Thats true, but if you look into the history of the SOV it´s also all about cronyism.
Thats totally wrong, i don´t know were you have this idea from, please read some books about that matter.
Adam Tooze wrote a good book.
German tank research over the top?
- Thread starter Lumpy
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thats true, but if you look into the history of the SOV it´s also all about cronyism.
Thats totally wrong, i don´t know were you have this idea from, please read some books about that matter.
Adam Tooze wrote a good book.
Its very much the same with the soviet union as it is a similar form of government: one party authoritarian, just radical left instead of right.
It depends on what you mean by 'outdated'. In terms of the guns used, up gunning programmes for current tanks were already being done, albeit they did speed up when they faced large numbers of KV's and T-34's. The whole lack of sloped armour was a rather deliberate action. German tank designers knew about the sloping process, which is why they put in their instruction manuals for the Tiger 1 to angle the tank at 30 degrees and most armour plates actually were slightly sloped. A shermans frontal armour for example is almost completely impenetrable against most german AT guns is you angle it at 30 degrees, but it's side armour is too thin to do so. The reason they didn't slope their armour was it uses up internal space, you have to make the tank bigger and heavier if you want to reclaim that space and it causes strains on production.
And a long development period? Not really, while the project to make the Panther started in 1938, the Panthers development only started after operation barbarossa and finished march 1942. So what? About a year?
Compare that to other tank designs of the time
- Sherman, 1940-1942
- Cromwell, 1940-1944
- T-44, 1943-1944
- T-55 (arguably part of the T-44 development), 1943-1945
- Centurion, 1943-1945
- M26 Pershing, 1942-1944
If anything the Panthers development was extremely fast (it needed to be) and resulted in the final vehicle having many glaring flaws that had to be fixed after it entered production.
Which sources are we talking about?
If we look at Soviet sources during the war, thy considered pz3 great tank in 1941-1942, Pz4 with long gun to be a match(if not slightly superior) for T-34.
T-34 was outdated in 1943 itself, but due to lack of expirienced welders Soviets couldn't transition to better designs with thicker armor, for mass-produced tank.
All of "superiority" of T-34 is largely based on projecting 1943 model into 1941, ignoring facts that heavier tank isn't necessary better.
You also assume that Panther was superior design to earlier prototypes, while it probably is pretty false. It's bad, overcomplicated suspension, overweight armor for gearbox, and ineffective against infantry cannon, all were rammed in 1942.
A tank more in range of 30-35 tonnes, would serve panzerwaffe far better in practice.
Well considering the T-34 is an 1940 vehicle... it's fairly good.
You points about the panther are fairly moot. The suspensions is so over complicated that virtually every modern MBT uses the same torsion bar suspension system (and has the same issues) and they manage fairly well. The gun was also equally as effective against infantry as the long 75mm guns on the Panzer IV and the crews never felt that it's anti-infantry capabilities were lacklustre. In fact the main weapon infantry often cried out for was 20mm autocannon guns due to their anti infantry ability and the fact they made soviet tankers wet themselves, but it's common sense why this never happened.
The main issue is the gearbox due to weight. *However* by the time the Panther overtook the Panzer IV's in number on the field they had virtually identical reliability rates. While it's hardly a miracle weapon it's issues are largely over exaggerated just in the same manner the shermans are.
Outclassed as an AT weapon, sure. Not outclassed as an anti-infantry/anti-fortification weapon. AFVs were used for a heck of a lot more than fighting AFVs, unless they were TDs.
More slope can also decrease crew survivability. The less space you have in a tank, the more damage a penetrating or spall-causing shell does. Sherman crew death rates were actually quite low compared to many other AFVs such as the T-34 and Stug III, since with those AFVs if a shell penetrated it was going to hit something vital, and likely take 2 or 3 crew members out in the process. With the Sherman, both vital components such as the engine, fuel tank, ammo rack, etc. were more spread out, as were the crew. Hits were less damaging, and even if the tank was disabled it was less likely to be unrecoverable and crew members were more likely to survive.
Last edited:
Pz4 is a 1936 vechicle...
Nobody says T-34 was terrible (or even bad), but it`s reputation and it`s actual performance in 1941-1942 are quite different. It was a good tank, that scored amaising luck in that Paton, soviet engineer, created a way to weld it`s armor with minimal usage of human welders(in 1942), which didn`t work for thicker armor plates for some time, that made T-34 production amaisingly efficent with Soviet workforce. Also was the reason T-34 was not replaced nor up-armored during war.
In fact, T-34s manufacturing optimisations could be a subject of a book itself. But, that happened later, by which time T-34s advantage in armor and gun faded, and it was just a good, cheap, reliable vehicle.
None that I know uses similar weels arrangement, it is inefficent and mainenance intensive. Also, you might notice a problem with your argument, modern MBTs are not tanks from 40s, not is there currently a race to produce thousands of MBTs every month.
Not sure, seen quite different oppinions on Panther`s HE shell.
Which, I would assume has to do with degradation of Pz4 manufacturing due to strategic bombings and cost cutting, frankly.
Panther was too heavy. An earlier version of vechicle or other prototype could be lighter, which would solve the problem.
Shortage of welders actually was partially responsible for quality drops in early (1941-1942) T-34 production tbh.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the suspension system. Yes with the Wheel alignment it was even more awkward to change and was prone to getting mud stuck. Interleaved road wheels are a bit of an oddity on german tanks after a certain period. Hell you even see them on the Sdkfz 251 for some weird reason!
To put it bluntly.... it's the exact same shell with an extra drive band and different Cartridges. And when I mean the exact same.... the exact same. You can pretty much fire them out of the same gun if you swapped the cartridges. Sure it's fired at a higher velocity, but the effect on the AOE of the explosive is extremely minimal.
Strategic bombing had very little effect on most German tank production. They were far more concerned with bombing logistical equipment and aircraft factories. It did stop the production of the Maus, and about halved the number of Tiger II's (if you expect their predicted production estimates were accurate, which they weren't for every other tank). The rest of german tank production wasn't really bombed nor affected because it wasn't really a high priority for the allies.
You do have the claim regarding degrading degrading metal plates, however they were pretty much only an issue for the heavier cats. However you have a postwar CIOS report which showed that the claims during the war for the degrading metal was pretty much bomber command seeing reports of german tanks plates cracking and trying to take credit for it. The germans made a conscious decision to change their metal composition (due to shortages) and the replacement was pretty much just as good and modern metallurgists agree. The british and american metallurgists at the time made so many mistakes, I would presume they made many more in their observations of german steel quality during the war.
Concerning weight specifically.... meh maybe it could of been, but then it wouldn't of fitted with the German design doctrine for the panther. They knew they couldn't keep up with allied and soviet production so requested a vehicle that was 'better'. The main drawback was reliability, but with the logistical situation the germans were in by 1943, I bet tanks would of been breaking down left right and centre even if they used 'reliable' T-34's or Shermans, of which both have questionable reliability.
AFAIK Panther would be perfectly fine, had it been equipped with same gearbox and drive train Tiger was, exept Germans couldn`t produce those in needed numbers.
Frankly, Germany had the correct doctrine, counter tanks with inexpencive TDs. Panther was kind of an oddity there, it certainly was a strange (panic?) design.
Here's the weird thing.... 'if' the Panther II had entered production late 1942 or early 1943 as intended..... the Tiger II would have shared the same gearbox as both the Panther and Panther II. It's only when it was cancelled and the Tiger II no longer needed to share the same parts, that they switched it.
The main issue is the Panther was designed at the time the germans were still on the offensive and even by late 1943 they had need of an offensive AFV. Casemate TD's are more defensive vehicles. By comparison the Panzer IV and Panther were still needed as general purpose AFV's, which is the main reason some people quote the Panther as being the first Main Battle Tanks. The main issue is the Germans couldn't afford to completely switch to the Panther as intended.
In all honesty the Panther, as did the rest of the big cats, did their jobs extremely well. Just they were produced at a time where german production had no hope of keeping up with the soviets and allies, regardless of the vehicle they chose to produce.
While Germany was fielding early models of the Panzer III and IV in 1939, you can set it up so they're fielding panthers by 1938. With the Assyrian deal you can even get main battle tanks by 1940, I think. (might be a road to 56 thing?) Perhaps an ahead of time block should be hardcoded (or enabled via set up interface) to prevent research more than 2 years ahead of time? That way, Germany would keep their research bonuses, but they wouldn't be able to use them so early.