagement where the Panther won (which has been the case so far here).

 

[plasticpanzers]

Here for those World of Tank fans:


"Because of the nature of World of Tanks, players could be forgiven for looking at the paper specifications of a tank like the Panther and imagining it to be the ultimate weapon of war. In World of Tanks, things like armour, gun penetration, accuracy, and speed are critical. On paper, Panther looks impressive in all of these arenas. However, there is a yawning gulf between what goes in World of Tanks and what goes in a real war. In World of Tanks, there are no logistics, no infantry, no anti-tank guns. Your tank cannot break down or your gun barrel become smooth and worn from firing, or damaged from collisions. Your turret always traverses at a maximum speed, and behaves as though it is balanced perfectly. In reality, things are different."

And I don't quote Ambrose. I quote US Army history in WW2 and the US Army handbook on German Armed forces.

Quit moaning on about the French. They had used tanks obtained all over Europe. A,D,Gs All different parts and different ages and different miles. Don't keep relying on that stogy document which is like taking a report on the ability of 3 year old used cars by their new owners.

Don't use Kursk as the cure all reason you think Panthers are bad. That is just plain bad researching. Did you know the US thought there were problems with the US M3 and M4 tanks in Tunis til they found out they had been issued training rounds of 1/2 penetration rating? That counts asa strike the first time at bat too. Even the battleship USS Massassachuets was firing duds at the French battleship Jean Bart because its nice 16
in rounds had bad WW1 fuzes. Gee finding fault with ANY weapon system is easy.

Be right back....

http://tanksandafv.blogspot.com/2014/02/panther-reliability.html

Jeez, if PI is going to rate their vehicles in the game based on WoT were up the creek already.

Actually there were alot of PZIIIs with 50mm at Kursk too. And you keep basing your primary arguement on Kursk and every body
who knows anything about Panthers and WW2 and Kursk knows they and the Ferdinands were not ready nor rated for combat yet.

 

[Zinegata]

First of all, I was a Paradoxian long before I was a WoT fan, and an armor fan long before that. That you think you help your case by dismissing us for wanting to play a tank combat game on the Internet is called "ad-hominem".

Secondly, again, I am not talking about Kursk alone; that you claim I am using it as a cure-all is clearly more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Again: HALF of all Pantheres recovered by the US Army in NORMANDY had faulty final drives - the exact same issue the French found to be problematic. Ignoring this is called "intellectual dishonesty", because intellectual dishonesty is "deliberately ignoring facts that contradict my very incorrect position".

The Panther sucked. Even in 1944. Kursk was just the start of a nightmare.

Oh, and you still can't name a SINGLE engagement where the Panther did well against US Armored Forces? Again, what's this "Read US Army histories" you are talking about when you can't even name battles like Arracourt, Puffendorf, St. Vith, or that little stand of Team Desorby in the Bulge that left the SS commander facing him crying like a baby?

Quit moaning on about the French. They had used tanks obtained all over Europe. A,D,Gs All different parts and different ages and different miles. Don't keep
relying on that stogy document.

Untrue. The French by all accounts had the latest Panther models only (crappier models had already been modified by the Germans mid-war, which did them little good because the final drives remained unfixed); and had plenty of spare Panthers for spare parts.

Again, the idea that the French maintained their Panthers badly is just fiction that you are creating; because of your complete inability to accept historical facts. Repeating this lie over and over doesn't impress anyone except the equally hopelessly ignorant.

the US M3 and M4 tanks in Tunis til they found out they had been issued training rounds of 1/2 penetration rating? That counts as a strike the first time at bat

The movie "Patton" is not an accurate historical source; something that should be obvious given that both sides used Patton tanks. And in any case the US never fought any Tigers or Panthers in Tunisia, so there would never have been any penetration problem. In fact, I can quote a report from the Germans in North Africa crying about how the Sherman was such an awesome tank that was superior to what they had.

 

[frolix42]

Which is not a valid line of argumentation, because again there are ZERO major tank vs tank battles where the Panther won against the US Army Armored Divisions to begin with. Seriously, name one. You will find zero victories to the Panther's name and only a tiny handful of draws

Here we have a straightforward case of absence of evidence taken as evidence of absence. Can you point out any tank division conflicts where the Germans didn't lose against a US Corp, with or without the Panther? I'll save you some time, there weren't any during the time frame of when the Panther was fielded. The closest the Germans came was at the Battle of the Bulge, where the Panther caused significant concern among Allied Command. The Allies won in the Ardennes not because of maintenance deficiencies of the Panther but because they were able to successfully concentrate their vastly superior numbers against an exhausted enemy.

You're failing to strawman me into saying the Panther needs to singlehandedly reverse Operation Overlord in order to prove it's worth. That's ridiculous...and speaking of...

Pretending that this information doesn't exist - when it's been published in books in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and the 2000s - is called "intellectual dishonesty" or "the willful ignorance of facts presented to you because they contradict your position". I was not talking about Kursk alone. I was talking about the Panther's entire service life in the German army, and agian on the whole it was utterly miserable in terms of availability because - as the French CORRECTLY pointed out - the final drive was hugely unreliable. The Germans reported this too. The Americans who captured Panthers found shoddy final drives too. What other evidence do you need to prove that the final drive was indeed faulty?

In 1947 the Panther was judged to have a weak final drive and the French had a large amount of trouble replacing them after the Panther factories were disassembled or retooled. I don't think this fact caused the designers at Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg to lose any sleep in 1941.

That you then try to excuse this with "collapsing empire" excuse just adds further icing to this intellectually dishonest cake. German steel problems pre-dated the war. It was exacerbated certainly by the bombing and further shortages, but the reality is that Germany had very little access to high quality steel since 1936 because it had become a pariah state even before WW2 started. That's why the Germans started the war with Mk IIIs when the French already had Char Bs and the Soviets had KV tanks in the first place - they were literally incapable of producing 45+ ton tanks reliably from 1936 onwards. They just tried to force their shoddy steel into situations wherein breakdowns were inevitable.

Gosh, I'm going to have to disagree with you that the strategic position of Germany from 1936 to 1943 didn't change significantly. This is really a much larger and more fundamental misconception you have about World War 2, that is you're assuming that the military needs and capabilities of Germany didn't momentously change over this period. That German could not win against an enemy which could outproduced them exponentially with weapons designed and produced before the war was beyond doubt in wartime Germany.

So in this false scenario you've set up where Germany can not produce a good 45+ ton tank, what is their alternative? I'm just going to put it out there that this kind of "Can't Do" attitude was not looked upon very kindly in the 3rd Reich at the time.

I'm being nice and letting the Panthers leech off the Mk IV kills.

Without mentioning that you're also counting a destroyed Pz4 as a destroyed Panther. I love how the people who whine about "intellectual dishonesty" so often do this kind of thing.

But yes if we're gonna be strict about it the Panzer IVs actually killed more Shermans at Arracourt if you do the careful step-by-step accounting of the battle; which again is easily available to anyone who has any real interest in studying armor-vs-armor engagements as opposed to wanking over the Panther without knowing what battles they actually fought in.

"careful step-by-step accounting" in this case = Reading the Wikipedia page and confusing the Pz4 with the Panther. You and I must have a different definition of "careful".

You're being silly and arbitrarily assigning Germany's overwhelming defeat at Arracourt to the Panther when it was due to a great many factors. Never-mind that no weapon Germany could reasonably produce would give you the result you're demanding, German victory after 1943. Germany lost the battle/war, therefore all German weapons sucked? Nope, just the ones you choose to scrapegoat

Arracourt was not an exception. It was the norm.

I'm just going to leave this here as a monument to silliness.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Your logic is flawless and wrong. Your basing things on your persepctive and not historical facts. Are you saying all the incidents
in the US Army series are wrong or inaccurate?

Since the US did face Tiger Is in Tunis your ignorance shows mightily. And the M3/4s started out fighting PZIIIs and IVs.

I have seen documents and pictures of both Panthers and Tiger Is captured and used by the French. They USED THEM BECAUSE THEY
WERE THERE. Not because they needed them. If they were maintined so well how could they break down so often? They only did at
Kursk due to oil pump problems, not front drive failure. They hadn't been driven long enough to have that problem. The French report
is not a report on WW2. It is a post WW2 report on USED WW2 vehicles, all captured, not manufactured. All had milege or damage.

You keep painting the Panther as some kind of wargod. I am showing it as a combat vehicle. In Italy, France, and Russia they were
feared. Do you think that was because of their paintjob? What are you thinking? My Dad and Uncle were in the USN and US Airborne
in WW2. You think I'm some kind of htrlite? Its you thats counting fingers and not counting facts.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Here is a nice article on issues with the T34. Now if your going to look for problems your going to find them with all tanks. Sherman tank
is the poster child of how not to build a tank to tank tank (that sounds wierd but does make sense..in a way....)

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

 

[plasticpanzers]

And since were going all out tonight lets hit the Sherman a bit too...

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

Everybody's tanks had issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[plasticpanzers]

read a bit more about the much touted battle of Arracourt. Be sure and READ the parts about lack of recon by the Germans (as many of
their units either had no organic recon, Panzer Brigades had none, or they were already greatly reduced) and by poor tactics and allied
air. Its more complicated than "the panther was a crummy tank and lost them the battle"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

 

[plasticpanzers]

For a decent and accurate picture of what went on at Arracourt read:
US Army in WW2, European Theatre of Operations, The Lorraine Campaign pgs 222-233
I just finished reading it, the book is in front of me.
It mentions nothing on the lack of the Panther but on tactics, air, artillery, and poor judgement and leadership by the
local German commanders.

 

[Zinegata]

Here we have a straightforward case of absence of evidence taken as evidence of absence.

No, what we have here is a straightforward case of frolix42 failing to be clever because he doesn't realize "absence of evidence is not proof of absence" doesn't work when we are having a historical, not theoretical discussion about tanks.

When I sawy "engagement" I am not even referring to campaigns like Overlord - that you accuse me of demanding Panthers reverse the outcome of Overlord in in fact strawman on your part.

Instead, I demanded engagements - Arracourt being an example - which is actually an engagement wherein a reinforced US battalion defeated a Panther force three times its number.

That you fail to name ANY engagements wherein the Panther can achieve these kinds of local, tactical successes is in fact proof positive that the Panther was a failure as a machine; and your admission that this in fact true followed by pointless bluster only demonstrates the enormous level of intellectual dishonesty needed to continue believing that the Panther was a good machine.

The facts speak for themselves. The Panther never won a single battle - even at the battalion level - against equal or even inferior US Armored forces.

That you think clever wordplay can overturn this simple fact - as is your continued denial of the French maintaining their Panthers just fine and the real issue is the crappy final drive which both the Germans themselves and the Americans reported as problematic - only points to how your posting; as should be readily apparent, completely lacks substance.

This is why you can't even name a single battle involving Panthers, and the best you can do is "The Bulge" which in reality is a campaign involving numerous Divisions with dozens of individual engagements - really goes to show that you completely lack any knowledge about the subject and should really stop thinking that barely passing a logic course can make you qualified to comment about tanks. Clever wordplay is not substitute for knowing real facts about the Panther and its operational history.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Read US Army in WW2, European Theatre of Operations, Battle of the Bulge (the Ardennes)
page 652.
"The Panther, MKV, has proved itself during 1944 but still was subject to mechanical failures which were well recognized
but which seemingly could not be corrected in the hasty German production schedule. This tank had a weight of 50 tons,
a superiority in base armor of one half to one inch over the Sherman, good mobility, and flotation, greater speed, and a
high velocity gun superior even to the new American 76mm gun."

Nowhere in US historical guides/histories is the Panther labeled "crap"


Arracourt was not a reinforced battalion it was parts of 3 US Armored divisons including their air and artillery. Get it right.

There is no clever word play going on here. Only bad research.

 

[Zinegata]

Your logic is flawless and wrong. Your basing things on your persepctive and not historical facts. Are you saying all the incidents
in the US Army series are wrong or inaccurate?

The US Army concludes with the sobering fact that the US army destroyed 1.5 German tanks for every tank it lost (for tank vs tank engagements only) in the European Theater of Operations; based on tabulating the losses and kill claims of one of its Divisions (3rd Armored). For the tank destroyers, the ratio was even higher at something like 3:1 in their favor.

Yeah, that US Army totally validates your inept assertion that US Armor was at a disadvantage against the Panzers /sarcasm.

So really, stop crap posting "sources" you randomly dug up on the Internet but very clearly never actually read aside from the usual doggerel pointlessness from Ambrose and Cooper. Really, who are you fooling when you're the one who claimed there were Tiger IIs in Kursk? That the same sort of basic mistake that Ambrose makes like when he claimed the Panther had an 88mm gun. Heck, you're still quoting chris intel who can't even get his timeline straight on when the T-34 became the most common Soviet tank.

Seriously, your lack of knowledge on even the most basic facts about the conflict is obvious. That you attempt to dismiss actual facts as "perspective' shows the hypocrisy of your position when the only one delusionally clinging to opinions as opposed to facts is you and frolix.

 

[Zinegata]

The Panther, MKV, has proved itself during 1944 but still was subject to mechanical failures which were well recognized
but which seemingly could not be corrected in the hasty German production schedule. This tank had a weight of 50 tons,
a superiority in base armor of one half to one inch over the Sherman, good mobility, and flotation, greater speed, and a
high velocity gun superior even to the new American 76mm gun."

Nowhere was it claimed the "best", which is what you contended, and you do realize that it's inaccurate because it claims the tank was 50 tons when it was 45 tons?

Also, you do realize you just conceded that yes, the Panther was in fact unreliable even in 1944 and therefore it wasn't the French's problem that it was so unreliable in their hands?

But no, watch plasticpanzer sputter and claim that the Panther was still reliable and it is all the French's fault.

You keep painting the Panther as some kind of wargod. I am showing it as a combat vehicle. In Italy, France, and Russia they were
feared. Do you think that was because of their paintjob? What are you thinking? My Dad and Uncle were in the USN and US Airborne
in WW2. You think I'm some kind of htrlite? Its you thats counting fingers and not counting facts.

Any army that doesn't have a healthy respect for its enemy is doomed to fail. But any army that jumps at every shadow will lose even to an inferior force just like how McClellan was a complete failure of a commander in the American Civil War.

The problem is this mythological nonesense where people claim that the Panther is a reliable tank, blame the French for making it unreliable in 1946, and yet when push comes to shove they will quote a US Army report in 1944 which states outright that the Panther is unreliable.

This train of logic is again just nonsensical Panther fanboy claptrap. The reality, which is generally agreed upon by those knowledgeable about the subject is simple: The Panther was NEVER reliable and it directly affected its effectiveness on the battlefield. That made it a pretty bad tank in the context of an industrial war, and despite being supposedly "good" on the tactical level it kept losing its tactical engagements anyway.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Strange,
There is this voice in my head yelling "hit em again mama!" :blink: I have no idea what it means...

US Army in WW2, The European Theatre, Breakout and Pursuit
page 44

The German tank employed in large numbers in Western Europe was the MkIV, a medium tank of 23 tons with a
75mm gun. The standard combat vehicle of tank battalions in armored divisions, it presented no (!) frightening
aspect of invulnerability. The MkV or Panther, on the other hand (!), weighing 45 tons and carrying a high-vel-
ocity 75mm gun, had appeared in Normandy starting in June in limited numbers and with good effect (!).

Panthers were beginning to be distributed to tank battalions organic to armored divisions.

the little (!) are my little touch...

Funny, still don't smell no damn crap.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Funny, I don't remember ever saying they did not have reliability problems. ALL tanks had them somewhere. Not all
Panthers fainted away in combat nor did all Sherman make it to combat nor did all T34s survive combat. Tell it right.

I haven't read an Ambrose book in years. Last thing I've seen on Ambrose was 'Band of Brothers'

And YES all those books are sitting right here next to me. I have 50 years to collect them and that does not even count
my Napolenoic or ACW collections (or my 19th century or Ancients collections). I wish I hadn't sold so many over the
years, bums me out.

PS: I said I liked the Jumbo Sherman best. I think tho as a service medium tank used in numbers tho (only about 250
Jumbos sadly) the Panther is superior overall. They just did not have enough (thank God!) nor soon enough to make
a difference.

 

[Zinegata]

Strange,
There is this voice in my head yelling "hit em again mama!" :blink: I have no idea what it means...

US Army in WW2, The European Theatre, Breakout and Pursuit
page 44

The German tank employed in large numbers in Western Europe was the MkIV, a medium tank of 23 tons with a
75mm gun. The standard combat vehicle of tank battalions in armored divisions, it presented no (!) frightening
aspect of invulnerability. The MkV or Panther, on the other hand (!), weighing 45 tons and carrying a high-vel-
ocity 75mm gun, had appeared in Normandy starting in June in limited numbers and with good effect (!).

Panthers were beginning to be distributed to tank battalions organic to armored divisions.

the little (!) are my little touch...

Funny, still don't smell no damn crap.

Bzzt, wrong, thank you for playing. This is what you get for quoting random Internet sources without checking if they've been updated.

The US Army did not encounter Panthers until July of 1944 in Normandy. That's when the Panzer-Lehr Division was transferred to the US sector. Before then, the US Army encountered no Panther tanks, because they weren't facing any armored divisions and only one Panzergrenadier Division (17th SS, which only had a battalion of Stugs).

By the way, here's what General Bayerlein - commander of the Panzer-Lehr had to say about the Panther:

While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good ... [the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final drives, made of low-grade steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible.

Yeah, your outdated source is claiming that Panthers appeared one month before they actually arrived in Normandy, and claim they were so awesome when the German commander actually commanding the said Panthers said they sucked compared to the Mk IVs.

Really, this is some of the saddest and most pathetic attempts to "debate" Internet tanks. All bluster, but with a clear ignorance of the subject at hand and quoting "sources" that can't even get basic facts like the timeline right.

 

[Zinegata]

Funny, I don't remember ever saying they did not have reliability problems.

Bzzt liar liar pants on fire:

Folks moan on and on about the Panther reliability but that is based upon Kursk and overall the tank did as well and better

No, again, Panther reliability was bad throughout the war and not just Kursk as you claimed. Stop trying to lie about what you claimed.