best medium WW2 tank thread

[plasticpanzers]

(cut to scene from Frankenstein)..ITS ALIVE! ALIVE!

We already agreed that that Panther is the best..(cough)..

You must have missed it! more tea?

 

[plasticpanzers]

Now the Challenger, that was a tank! Or was its a pillbox on a tank chassis? I often visualize that huge
turret slipping off a'la Monty Python when it fired.....

 

[unmerged(156471)]

the best tank technically was the panther tank but numbers have thier own charm the amount of t34/85 and shemans built overpowered the technical aspects of the panther the best overall armoured vehicle technically was the jagdtiger which was superior to anything the allies had even after the war up till 1955

 

[frolix42]

Yet another idiot who fails to realize the Panther is 45 ton tank hence its "tiered" with other 45 ton tanks; such as the much superior IS2 which has a bigger gun, more armor, and better overall mobility.

It appears you don't know much about history or WoT. Weight has nothing to do with which Tier a tank is in, to wit other Tier VII vehicles in World of Tanks include the M41 Walker Bulldog (23.5 tons), the AMX 13 90 (14.5 tons), the WZ-131 (21.5 tons).

The reason tanks in WoT are divided into tiers is for game balance, that is to prevent sad little Shermans from being stomped by mighty Panthers 1 v 1. While the M4 and the Panther were contemporaries on the battlefield, for reasons of game balance WoT acknowledges that Panthers were significantly more advanced than Shermans.

Nope that's the hubris of someone incapable of accepting simple realities like how the Panthet was unreliable and that his assertion that the French are to blame for its postwar unreliability is just racist claptrap.

According to you it's "racist" to think that the French had trouble finding parts for a vehicle no longer being manufactured. My father is restoring a '77 Dodge Charger but is having trouble finding replacement parts because they are no longer manufactured. This is somehow racism? hmy:

How lazy to throw accusations of racism around that are laughably baseless. You're starting to be less amusing and more boring.

 

[Darkrenown]

Darkrenown,

The Panthers the French had were used and worn out. They did not keep producing parts to repair them to factory specs. I imagine
they smelled of schnitzel and BO. The Panther in French service is an aberation, not the norm. They used them because they had
them and as many Shermans and Chaffes as they could want. The reports state the french did not like the optics which is why i did
mention that. The optics on the Sherman and Panther are different.

I have seen pics of the French Panthers. Some still have anitmagnetic coatings for use against Russian mines. These are not new
showroom vehicles. To keep on this about the French report is to deny actual combat use by these vehicles by the Germans and the
reviews on them by the major combatants of the US/UK/USSR.

The Germans had them from 1943 to 45, the French from 1944 (captured) to 1947. The French ones were not new but used.

The French did not replace the Sherman with the less than 100 Panthers for their entire army. Are you kidding? They continued to
us US tanks for years. They wanted their own tanks, not US or German. The used them because they had them there. They wern't
keeping the factories in Germany open to make parts. France also built German 251 halftracks but did not continue after the war
making them.

Well I'm not racist so saying so should earn me an apology from you. I have Jewish/German roots and those roots were extinguished
in WW2. The Irish/Russian were not. My Grandfather was a Von and dropped it to join the US Army and then the RAF to fly against
Germany in WWI and served as an advisor to the USAAF in WW2.

The Germans were collectors and if you read history at all you see them use the Czech, French, Dutch, Russian, Belgian, UK, and US
gear as quickly as they could get them because they needed all they could get and continued to build some thruout the war (PZ38
Hezter mean anything to ya?). The Germans were at a point were they were able to 'sample' and test many opponent vehicles and
adapt them to use because they had to. The US and UK did not. The Russians used many Allied vehicles too. BUT all trained on
their own vehicles FIRST.

Have you been to Indo China (Vietnam). The Vietmien were not driving T55s around in 1950. Not in that terrain. France had plenty
of armor available almost if not free from the US and the means to move it AND ITS SPARE PARTS to Indo China. If the US thought
the old Shermans and M24 Chaffees were fine for Korea a year later why would the French think them not worthy earlier?? Why on
earth would you send used tanks with minimal spares halfway around the world to fight partizans?? Shermans and Chaffees and M8
scoutcars did fine there. Its not until in Korea that we see the T34/85 and have to upgrade armor to the M26/46/Supersherman.
Who on God's green earth would want to send a bunch of old used German tanks to fight overseas??

Your the one waving the flag of Panther 47 (report) around, not anybody else. Your the one expouting its claims, not anybody else.
We are only pointing out its very limited use and focus and the obvious basis why it can be dismissed as a WW2 report.

Actually i quoted that from a source by title and name from Amazon.com. Look it up. Its right there with a number of other reviews
of the same book.

Is this a joke post? It's honestly rather sad you complain all day that we don't know history, then when I actually try to talk history with you all you can do is flail words around in some awful parody of a post.

1) It IS racist that you say only German tank crews could adopt to other tanks, while French crews are just hopelessly lost when they try to use a different vehicle. When you insist one race is just naturally less skilled than another race at a given task it's the very definition of racism.
1b) You have offered no proof that any/all French crews were trained on something other than the Panther before getting Panthers.

2) I need to keep going back to the 47 Panther report because other people keep coming along and making utterly nonsense claims about it that I feel the urge to refute.

3) You did NOT list a book by source and title. I can still see your original post, stop lying! You said only "Panther by Green", there was not even a mention of Amazon until several posts later. Look:

I have read the French report. Not impressive whatsoever.

Here is a review of the book Panther by Green by a customer. This, rather than Osprey, is more in line as what is described as a reference book:

Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
This is a well written and wonderfully illustrated book with good diagrams and photos.
I liked the technical information regarding all aspect of the Panther's planning, development, teething problems, final product, successes and failures. The Panther was a sophisticated design well executed by skilled engineers and fabricators. The comparisons with the Sherman, T-34 and other tanks in actual combat were very eye opening. The photos and narratives from the actual British, American and Russian gun tests on captured Panthers showing the armour's condition after various hits by many types of tank and anti-tank guns are pretty conclusive as to the success of the Panthers design. The actual interviews of German tank crewmen and their experiances with the Panther against various enemy tanks and the interviews with British, American and Russian tank and anti-tank gun crew experiances against the Panther were very telling. Seeing in writing that the Allie's and Soviet tankers would have wished to have the Panther rather than their own tells a lot of the story of WWII tank warfare. Really a good reference book for any armour afficianado. This book has more original photos than I have ever found about the Panther.

Let's google that, shall we? There, do you see your book on that page of results? Nope! Disregarding your utter inability to understand that "Panther" is not the full title of the book "Panther: Germany's quest for combat dominance" which makes it hard to find, we are now 5 posts into this stupid quest to ferret out WHAT point you were even trying to make. As far as I can see you've just posted a random review of a random book for no reason while acting as if you have proven some point.

 

[Darkrenown]

This is a goodie:

(tho strange i keep giving info from US historical archives and he accusses me of being a German fanboy...:blink

War Department Technical Manuel TME 30-451
Handbook on German Military Forces March 15, 1945

(and yeah, i have this book to right here in front of me...)

Page VII-80


"Pz Kpfw. Panther (1) General. In this tank, probably the most successsful they have produced, the Germans have departed from
their customary lines and sought inspiration in the design of the T34. This tank weighs about 50 short tons, and the effectivness
of its armor is enhanced by the fact that most of the plates are sloping. It has a powerful armament, and has a high powered
engine which gives it a maxiumum speed of about 30 miles per hour.,,(technical dimensions and such. fast forward to...),,,,

The latest version to appear is the model G. The principal reason for the sucess of the Panther are its relatively high speed,
manueverability, dangerous armament, and good protection."


HOYA! Slam dunk. Game over.....

Pay attention. Good research is not easy but satisfying (and greatly so) at times......

Do you understand that all you've posted here is a document saying its writer thinks the Panther was a successful tank? That that doesn't prove anything? That a US document from 1945 would not have access to all the internal German complaints about the Panther, the Russian impressions of fighting it, or the post-war French use of it?

 

[Radu]

@Darkrenown

But is the French report a fair assessment to the Panther given that the vehicles on hand were used. As in not even built in 1943,44,45 but also used in that period, in combat. Moreover, the Panthers were likely short on spare parts, Germany being occupied, its industry dismantled.

I mean, would a performance and readiness report of a Panzer IV in service with Syrian forces in 1948 during the Arab-Israeli wars be really descriptive of the Panzer IV in WW2? Likely worn-out, in poor condition and with little to no way of obtaining spare parts (that they themselves are cannibalized from other tanks)?

That's like saying because the F-14 Tomcats of the Iranian Islamic Republic are in poor condition (due to the F-14's being inherited from the pro-US days of Iran) then automatically the F-14 itself sucks.

The French report on an armored vehicle past its prime and "cut off" from any meaningful source of proper maintenance should hardly be taken as a source descriptive of the Panther as it was in German service where, at least, new spare parts were made and available.

 

[podcat]

the best tank technically was the panther tank but numbers have thier own charm the amount of t34/85 and shemans built overpowered the technical aspects of the panther the best overall armoured vehicle technically was the jagdtiger which was superior to anything the allies had even after the war up till 1955

The Jagdtiger had massive issues. For example its gun would need recalibration after moving because it was huge and not properly supported, it was also too heavy, expensive and tactically inflexible etc.

probably the worst tank destroyer to build for germany's situation towards the end.

If you just look at on-paper stats obviously the above stuff shines, but war is fought in the real world where actually having stuff that can be used to solve your problems matter more than measuring the size of your cannon/armor/manhood

 

[frolix42]

I need to keep going back to the 47 Panther report because other people keep coming along and making utterly nonsense claims about it that I feel the urge to refute.

The French report isn't a bad report, but it doesn't perfectly fit the POV that the Panther was a bad tank for Germany. For example, the French unit decided switch from the Panther to the M36 Tank Destroyer which wasn't an option for the Germans. I suppose this might be used to say that M36 > Panther, but that ignores the myriad other factors involved in the choice to switch, such as the M36's plants were still intact after '45 and the M36 was not associated with the humiliation of France by Germany.

That's like saying because the F-14 Tomcats of the Iranian Islamic Republic are in poor condition (due to the F-14's being inherited from the pro-US days of Iran) then automatically the F-14 itself sucks.

This is the best analogy for French Panthers I can think of.

 

[Novacat]

including the M4A3E2 "Sherman Jumbo" (and I maintain that if someone had mounted a 17-pdr or KwK42 in one, you'd have a better "Panther" than the actual Panther).

Both the 17 pounder and the E2 Jumbo strained the Sherman's suspension to the limit. Theres a very good reason nobody did both.

However, even the base model had an excellent gun for the time that was easily able to deal with known threats (Pz3 and Pz4) from nearly any range and was excellent for supporting infantry, and prove good enough to give better than it took in Italy and France, with the shortcomings of the gun relative to newer enemy armor only really coming into play as the army pushed into Germany. Additionally, the Sherman was well known for both its reliability and ease of maintenance, two things that helped make certain that Sherman availability rates remained high (and do remember that having tanks available is always preferable to not having them available) and that the infantry would have access to armor support.

The problem with the Sherman is that it was built and fielded under the assumption that Panthers would be as rare as the Tigers. The number of Panthers in normandy was a very, very rude suprise.

Now the Challenger, that was a tank! Or was its a pillbox on a tank chassis? I often visualize that huge
turret slipping off a'la Monty Python when it fired.....

Challengers had excellent armor but their FCS was absolutly horrid. It was fairly accurate but it took them so long to zero in that most other tanks could do at least 3-4 shots at different targets.

Do you understand that all you've posted here is a document saying its writer thinks the Panther was a successful tank? That that doesn't prove anything? That a US document from 1945 would not have access to all the internal German complaints about the Panther, the Russian impressions of fighting it, or the post-war French use of it?

I already mentioned the post-war French use of it is somewhat irrellevant considering that the Panther was hopelessly obsolete by then, and it says a lot when the French picked the Panther over the Sherman and Cromwell which were no doubt available in great quantities. As for the Russian impressions of fighting it, the Russians were impressed enough to field captured models whenever possible.

 

[Darkrenown]

@Darkrenown

But is the French report a fair assessment to the Panther given that the vehicles on hand were used. As in not even built in 1943,44,45 but also used in that period, in combat. Moreover, the Panthers were likely short on spare parts, Germany being occupied, its industry dismantled.

I mean, would a performance and readiness report of a Panzer IV in service with Syrian forces in 1948 during the Arab-Israeli wars be really descriptive of the Panzer IV in WW2? Likely worn-out, in poor condition and with little to no way of obtaining spare parts (that they themselves are cannibalized from other tanks)?

That's like saying because the F-14 Tomcats of the Iranian Islamic Republic are in poor condition (due to the F-14's being inherited from the pro-US days of Iran) then automatically the F-14 itself sucks.

The French report on an armored vehicle past its prime and "cut off" from any meaningful source of proper maintenance should hardly be taken as a source descriptive of the Panther as it was in German service where, at least, new spare parts were made and available.

Tanks last for more than 2-3 years, but let's skip that for now. Crippling problems with the final drive are NOT solely based on the French report, the French report is just an additional confirmation brought up since someone asked about captured Panthers being used. Reliability was a problem with all Panthers from the day they were deployed at Kursk -only 15% of them managed to get to the battle and throughout the war:
Germany's Panther Tank by Thomas Jentz

Panther-Abteilungen in the West

On 28 June 1944, Guderian reported on experiences in opposing the Allied landing in Normandy: The Pz.Kpfw.IV, V, and VI have proven to be successful. The Panther appears to catch fire quickly. The lifespan of the Panther's motors (1400 to 1500 km) is significantly higher than the Panther's final drives. A solution to the final drive problem is urgently needed. The fasteners for the Schuerzen must be strengthened to prevent them from being torn off by the hedgerows in the Normandy. Soon the troops will demand that protective armor shields be mounted over the rear decks because of the success of fighter-bomber attacks. The height of the guns in the Strumgeshuetz is too low for the terrain in Normandy.

The general consensus of the industry was that inner-toothed gear wheels could not be produced due to a lack of proper machinery. This meant that a final drive using planetary gear reduction and pre-selector spur gearing - found to be reliable in company testing - could not be installed in the production tanks. All attempts to improve the final drive met with failure, despite the offers of a special bonus as an incentive. The housings, which initially had proven too weak and whose outer mounts had been bent out of alignment by the track's pull, were eventually replaced by stronger ones.

Panther and its Variants by Walther Speilberger

Minutes from a meeting of the Panzer Commision 23 January, 1945
Final Drive

From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t). Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100. General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem. he requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation. Direktor Wiebicke claims that the Heerestechnisches Buro of the Waffenamt had for its part rejected the sun-and-planet final drive and demanded the spur wheel reduction drive. This claim led toa confrontation between Oberst Holzhauer and Oberbaurat Knonagel. Oberingenier Wiebicke clarified that for the past on and a half years there has been ongoing discussion regarding the introduction of the planetary gearing but as of yet nothing significant has been accomplished. Whereas during this entire time attempts have been made to improve the final drive, with only minimal improvement being noted. It must, however, be kept in mind that MAN, as the responsible manufacturing firm, cannot now hold other companies responsible. MAN as availed itself of all offices which have the prospect of providing a way out of these difficulties with the final reduction drive.

Soon after the introduction of the Panther Ausf. D into service, the steering unit exhibited reliability problems. After the war, German tank designers told their British captors that they were well aware of this defect. Their defense of the steering unit design was based on the belief that the steering brakes would outlast a vehicles transmission and final drives. Hence, it was not the serious problem to the Germans that the British portrayed in their report.

During World War II, a German prisoner of war informed his British captors that the weakness of the Panther's steering mechanism was well known. Panther tank drivers were instructed to use the auxiliary skin brakes for steering and to avoid pivot steers. He went on to say the steering unit problem appeared to be result of the overloading of the steering clutch during tight-radius and pivot steering maneuvers.

A late-war U.S. Army report noted of the Panther's auxiliary skid brake steering ability, "The skid turn feature of the steering system, which is utilized by pulling the seering lever all the way [back] and locking one track, cannot be employed at speeds in excess of approximately 8 to 10 miles per hours, and can only be used when the vehicle is in second gear, as the engine will be stalled if such a turn is made in a higher gear."

British engineers concluded that Panther final-drive units had inadequate bearings and poor housing strength. IN addition, critical areas of some gears were not hardened properly. these and other major design and manufacturing defects lead to poor final-drive reliability. Later information revealed that the Germans had approached a French firm during the war years to investigate the practicality of producing a new type of final drive for the Panther tank. The French received the assembly drawings, but nothing ever came of the proposed project.

Jaqcues Littlefield talked about what he has learned about Panther tank final drives in the process of restoring a Panther Auf. A:

"My understanding is that the final drives were always a problem. I've heard different things, for instance, that [the Germans] couldn't get the proper alloy, they couldn't heat-treat it properly, or whatever. When we test ours, the alloy and the strength of these particular gears was as good as what you could make them from today. [We] looked at maybe duplicating them, using the same physical size, but just using a stronger alloy or better treatment, and the answer we got back was that it was as good then as we can do it now.


Part of the problem with the final drives was no doubt due to the vehicle's growth in weight. It grew in weight from its original goal of 30 to 35 tons to the low 40s. I'm going to guess that what ended up happening with the final drives is that they were designed for the lower-weigh vehicle, and there wasn't the physical size [available] to where you could make the gears wider and stronger. Since they weren't able to make them wider, they just left them the way they were originally designed.


It is interesting that the American Sherman tank used double-herringbone gears in the final drives, which provides more torque capability for the given width of a final drive. The Panther uses straight spur gears, so there must have been a manufacturing limitation, as double herringbone gears were well known at the time for their ability to carry larger amounts of torque for a given width."

^ It's somewhat interesting that the Germans tried to have a French company improve the final drives.

Panzers at War Michael and Gladys Green

Although the Panther's AK 7-200 transmission was nominally superior to the clumsy transmisison on the t-34, about 5 percent broke down within 100km and over 90 percent within 1500km in combat. The final drive on the Panther Ausf. D was so weak that the tank could not even turn whlie it was backing up, which occurred frequently in the retreat to the Dnepr River. It's two fuel pumps were probably the biggest mobility weakness in the Panther Ausf. D because they were prone to leaks and caused serious engine fires. As least three Panthers were destroyed by fuel pump-caused fires during Zitadelle, and a high proportion of the mechanical breakdowns was caused by this troublesome component. Nor did the problem go away after Kursk: the initial batch of Panther Ausf. A tanks what were handed over to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy in September of 1943 were so problematic that every one was rejected for service.

The Panther's poor mobility forced the Wehrmacht to move units around by rail and get them as close to the front as possible before unloading. Throughout 1943, the Panther was essentially tied to conducting all major movements by rail, including the equally short-legged tiger, and units could not even move 100km without significant losses. Thus, the Panther did not meet Guderian's requirement for a tank with superior mobility, and it was the t-34's continued advantage in mobility and reliability that contributed greatly to the Soviet victory in the Ukraine in 1943.

I underlined the most interesting parts of these quotes.

 

[1alexey]

As for the Russian impressions of fighting it, the Russians were impressed enough to field captured models whenever possible.

That is not completely true.

Soviets used captured Panthers in tactical situations around the place they captured them, but unlike Pz-3 and Pz-4 their attempts to field units armed with captured equipment failed, due to Panther`s poor reliability not allowing such units to keep up on the offensive.

Captured Pz-3 and Pz-4s, on the other hand, were maintained for years as commander and utility tanks, even manuals for them were printed.

Which says a lot about precived quality and utility of Panther.

 

[balmung60]

You know, saying that a two or three year old Panther tank can't be fairly tested or that it's somehow comparable to nearly forty years of use of an airframe seems pretty damning of the tank in and of itself. Tanks have a very long shelf life, or at least good ones do. The Panzerkampfwagen Mark IV was still working in Syrian service up until 1967, the Sherman stayed in operational service in some countries into the 1990s (or if you count the M36 (same chassis), still in use), and there are still countries with running T-34s (well, modifications thereof) in service, all long after everyone stopped making spare parts. Also, production of the M4 (and presumably all variants, including the M36) and Pz4 ceased in 1945, and T-34 was produced until 1958, so two of them would have had much the same issues finding spare parts.

If a Panther with less than five years under its belt is a badly worn tank not suitable for analysis, then that, in and of itself, says that it's an unreliable tank, especially compared to its predecessor and both of its rivals which were still seeing use and upgrades more than five years (and in some cases, nearly five decades) after their production was terminated.

 

[Darkrenown]

I already mentioned the post-war French use of it is somewhat irrellevant considering that the Panther was hopelessly obsolete by then, and it says a lot when the French picked the Panther over the Sherman and Cromwell which were no doubt available in great quantities. As for the Russian impressions of fighting it, the Russians were impressed enough to field captured models whenever possible.

You should really include names when you multiquote different people, I almost missed this. How is the Panther being obsolete in any way relevant to a report evaluating it on its own merits? The French report doesn't compare it to any other tanks, it just talks about the French impressions of using it.

Of course the Russians fielded it if it was captured, some tank is always better than none, but they weren't particularly impressed by it.

 

[Darkrenown]

That is not completely true.

Soviets used captured Panthers in tactical situations around the place they captured them, but unlike Pz-3 and Pz-4 their attempts to field units armed with captured equipment failed, due to Panther`s poor reliability not allowing such units to keep up on the offensive.

Captured Pz-3 and Pz-4s, on the other hand, were maintained for years as commander and utility tanks, even manuals for them were printed.

Which says a lot about precived quality and utility of Panther.

I remember a quote that I cannot find the source of now, it was about the Red army's policy for Panthers - something like they should be used until they burned or broke down, but no effort should be spent trying to repair them. Anyone know what I mean?

 

[balmung60]

Both the 17 pounder and the E2 Jumbo strained the Sherman's suspension to the limit. Theres a very good reason nobody did both.



The problem with the Sherman is that it was built and fielded under the assumption that Panthers would be as rare as the Tigers. The number of Panthers in normandy was a very, very rude suprise.

The Firefly weighed 33 tonnes, while the Jumbo weighed 38 tonnes (the base Sherman weighed about 30 tonnes). Somehow, I doubt that the Firefly was straining the suspension to the limit. Given that the M1A1 weighed about half a metric ton and the Jumbo could handle it just fine and that the 17-pdr was about three quarters of a metric ton, I doubt that the extra weight from changing the gun would have been too much of an issue.

It seems odd that the Sherman would be built and fielded on the assumption that one tank that had not been encountered when it was being designed would be as rare as another tank that had not been encountered when it was being designed. If you'll check the dates, the Sherman first saw combat in October 1942, while the Tiger's first Eastern Front action was only in late September of the same year and would not show up in North Africa until December of 1942, and that Panther would not see action until more than half a year after that.

Also, as has been stated earlier in this thread, the number of Panthers encountered in Normandy wasn't actually terribly high - the first enemy armor encountered by the US was StuGs and Panzer-Lehr wasn't exactly fond of their Panthers, and so generally avoided using them. Panthers would be encountered later in France, but during this period of highly mobile combat, the Panthers were generally considered to be of little concern and it wasn't until fighting bogged down in the winter of 1944 that there was any substantial push to really work on replacing the M4(75)s with M4(76)s.

I remember a quote that I cannot find the source of now, it was about the Red army's policy for Panthers - something like they should be used until they burned or broke down, but no effort should be spent trying to repair them. Anyone know what I mean?

That's what I recall their policy being (and I imagine that we read it from the same place). Panthers were to be taken because, hey, free tank, but they were considered too much work to keep running, and thus to be ditched when they broke. On the other hand, Panzer IIIs were actually often maintained and even converted into assault guns by the Soviets as the PzIII was actually considered useful.

 

[_Sohei_]

T-34 was the best because having over 84 thousand of one of the best tanks of the time makes it the best. Quantity is the best quality because you are more likely to have them when and where they are needed.

 

[Radu]

It might be worth noting that "requires more laborious maintenance" is not the same as "poor reliability".

I mean, the M16 might not necessarily tolerate the same conditions as the AK47, but would that automatically mean the M16 is unreliable?

I mean, the term unreliable seems to be reserved for breakdown issues that happen under the best circumstances, not breakdown issues that happen after the "mean time to failure" of a given "thing".

I mean, if the "mean time to failure" of a given mechanism is 10 hours (pure example) and after 15 hours it croaks, are you making a fair assessment in calling it unreliable?

Certainly, I don't think anybody here argues that the Panther required more care, logistically, than the Sherman or T-34. In fact, one of the quoted historical sources states as much. That Panthers require "too much" maintenance work.

I don't think anybody denies the fact that the T-34 or Sherman was significantly more rugged than the Panther, given the Panther's wheel system and double torsion bar (to name two things). T-34s and Shermans were more mechanically simpler.

But to throw the Panther in the bin?

I mean the Panther is an product of human engineering. It has advantages and disadvantages.

But would it really be fair to say because the Panther was more maintenace-intensive that it was logistically comparable to the logistic nightmares that were earlier heavier tanks of various nations just 3 years earlier that had constant suspension,transmission or engine problems?

I think not.

It's human engineering we're talking about. It can't possibly be flawless.

 

[Novacat]

You should really include names when you multiquote different people, I almost missed this. How is the Panther being obsolete in any way relevant to a report evaluating it on its own merits? The French report doesn't compare it to any other tanks, it just talks about the French impressions of using it.

Except thats very, very relevant. The Renault FT17 was a revolutionary tank when it was introduced, but by 1939 there were much, much better designs. The bar is raised.

I doubt that the extra weight from changing the gun would have been too much of an issue.

You would be suprised...

The relevant quote:
The first 50 units were based on M4A4 hulls, had a Continental R-975 gasoline engine and VVSS suspension. However, the increased weight of the vehicle combined with narrow tracks led to poor off-road mobility. It was also putting too much strain on the engine, resulting in frequent mechanical failures.

The Jumbo also had frequent mechanical problems IIRC (and thats just the armour alone) which is why it only had a limited production run.

 

[podcat]

I remember a quote that I cannot find the source of now, it was about the Red army's policy for Panthers - something like they should be used until they burned or broke down, but no effort should be spent trying to repair them. Anyone know what I mean?

Thats one of the hoi4 loading tips I put in to make you happy ;D its from the Department of Weaponry of the Red Army.

The quote is:

"It is suggested to the Red Army to use such German tanks as StuG III and Pz IV due to their relability and availability of spare parts. The new German Panther and Tiger can be used until they broken down without trying to repair them. They have bad engines, transmission and suspension." – Department of Weaponry of the Red Army, late 1944.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm