Jump to content


Photo

Panther Gets Too Much Love And Hate?


  • Please log in to reply
367 replies to this topic

#1 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 10 December 2015 - 2129 PM

Browsing the 'net, all you see are two sides going at it as soon as someone brings up Panther

Panther = junk and an AT gun; waste of resources; Sherman/T-34 was %%.%% more effective!
Panther = god tank

Objectively from all I can see, it was close enough to late/early post war heavies and mediums of other nations with all having pluses and minuses compared to one another, but all good enough; Pershing, T-44 and Centurion 1 were all competitive with one another, and Panther came before those (so, a + there).  And 1 for 1, it was clearly an overmatch against the older mediums of all nations.  So, to malign one, you may as well malign the others.  Panther was unreliable with its final drive, but then again the others weren't the most reliable around either.

 

I guess I'm just not seeing why there's so many extremes around.

 

 

 

 



#2 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:wargamming
    programming
    ballistics
    3D game development

Posted 10 December 2015 - 2137 PM

The Panther was sexy looking.  At least for a tank.   It had a number of mechanical problems but when it worked it was fine. 



#3 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2015 - 2202 PM

From what I noticed in those talks..

Positives..

Great AP, smooth ride, decent front armor, not expensive

Negatives..

HE not so great, difficult maintenance, rushed into service so many mechanical issues.

Although AFAIK, mechanical issues were largely solved later and by 1945, armor and firepower design is still at a good level. I'd call it a good tank overall. Just my basic level of understanding of the tank.

#4 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 10 December 2015 - 2229 PM

and by 1945, armor and firepower design is still at a good level. I'd call it a good tank overall. Just my basic level of understanding of the tank.

 

I agree.

 

Seems decent overall from my simple Zaloga perusing..  Like Pershing.  IS-2.

 

I guess extremes can be a response to another, but it's not really rational.  I don't know why people get upset when people proclaim it superior to M4s/T-34s.  It clearly is, and its competitors from those nations are Pershing and IS-2 (T-44 too), both of which are better and worst over the various ways you judge these things when compared to each other and Panther, but all comparable.



#5 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2015 - 2234 PM

and by 1945, armor and firepower design is still at a good level. I'd call it a good tank overall. Just my basic level of understanding of the tank.

 
I agree.
 
Seems decent overall from my simple Zaloga perusing..  Like Pershing.  IS-2.
 
I guess extremes can be a response to another, but it's not really rational.  I don't know why people get upset when people proclaim it superior to M4s/T-34s.  It clearly is, and its competitors from those nations are Pershing and IS-2 (T-44 too), both of which are better and worst over the various ways you judge these things when compared to each other and Panther, but all comparable.

Someone here once told me that some people just like to argue :lol:

It's difficult to try to rationalize how and why some people resolutely form such polarized opinions.

#6 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0032 AM

They also started to suffer from poor crew skills. Many of the German heavies required good drivers to protect the drive train, coupled with lack of raw materials, sabotage, competing agenda's it did well. It would have been interesting had the French officially adopted and upgraded them with new builds going into Panther II 



#7 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0109 AM

Mobility wise it looks like the Panther was quite capable compared to its contemporaries. At least when it was in running condition. 

 



#8 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0448 AM

Maybe this love/hate is due to it's unbalanced design The gun, optics and frontal protection were excellent, but side armor was weak. There were serious reliability issues with engine and reduction gear.



#9 jaro

jaro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Wargames - Total War series, Steel Panthers (MBT, WW2), Jagged Alliance 1.13 ...etc

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0525 AM

side armor is weak on all post war tanks.. its more like Panther was first in line which followed the new approach..

#10 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0636 AM

Well optics were excellent for hitting target, not for acquiring ;)

 

I think the "hate" is generally just reaction to the unreserved adorations. Heck, just last week I saw the claim that Panther II was supposed to be the standard NATO tank and only those evil imperialists of Sam spoiled it by forcing the M47 and 48 down everyone's throat ;)



#11 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0704 AM

side armor is weak on all post war tanks.. its more like Panther was first in line which followed the new approach.. 

Which post war tanks had 40-45mm side armour at the turret and hull then?



#12 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0820 AM

alejandro - you're challenging a claim that was never made. Do you deny that the side armour on post-war tanks is generally significantly weaker than the frontal armour, regardless of the actual thickness? Whether the Panther pioneered the disparity in protection over the frontal arc versus the side is the question, not exactly how much armour any individual tank possessed.



#13 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,963 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 December 2015 - 0941 AM

Panther was well-protected on frontal about 50°, whereas IIRC post-war development was to protect crew compartment (not necessarily the engine compartment in the rear) against frontal ~60°.
It was quite different from the heavy tank recipes of KV-1 and Tiger, which had nearly as much side as front protection (T-44 has quite thick sides as well, albeit still weak for want of sloping).

#14 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1006 AM

side armor is weak on all post war tanks.. its more like Panther was first in line which followed the new approach..

Sherman.



#15 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1249 PM

 

Someone here once told me that some people just like to argue :lol:

 

 

No they didn't. :D



#16 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,178 posts

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1313 PM

In general, I wonder if the "German tanks were better than Allied tanks" meme could be better rephrased as "German tank _guns_ were better than Allied tank guns." Put something like the Panther's 75mm in a Sherman or T-34 (I mean, in the general-issue models, not in specialized Firefly-types) and the situation changes pretty dramatically.



#17 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,387 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1456 PM

Huh? Panther is hyped? I always found the Panther standing in the shadows of the Tigers?

#18 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1510 PM

Tiger 1 was a much better tank, Panther was supposed to get most of the effect for much less cost and time. The final drive was the major curse of the Panther. Had it gotten the tiger final drive, it's reliability would have improved greatly. Saw the guts of Littlefields Panthers final drive, quite crude.



#19 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1510 PM

In general, I wonder if the "German tanks were better than Allied tanks" meme could be better rephrased as "German tank _guns_ were better than Allied tank guns."

 

IMO Soviets did take really long to switch to T-34-85. Maybe they were too focused on keeping production up and thought T-34-76 could receive better armament. There were also other factors. Existing tooling did not allow production of 3 men turret in every Soviet tank factory. Soviet crews did pay a heavy price for these delays at Kursk.

 

Regarding lateral armour

 

"Already in 1942 there was concern that the Panther did not have sufficient armor for protection against the anti-tank weapons that would be encountered on the Eastern Front in 1943. Attempts to fasten additional armor plates onto the current Panther design presented extraordinary technical difficulties. Therefore, a new Panther design was proposed with thicker armor. This design was initially referred to as the Panther 2 and after April 1943 as the Panther II. During a conference with Speer on 3 January 1943, Hitler agreed to the proposal that the Panther was to be converted to a new model with single piece 100mm frontal and 60mm side armor. In the interim, until the Panther with thicker armor was produced, the current model was to be sent into action."

 

And steering/final drive

 

[quote name='Panther & Its Variants, W.J. Spielberger']During a conference in the Heereswaffenamt on 10 February 1944 the opinion was expressed that the Panther I no longer met the requirements in light of the experience gained on the Eastern Front. The panther should be completely redesigned and, as already mentioned, receive the Tiger steering mechanism and final drive.

 

 

This is a vehicle that weights ~45 tons... 



#20 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 11 December 2015 - 1511 PM

In general, I wonder if the "German tanks were better than Allied tanks" meme could be better rephrased as "German tank _guns_ were better than Allied tank guns."

 

IMO Soviets did take really long to switch to T-34-85. Maybe they were too focused on keeping production up and thought T-34-76 could receive better armament. There were also other factors. Existing tooling did not allow production of 3 men turret in every Soviet tank factory. Soviet crews did pay a heavy price for these delays at Kursk.

 

Regarding lateral armour

 

"Already in 1942 there was concern that the Panther did not have sufficient armor for protection against the anti-tank weapons that would be encountered on the Eastern Front in 1943. Attempts to fasten additional armor plates onto the current Panther design presented extraordinary technical difficulties. Therefore, a new Panther design was proposed with thicker armor. This design was initially referred to as the Panther 2 and after April 1943 as the Panther II. During a conference with Speer on 3 January 1943, Hitler agreed to the proposal that the Panther was to be converted to a new model with single piece 100mm frontal and 60mm side armor. In the interim, until the Panther with thicker armor was produced, the current model was to be sent into action."

 

And steering/final drive

 

[quote name='Panther & Its Variants, W.J. Spielberger']During a conference in the Heereswaffenamt on 10 February 1944 the opinion was expressed that the Panther I no longer met the requirements in light of the experience gained on the Eastern Front. The panther should be completely redesigned and, as already mentioned, receive the Tiger steering mechanism and final drive.

 

 

This is a vehicle that weights ~45 tons... 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users