Director Richard Smith | Bottom 5 Tanks | The Tank Museum 

'No such thing as a failed experiment . . . just scar tissue'. : )

What did Edison say about inventing the light bulb ?

Task failed successfully

LJCyrus1 British car industry has lot to learn.

MrTangolizard "I will be credited for what others did before me".

I assume logistics people have done it a lot

I think the Chieftain did this first re the Sherman

@@DeerHunter308 Not quite. I advocated that the Sherman was a credit to logistical foresight, but I didn't specifically berate anything for failing the logistical considerations per se.

Reminds me of sturmtiger An overly ambitious death charge launcher, assisted by rocket

Leave it to the Germans

Jentz was right 😂.

well you were once a 2nd Lieutenant

@VollerVollkorn And the T-34 had mechanical issues into 1943, with a significant proportion of the 5th Guards Tank Army breaking down on their way to the Kursk battle front. Already by March 1944 the Panthers of Panzer Regiment 2 had done 1,500 km.

@VollerVollkorn Most are either not aware of it or they deliberately ignore it. Even the Sherman, which had the benefit of a lot of existing components, when it was being develop still seemed to have had its share of automotive problems. One of us over at Tank Encyclopedia is working on a new article about the Sherman and he made mention that he has a report from early on that has a 3 page list of defects for just the Sherman. A new tank design is going to have issues, that is just how it went back then. The Churchill also had a myriad of mechanical issues early on and the British A27 tank was a first an utter nightmare until after a year or so of thinkering with it they finally got it to be design and slapepd the name Cromwell on it. The Panther certainly had its shares of issues, make no mistake about that. A large number of these were the result of the incredibly short design and development period the tank underwent.

@VollerVollkorn Efficient is not the word I would use, the performance of the ausf. D at Kursk was pretty poor but that was to be expected. It isn't really until the ausf. G appears that a lot of of the first issues are resolved but eventhroughout production of the ausf. G they keep of developing it.

Gear go to gulag if not work, hit harder

Was this a real thing?

@@christofferthorsson7657 Was the wooden mallet a real thing? Both the T-34 and KV-1 had notoriously difficult transmissions, and yes, there are at least anecdotal reports of drivers carrying a mallet to help shift gears. Or use their feet, or another crew member to help move the thing. “Good enough” wartime Soviet engineering at its finest. (And they won, so that may say something.)

Lmao loving the collective bit, so unnecessary, brilliant

@@jvleasure Motivational Nordic resorts.

@Scumfuck McDoucheface "Not quite right" or "A bit dodgy" even "weird" would be 3 alternate ways

@Scumfuck McDoucheface it is often used to describe two things that should line up but don't like a bolt that should go into a hole but is bent off to one side, is a bit "skew-whiff". You might also say things had "gone a bit sideways"

@Scumfuck McDoucheface absolute clusterfvkc

A bit "How ya going? ". Nowhere near professional standards.

@Scumfuck McDoucheface "Askew". Google 'askew' and see what happens, then amaze your friends. Thank me later.

LOL

You sir just won on this comment thread!

LMAO thank you for putting into words my feelings as well

The Panther is what did it for me

I love Matilda I's they are the best tank for the role they where designed for and when they got to do it where a holly terror to their enemies but they where not the tank for the war they ended up having to fight alas

The Elefant wasn't a prototype.

​@@darianbrowning1608no, but it was built on a failed prototype. I mean it failed as much as a prototype could fail. If your car catches fire in front of your boss, you probbapy shouldn't build an extra few dozen. And definitely not even heavier.

Nut the TOG was surely even worse than Mathilda 1 with the exact same flaws and less excuse as they had seen the Blitzkrieg in action by then and knew WWI wasn't going to repeat.

Thom S I enjoyed it too. Mr Smith’s delivery, his mannerisms, sense of humour and his use of the clipboard reminded me very much of the late Denis Norten. Sort of a “It’ll be alright on the night worst tanks edition.” That is, of course, “If you’re one of those people...” who are old enough to remember it! 😱🤣

@@melvillesperryn9268 he stated at the beginning a failed prototype is a success, and therefore he wouldn't do any prototypes that werent past design.

He's a very good public speaker. Very enjoyable!

Haaah, depends where,. I'm working in shipping operations and did not seen such clipboards for a while

Where people into jets will clipboard every initiative

It's a key accessory for thousands of council employees too ....

He does seem the type for a clipboard....

@@plasot I see plenty of them. With the exact same crack in the exact same place repaired in the exact same way on three ships in a row now.

@James W : To which the experienced logistics person says you missed the point entirely, James.

Logistics won WW2. Nothing else.

@@gunmnky Yeah, its true + Lend&Lease to Russia. The War was Amercan Industries with Russian Soldiers against Axis.

Yup. Sales and operational management - promise everything. Logistics - as the last in the line, get left with the mess, and all the blame, 99% of which could have been resolved if they had had input from the start, for very little effort and virtually no cost (certainly far less cost and effort that will be required to sort the issues.).....

@@gunmnky Agreed.The Allies won because they produced more of everything individually than the Axis produced in combination... and then effectively got it to the fighting front and kept it supplied.

If that crappy tractor breaks, you can fix it with a hammer. To fix a German car, you need to be a surgeon.

But who won? 🤔

@@landonorris6 well, it's the point; good use of what you have in resource and knowledge. Sure, the T34 is kinda crappy compared to the high-polished Panther. But you can have crappy T34 and drivers and mechanics to run them, from Russian population. . Germans had Panthers broken down and not enough people able to fix it.

@@ulissedazante5748 Exactly! Your comment reminds me on on this quote: "Its not about of having the best weapons, but to handle them well."

@@ulissedazante5748 Well considering the German tanks took out over 5-1 on average, and that still wasn't enough, all it really says is you shouldn't fight a war where you are outnumbered over 15-1. Kind of obvious but High Command missed the memo.

I agree with your sentiment, but one small correction, Richard Smith is not a curator, he's the museum's Director.

One thing that's made the Covid outbreak bearable is how it brought people like Richard into our sphere of awareness. I've watched all the videos he's made and they're all fascinating. His approach to things military is unique, insightful and thought provoking. David's videos have been equally fascinating. In many ways, the epidemic has greatly improved The Tank Museum's on-line presence. While I'm happy that the museum has been able to reopen, I'll miss this sort of content if they can no longer find the time to create it.

@@silentotto5099 Very well said, indeed! Those two gentlemen (in all senses of the word) together with Nicholas Moran (the Chieftain) have been uniquely responsible in developing my interest in tanks - a field where I previously had zero interest.

look also at this clip ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bNjp_4jY8pY.html

@@neilcam Just don't believe everything they say or claim. Use your own research and alternative sources, which often goes against theirs.

Especially if you are a poacher looking at the charging elephant you just took a shot at.

Of course it was. Think of it's size compared to the Jagtiger. Imagine they were making these at the same time as Valentine and Matilda 2, tanks that were actually useful. So really these being built compromised capacity to build decent vehicles.

same here

@@iantreefellow Wasn't it also to allow the new factories to learn how to make tanks?

Agreed - but still, I think that it was the best tank possible for training

That point in the German war effort when any semblance of sanity had given up and left.

@@bigblue6917 to a westerner maybe , but the Germans were trying to keep ahead of the Soviets who were bennining mass production of heavy Tanks protected by 200mm + armor and wielding high velocity 100mm/122mm canons. A decade later the American and British army were fielding tanks just as heavy to counter the Soviet IS line up

@@mikhailzavarov4958 The thing is, at the end of WWII Germans werent producing vehicles that were ahead of anything. They just produced heavier things. Jagdtiger was mostly used on the western front, cause even transporting them from the Ruhr valley to the eastern front was too difficult. In IIIrd Reich you could be shot for disbelief in the ability of the Wehrmacht. And common sense was ignored because of that.

American bazooka could kill a jagdtiger

@@mikhailzavarov4958 The British and USA had petrol and steel so could make big stupid things Germany did not.

It jolly well worked dodnt it!

If he uses the phrase "philosophical disagreement" please call an ambulance.

"I'm paraphrasing a bit. He didn't actually say 'jolly well'; he used a much ruder, er.... _slightly_ unnecessary word instead."

Having been taught in a English boarding school in the late 1970s that was the soft option

Tog is a prototype so that's why is got the pass

@@no1wafer no its because the TOG II is a perfect tank

@@hestia2486 no, because TOG II is a landship

The TOG III was so long that it couldn't shoot straight forward, for fear of hitting itself in the rear,

In all fairness, I think he does say it is c**p, but fun....

Sex panther final drive?

15% failure "by itself" is comparable to McDonald´s Ice machines, and simply unacceptable for a viable product

@@paavobergmann4920 Right! McDonalds....

@@JohnyNJ the tiger 2 was as reliable as the McDonald’s ice cream machine

@@paavobergmann4920 Yet Mcdonalds is a successful company that still sells more icecream and milkshakes than any other single company out there. Just saying.

I still want a Panther

@@bungobox7454 What is curious even post war parts from the tank were still used.

I completely agree

Please, please STOP this panther final drive myth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability HaVoC117X wrote under the Panther: The most Controversial Panzer video: "In regards to final drive and reliability: "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." (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger). According to Hartmut Knittels Book "Panzerfertigung im Zweiten Weltkrieg", the officials in the Nibelungen Werke (Panzer IV production) were clearly aware that they made use of final drives, which did not meet the quality standards. The german war industry was forced to experiment with the hardening processes during the steel production, because they were short on certain resources. This could be the reason, why all late war german tanks (38t, Panzer III and IV, Panthers, Tigers) suffered from broken finald drives and bad bearings. Were the final drives to weak or a flawed design. I dont think so: Some people claim (including Spielberger), that the final drives of the Panther were bad by design, but the Centurion, which was 7 tons heavier, used the exact same type of final drives. Like many other tanks too, M26 for example. (Thx Roland). Page 118 "The Centurion Tank" by Pat Ware In the Chapter "Centurion Reference Data it says: "Final Drive: double-reduction spur gear train; ratio 7.41:1 (MK 1 6,94:1) Here is a picture out of Spielbergers Book: Final Drive with double spur reduction gear i.imgur.com/dGktjYv.png A Bergepanther drove 4200 km without new spareparts and 1000 km from 4200 km it was towing other panthers. (Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55.) "There is an article on this subject in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (News sheet: Armoured troops): Performance of a Panther-recovery tank driver. Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has up to 3 May 1944 driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km without an engine change or damage to the transmission, including the final drive units, gearbox and drive shaft. Approximately 1,000km of this was made towing a Panther tank. The vehicle and engine are still in excellent condition and continue to be operational.(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55). "On Octover 28, 1944, the problem with the final drives seemed to be solved. The 654th reported that Jagdpanthers had already covered 400 to 500 km without damage." (Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development - Production - Operations by Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz. Schiffer Publishing Ltd page 24.) The theory that the drivetrain of the Panther was overstressed, can explain why Panthers had big reliability problems. But this theory can not explain, why large percentage of Panthers made it easily beyond those often claimed 150 km before the final drive gave up or other parts of the drivetrain broke down. This theory can not explain why a Bergepanther drove 4200 km including the stress of towing another 45 Ton Panther without receiving any damage. I think production quality, available resources and crew training were the true limiting factors. In terms of reliability i think we are a bit hypercritical in the Panthers case. Lets compare it to other tanks: The russians turned the war around with tank engines (The V2-series), which had a service life of only 300 to 400 km between 1941 until mid 1944 (T 34 vs Stug III by Steven Zaloga). Percentage of T34 tanks reaching 300km during factory trials (Zaloga, Page 14): Apr 43 = 10.1%, May 43 = 23%, Jun 43 = 7.7% This number slowly imporves to 79% in February 1944. But only 33% reached 1000 km before a breakdown in Feb. 1944 The 6th Guards Tank Army discovered the following lifespans of their tanks (late 1944/45): T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours IS 2/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours The Churchill was accepted for frontline duty in 1941, after its engine reached a service life of 500 miles (800 km). The first Churchill production batches had a service life for the engine and transmission of 250 miles. Cromwells, Matildas and Valentines (also less than 1000 miles) are also not shining examples in terms of reliability. (British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934-1945 by Benjamin Coombs). Hilary Doyle pointed out several times, that the final drives became quite reliable. He also said that the germans knew what they were doing when it comes down to tank maintenance. (Chieftain and Doyle in the Panzer Museum Munster, on Chieftains youtube channel). The replacement of the engine took only 8 hours in a Panther under field conditions. For a Centurion you need 15,5 hours in the field. I would assume that a Sherman with a radial engine, a twin diesel or an 30 cylinder Chrysler Multibank engine are much harder to maintain than a regular V12. At least the radial and the Multibank engine have many cylinder heads facing down into the tank hull. I think that they had to remove the engine out of the sherman for basic maintenances. Does anyone have detailed information on this? Spielberger wrote that the germans disliked the idea of an radial engine for a tank, because of difficult maintenances. The French guys of the Tank Museum in Saumur were interviewed by Bernhard at the Tankfest 2019 about their Panther and their experiences with it. Didn't they admitted that they prefer to work on the Panther than on other tanks of the same time period? Unlike the common believe, they admitted, that the Panther was actually build with ease of maintenance in mind (at least the engine bay). Correct me if i am wrong here. I think it is really surprising that they mentioned maintainability as big pro for the Panther design. But there must be something to it, because the Panther achieved the same combat ready rates as the Panzer IV since spring 1944 (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz). Nonetheless there are many contradicting facts and reports around. The matter remains complicated. The Leopard 2 was also designed as a counter to the possible massive soviet tank assaults. Its main purpose was tank on tank warfare. Panther served the same purpose. Nobody would call the Leopard 2 a tank destroyer."

@@rolandhunter So, you're saying that the Panther's final drive was just fine, except for the small fact that Germany was unable to produce it to the high technical standards required for it to be as reliable as it should have been. I have news for you: That means the Panther's final drive was *CRAP!* A design for a component you cannot produce is a *BAD DESIGN.* I'm saying this as an engineer. The simple fact is that the Panther was a BAD tank. It had some admittedly impressive components on it, but it was an abject *failure* as a reliable weapon system because the people running the show were too busy jerking themselves off about sloped armor and big guns. And what really mystifies *me* is that, nearly eighty years later, people are *still* jerking themselves off about the exact same sloped armor and big guns!

@@JohnnyWishbone85 If you are an engineer, why are you not look at this in the objective way? Why are you can't understand what I wrote? If the Panther was so bad, why the experienced drivers could drive 1,800-4,200 km without final drive replacement? Why are you deny as an engineer the early Panther reports, and the late? (1944 spring) Early said: Engine problem, that was the main issue of the Panther Late said: With good driver and with enough fuel, you could use the Panther for 1,500-2,000 km, with trained crew. The very late reports:(1945) Everything was craps, because the germans had no materials for steel hardening. Why are you can't accept this 3 facts?

@@rolandhunter -- I assure you; I *AM* looking at it objectively. What the tank can do under ideal conditions when the country has all the exotic materials it needs and the drivers have all the exquisite training they need and the enemy drive out in ranks very slowly and without maneuvering and don't have artillery and air support and the planets align and God is On Our Side isn't worth one warm turd. What matters is what the weapons system can do under the conditions that are in front of you RIGHT NOW. What materials do we have right now? What training can we give the drivers right now? The Panther was a bad tank because the designers *FAILED* to see the reality they lived in. The Panther was designed for a fantasy world where Germany had enough exotic materials and spare parts and had the luxury of training all its tank drivers to the highest standard. To summarize: It doesn't matter what the tank was capable of under ideal conditions. The only thing that mattered was what the tank could do under *REAL* conditions.

@@JohnnyWishbone85 The last of your paragraph told me 100%, you know nothing about Germany in 1943-45. Did you ever ready any combat report about the Panther in 1944? Do not answer it, you already did: You are not. Why do I know this? If you had read any of it, you would not have written down your last paragraph. Thank you for telling me your lack of information/ignorance and relative point of view in this topic. Have a nice day!

More likely be Italian, Japanese and Polish.

@@mapexblack polish tanks were good, the 7tp could handle the panzers pretty well during the invasion and the tankettes did their job (although a very limited job since they still were tankettes) the poles just didn't have many modern tanks or many tanks at all

To be honest, coming from a Brit, you'd have to multiply that number by a factor of at least 10

Pedro... must say I agree with you, which is ironic as it was the Brits who innovated, produced and employed the first tanks in combat... which in fairness were relatively successful for their day.

Pedro are you forgetting the Centurion? One of the best post war tanks. Even the cheiftan had a lot of good points and would have been even better if they had ignored the nato requirement for a mutlifuel tank like the other nations did.

I have often thought that the mustache was one he had inherited from an ancestor from the later part of the 19th century. Possibly while said ancestor was serving in India. Bengal Lancers or something similar.

I think Finn is giving him a good run for his money these days. Finn has actual merchendise in the shop. Can the Fletcher Mustache say the same?

@@A.J.K87 yes

But he just may be the best looking presenter on the channel...who is balding and does not have a mustache!

Agreed. Armour-Asterix does have a splendid soupstrainer which really ought to have its own show on this channel.

But he owes it all to the moustache.

there is also the guy in the workshop with a big mustache

They all look so much like Historians and its brilliant! Historians by and large all have bad hair and fringe at best, terrible at worst fashion sense. -A Historian.

I maintain Finn is the best looking presenter on the Tank museum's channel.

Finn for the win!

Nothing more fun than middle management.........

My condolescence.

You poor bugger. Senior enough to get the blame. Too junior to make the changes to stop the problems you're blamed for.

Too bad upper management is too busy playing golf to watch this video.

@@andrewszigeti2174 They wouldn't give a damn anyway... They've risen past such matters.

It sounds like a ton of things a fellow manager wants from his group.... (need to send this to my colleagues....)

It looks like it should be on a rail road.

It wasnt actually THAT bad. I mean, the Mk Vs they were having at the time with the rhomboid track going all around of course fared better than what effectively was a box on top of tracks that barely went the full length in the first place, and the high center of mass didnt help either. The battlefields were also just littered with so many craters and thrown up loose soil, that it was much more difficult to traverse than a WWII battlefield wouldve been. But it still got around reasonably well. Having a suspension as opposed to *not* definitely helped. But compare the A7V to some utter failures like the St. Chamond, which has approximately half the length of track it needs to get anywhere, or the Schneider CA1, which was even more boxy than the A7V, if you can imagine that, both of which had much worse engine power compared to their weight and still carried thinner armor only. Sure, the A7V was a hasty design with a whole bunch of flaws, but if I was going to arm the military of Elbonia in 1919, the A7V seems like a solid enough bet, at least after the FT-17, just because in any non-WWI trench warfare it would actually fare much better than either the Schneider or the St. Chamond, and probably also better than a Mk V.

Well, no, it just sits in a museum in Brisbane.

​@@builder396 uuuh. in the sticky swampy mud of no-mans land the A7v would get stuck, around 2/3 of a division never made it to the hostile trenches, and in a shell crater they would become trapped without infantry scouting their path ahead. The mark V would at least have the dignity to find DEEP mud or a mechanical issue before they broke down. and had to be abandoned.

Only a woman can love her son that much!!!

They say that if an airplane looks good, it flies good. Apparently this is not applicable for tanks :)

He just reminded me about that Covenanter that's being restored!

@ thats because tanks don't fly - or shouldn't :-)

i wonder id covenanter could have been fixed if they did proper testing before hand

That certainly explains Finn's brilliance

Interestingly, and somewhat spookily, as I am reading your comment there is a David Fletcher video just to the right. #Enough said

@@amandajones8841 I now want to see Finn pick out his favorite tank.

Yes, and to qualify your facial hair must be epic!

Finn wins hands down every time.

Truly a legend

What's the enormous thing he's stood on during that segment?

@@TimInertiatic Centurion BARV (Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle)

Though on the bright side, at least they got rid of a lot of Matilda 1 tanks.

the command of the 600 men of the Gloucester's under attack by 30,000 chinese in Korea reported their situation as "things are a bit sticky, sir", that summary of the battle of France seems about right for scale. I don't think the British were ever near surrender, though they might have take a draw at points, while there's a British warship afloat the idea of the German Navy carrying an opposed landing and resupplying it seems far fetched.

what brink of surrender? they wouldn't have ever considered surrendering as long as the Royal Navy and Air Force were still around just like the USSR, the germans would have to march to Kamchatka (which is laughable considering they couldn't even get to Moscow without a total logistical collapse) and they still wouldn't surrender

@@Jeyeyeyey You do know the British government were seriously considering negotiating peace terms with the Nazis don't you? It got to the point where Italian ambassador Count Giuseppe Bastianini had received a visit from Lord Halifax in preparation for possible negotiations. It was largely the inluence of Churchill that changed the government mind after May 28th and withdrew the offer of further discussions. So you're wrong, they did consider it, they just didn't go ahead with it.

This is the same English descriptive standard Douglas Bader applied when, after barely surviving an aerobatics accident with the loss of both legs, he recorded the incident in his logbook as, "Crashed slow-rolling near ground. Bad show."

He's information is actually quite poor. Dr Doyle wrote in one of he's books that german engineers tried to build a tiger i transmission for the panther but because of lack of proper machinery (because of lack of proper materials ) they chose a model of transmission that was easier to mass produce.I don't see how you can blame a tank design and it's designer for lacking proper materials .Also it's not the tanks fault for having poorly trained crew. Not to mention the french panthers were wrecks refurbished by AMX so the french tests as every test performed on foreign hardware has it's limitations . Another issue that Germany faced was lacking manpower so it was a far bigger problem for them to loose tank crews than it was to loose tanks or to repair those tanks. PS: Dr Doyle said in a video you can find on Chieftain channel (visiting German tank museum min 20 or so) that Panther was unreliable at first but by the time they produced the G model it was quite reliable .

@@ivjgknight5134 that still means that the transmission is not a good fit for the panther, and also means that the panther is still lacking in a key component. and thus they should've just shelved the panther as a prototype instead of passing it into production. imagine a smartphone whose batteries have a quirk that you should only charge it to 60% power every time, or risk having it burst into flames. it is technically a functional smartphone but its still a flawed phone.

@@ivjgknight5134 You blame the tank designer for using materials that aren't available.

@@wytfish4855 Could say that about almost every tank though, don't see why that only makes the Panther bad

The Oanther is a good, reliable tank and the most experienced crew were put in them. We have a lot of myth based on first performance as they were rushed out. These issues were fixed later. awhat we see here is a typical boss. He has no ideas of the product, he worked in a totally different field and falls for every myth and legend as he has no in depth knowledge. As a boss he does not have to bur he shoukd have been smart enough that Fletcher or another expert edited his biggest mistakes.

Panther makes sense. If it doesn't move, it's a crap tank

Tim Cave yes, I agree but the controversy is far from settled.

you made my Day :D

Correction: the sPaNdAu

Didn’t Lindybeige already cover that?

Australian Army still had rebarrelled Brens in 1990.

bruy88 He did - and a second one for all the MG fanboys

It is controversial. It would only be brave if it were true. He's blaming the tank for the problems of late war Germany, and the part he mentions specifically was fixed after the initial teething issue. It comes across as being controversial for controversy's sake, since the argument is the same as saying a race car breaks down too much. Well, given how hard they are run, you expect as much...

@@T4nkcommander Racing cars have nothing to do with it; they are not subject to mass production. The Panthers final drive was improved but was never flawless. French reports on the issue are well documented, and they could properly train the drivers and maintain the tanks in peace time. Still, the Panther wasn't a bad tank. Put in Murphy's Law here: anything that can (or even cannot !) break down will break down. Even the super-reliable Shermans broke down; why else would you design the thing to have its gear box literally screwed to the front where you can change it very quickly ? Not every US boy in the 40s was a petrol head nor did everybody have a car. Mr Smith pointed out one crucial, often overlooked aspect: you have to think about the operators. Any military hardware has to be designed for dummies. That doesn't mean a fighter pilot or electronics operator is a dummy, but a repair crew might not consist of rocket scientists either. From that point, the Panther was a nightmare. During my service, I was in a repair shop for Leopard I and Marders. I came fresh from school and had no idea of tank engines; being one of the above mentioned dummies. Nevertheless I had to fix the bloody things. Fair enough, these things were designed to be used and repaired by dummies.

@@T4nkcommander Nah it wasn't great. in top trumps its neat, but as an actual fighting vehicle that needs to be maintained and supplied it wasn't good.

Yes, but to paraphrase Guderian, the engine, and I guess by extension, the final drive are weapons. The Panther was a disaster mechanically. Yes, the German system was a mess, and it created overdesigned, overbuilt, unreliable, and unnecessary tanks like the Panther, the Tiger series, including Elephant. The fact that the tank is the result of a bad system doesn't excuse the flaws in the tank.

Because its true and the truth often hurts!

Ooooh, now that's a good question. Dare I say it, even, yes even, a battalion of Covenanters might have done, erm, something. Other than overheating that is. Or not being able to brake. Or burning out the clutch. We made 1700 in 4 mks because, well why not?

Not even remotely true. All fighting generals are clueless about logistics. They have people that care about that. Patton didn't even know where his railhead were. Montgomery tried to ford the Rhein instead of securing his supply line.

Professionals talk doctrines, which is why this video is misleading, he is not a professional.

Nah professionals talk what they are tasked to talk about. Tacticians do tactics, logisticians do logistics, and the best commanders are the ones who talk to both before making important decisions. The real skill is learning when to worry about one more than the other.

spot on. without logistics nothing happens. no one gets fed. nothing gets transported to where it needs to be.

Logistic: For commanders behind desks and politicans. Tactics: for commanders on the field.

Well, things didn't "jolly well" work there, did they? Hehe

Yeah even for a Brit that's some weapons-grade understatement.

Yes I read Tigers in the Mud the book about Otto Carius from what I understood from the book Carius did not like the JagTigers the gun and sights was misaligned often when the vehicle moved also it was huge and difficult to conceal mainly from air attack and artillery Carius also said the tigers cooling radiators on the back deck above the engine are venerable to artillery the book is worth reading it has a lot of good info from somebody who actually commanded the vehicles

Outriggers. That will fix everything.

Huh? You are agreeing with him! But you say you don't agree? How does that work? He said it was bad because the gear train isn't reliable. You said the gears aren't reliable because the Germans didn't have a specific material needed to make them strong enough. You just just proved him right.

@@fredygump5578 Because you can't blame a tank design on not having proper materials. He's information is actually quite poor. Dr Doyle wrote in one of he's books that german engineers tried to build a tiger i transmission for the panther but because of lack of proper machinery (because of lack of proper materials ) they chose a model of transmission that was easier to mass produce.I don't see how you can blame a tank design and it's designer for lacking proper materials .Also it's not the tanks fault for having poorly trained crew. Not to mention the french panthers were wrecks refurbished by AMX so the french tests as every test performed on foreign hardware has it's limitations . In Korea the Pershing was very unreliable because it was underpowered even compared to the Panther but still 3 to 4 times better than the Sherman tank as a study quoted By Zaloga in the book: "Panther Vs Sherman battle of the Bulge " states. Not to mention lack of lubricants .So many things that should have been said .

@@ivjgknight5134 He is trying to teach you something about reality: the design failed. It wasn't the appropriate design for the moment. They couldn't make it reliable enough to be effective. These things make it a failure. (Another sign that it was a failure, as said by The Chieftain, is that nobody used German tanks post war...well, I guess he said that the French tried to use Panthers for awhile, but they discovered the same reliability issues...and this was post war! They had access to every resource, and best of all, nobody was bombing them...so if it was such a great design needing a simple fix, they could easily have fixed it. But they didn't.)

@@fredygump5578 Dr Doyle said "quite reliable " when he was talking about later models of Panther tanks : Video on Chieftain channel called: WW2 at the Panzermuseum with Hilary Doyle Dec 26, 2018 . You can see figures supporting that in the book i quoted earlier by zaloga . The failed design claim is contradicted by veterans on both sides and the best tanks experts out there(not to mention you provided zero statistics and prove and zero information on battles it took part in ). Zaloga wrote in the book i mention that the Panther was clearly comparable to the Pershing and that it was better tactically than the Sherman .I'll get my books out and show you what's what . The Chieftain .He's writes worst scenario for german tanks , best scenario far allied sherman because he want's to end the death trap stigma of the sheman tank which and because of he's emotional emotional attachment.He didn't say the french test was performed on wrecks did he, not to mention like i said tanks don't usually do well in foreign tests , look at t34 , Abrams etc . Wasn't used after the war because it was a bad tank ? False the french base their post war designs like AMX-50 on german technology , suspension, engine etc.I'll give you the french historian who said that tomorrow when i look into my book collection . Even the Sherman wasn't as reliable as you think . Just to give you an example Earl W. Norris (veteran ) spent all he's time fixing M4 series tanks for the 12 armored division and he said quote: "it was nearly impossible to keep the stabilizer systems working properly and as a result very few tankers used them".But the Chieftain doesn't say negative things about the Sherman because like i said. And this is just the beginning .He said stuff like "After normandy the Tiger I was so rare that there were only 3 tiger vs us Sherman battles " .He doesn't say that tiger I production was stopped in August of 44 . So like i said poor info .I can read in five languages so there's plenty more info i have .

@@ivjgknight5134 I have an idea: why don't you give Hillary a call and tell him about this horrid injustice being perpetrated by the director of The Tank Museum? What I'm saying is, go tell someone who cares! LOL!

cause he explained well why. Drivetrain are to weak.

@@partikelsmusic yeah and poor training

His arguments supporting his point are well-reasoned and presented. He also does not make the mistake of dismissing or criticizing the tank's good points, but praises them as they deserve to be praised. Of course, one could argue it's hardly the tank's fault the training regime and standards for it's drivers was not up to the task of teaching them to drive it correctly, but he still makes an excellent point.

kan;t typ,,,, sharpenin pitchforc

Because all the comments are on David Willis' video!

And Britain did cut their loses and never bother using the thing in combat. I can think of way worse tanks than Panther. The Italian, French and Japanese tankettes were hopelessly obsolete on being built. Every problem of the Matilda I but without at least the benefits of decent armor and a rotating turret. The French Schneider and St. Chamonds were the same problem as the A7V of being nothing but a metal box on a Holt tractor chassis with minimal cross country ability and the French made a ton of them despite that flaw.

Indeed it takes a ship logistic guy to come up with such an idea. As mentioned before we see in Japan, Italy, France and other places failed tank designs by the dozen.