Five Things About the Panther with The Chieftain - World of Tanks 

To be honest, it's hard to think anyone anywhere could create a wunderwaffe tank so effective. That hypothetical tank needed sort of a John Wayne effectiveness - three Indians rolling dead in a ditch for every single shot fired plus no more than a flesh wound for every five hundreds shot fired by the other side

@@ulissedazante5748 Yeah, it was near impossible. But winning a war of numbers was simply impossible.

@@ulissedazante5748 that's why its called desperation which birthed things like Maus, or Ratte's land battleship concept. Most alternative games featuring Alt WW2 where German is winning usually features some kind of Wunderwaffen that is several generations ahead of Allies like Wolfenstein.

@kevin barker Operation Valkyrie was too little too late. Operation Cobra and Bagration were days away. It would have only lead to the complete collapse as it would have tied up the replacement army one way or another.

@kevin barker well, the Stauffenberg Gruppe did not plan to beg for peace with everyone, only with the USA, the UK and France, while they intended to continue their war of annihilation (Vernichtungskrieg, War of annihilation directed vs the population) in the east and continue the Holocaust etc. they were just fascists who got cold feet

Much prefer it on his channel.....I ain't subbing to any wargaming channel

One would think the German manpower shortage would've motivated them to ditch the "bow gunner/assistant driver" position and take their tanks down to 4-man crews! (Extra fuel for extra vehicles would still be a problem though...)

Way back on the IMDB discussion board (for either Fury or BoB), somebody pointed out that IF Germany made more Pz IVs and equipped more divisions and regiments, it would multiply the problems of logistical support, fuel and manpower that Germany had at the time==which was a brilliant observation that had never occurred to me until the other guy posted it.

@@folgore1 in the German tanks, the bow gunner was also the radio operator, monitoring the frequencies and maintaining the radios, removing the funker means that someone else has to do the job, usually that moves to the commander, but mounting the radio equipment requires space so either you remove equipment, or change the turret to fit the radios (which were not small in the German's case), adding mass to an already heavy vehicle

Lets answer the question about alternatives. It sounds like we all agree about fuel after October 1941. And it sounds like most agree about experienced crews becoming an issue somewhere between 1941 and 1943. So the question is, what does an army require prior to Operation Barbarossa to get to Moscow before October. Or perhaps the Caucuses (also requiring a bridge plan). What gun kills anything the opposition has in 1941, 1942, and 1943 and with standoff. Answer, 75L43. Though the 50L 60 would suffice in 1941. So what does an army need to produce so the army can use fire and maneuver with these guns by june 1941 to get where it wants to go without armored impediments creating psychological hesitancy to maneuver? Also, an army can start with the 50mm and upgun to the 75mm. Answer: panzer IV. If no other tracked vehicle crosses the boarder in June 1941 but Panzer IVs (say around 3000) does the army gets to moscow by October? Or the Caucuses (if a bridge plan is also produced)? No other tracked vehicle in this hypothetical. Just 3000 Panzer IVs. Perhaps make this number align closer to their Panzer BN ratios of IIIs to IVs if youd like. 2000 Panzer IV with 50L60 and 1000 Panzer IV with low velocity 75 L24. Does that army make it to Moscow by October? Now give all those Panzers 75 L43. How about then? Or do 2000 Panzer IVs with 75 L43 and 1000 Stug IV with low velocity 75 L24. Or use Stug III for Stug IV. Please run those numbers and we might find a solution for fuel and experienced crews. And we might find an army can get to moscow by October. Or the Caucuses ( with a bridge plan). And since we all know that fuel is an issue after October 1941, a smart army does something about that….unless another reason explains that “failure to close.”

There was a similar problem with the Luftwaffe. Essentially what was the point of making X number of aircraft when they couldn't train crews fast enough to fly them.

For me, it's only around the campfire with one of my buddies.

Yeah I'm just itching for a chance to have this topic somehow come up at the dinner table now, so i can flex on em with these well articulated points about the Panther tanks.

Better than religious disputes about the virus of unknown origin.

That would be great at xmas for me but I'll have to listen about rubbish iv no interest in ah well

"Ach nein, der Panzerkampfwagen brennt"

Agree, giving actual data source and statistic about the reliability of the panther would be better. If later model of the panther's breakdown rate was really that horrendous, then there would be really no point for the allied or the soviet to address this tank since they would be all laying dead on the ground functioning as glorified pillboxes.

@@panzertank1985 it’s always a mixed bag of conflicting stories with the Panther, and even the Tiger. Towards the end of the war, as the fighting got more desperate, the Germans definitely used some panthers as glorified pillboxes. There are plenty of photos of panthers and such being buried in the middle of the road in a town, allowing the turret to stay above ground and fire. People like to use this as proof the Panther was garbage, but the soviets did this too. In a defensive situation, it is better to have a static but well concealed AT emplacement, plus the armor. Also, the Americans, British, soviets, and even the Swedish (iirc) did extensive testing with panthers after the war, and many late war overhauls to mid war designs were made with combating the Panther in mind. Whether the allies were simply afraid of a tank that wasn’t as good as they thought, or whether their concerns held merit is something I really want to dive into.

This is a WoT video, it’s not meant to be full of references and citations. Look up some of the stuff from Hilary Doyle.

Hehehe

Yes! Thats the fighting Spirit! Go on!

I'm not above plagiarizing Chieftain's info to give a dinner companion a metaphorical smack-down to make everyone think I am a font of all knowledge.

LOL!

Well, there is a solution for the lack of tank crews. Since Germany provide their allies with so little tank for example Italy. In the battle of Stalingrad, the Italian sector only had 10 to 12 german tanks I think. That is why the Italians had to use their sh**ty tanks to fight. For the fuel part, I can't find a solution yet.

How did you feel about your prospects living in, working on and potentially fighting in an M60? I don't have an opinion myself. I'm just curious.

I think it's already a series.

Yes, the reason why there was no need to develop Panther II was new to me.

Yeah...

The night vision is interesting. And also the "cost" part since that argument is thrown alot. Now we have actual data to back it up.

It's a cat

Panther 2. Saw it on WoT but knew almost nothing of it. Now I know only one hull was ever built, making it barely more productive than the Valiant...

Decent night vision scopes with resolution, that modern person would call "decent" showed up just pretty close to year 1990-2000. Back in WWII i fear you would just see some unclear dot way over there which could be anything from house, rock or tree to the tank.

@@tommykirk3403 you might have 5000 miles between decokes, where you pulled the heads and scraped out the exhaust ports. I’ve chiselled carbon out of the old cement mixer engines. They would build it up until they stopped running :o

@@tommykirk3403 Kind of used to it with the off-roading where brake pads lasted about 200 miles. It was 3 hours fixing for every hour raced. Engine oil wasn’t so bad :o)

Did you knock out loads of T72s because that wasn't really a fight the Abraham's tank is a fuell guzzler the German leopards were better the Abraham's never did great in real war games competitions

The Panthers has 51cm of suspension travel, its ground clearance is much bigger so!

Well, the IS-3's were junk. They were built to look good. In reality, just driving around they broke down, the front armor wields would crack, etc. Thats why they would ship them all out to the east to guard the borders of China to rust, where appearance was more important than performance.

Funny how the Panther is bigger than a Sherman but yet looks more cramped inside than a Sherman. Guess the larger gun on the Panther is the reason for this.

Quality was NOT the only solution they had. They could also build a heavy tank and use it like a medium tank, and build a superheavy and call it a heavy. Its an option where you ignore both quantity and quality, and just make things bigger ignoring mobility issues and fuel consumption that lower the quality of a tank. And that is what they did.

@@Paciat I was referring to his literal statement at 7:00 get off your high horse my dude

It's exhausting to keep saying "unfortunately-for-the-Germans" as you have to say that whole phrase... quite a lot.

Depends on which side you're on

@@Paciat That is not what they did. The Panther was very much a medium tank by its design and the Tiger a traditional heavy tank by design. The Tiger wasnt designed for how it was actually used mainly during the war as a firefighter tank. And if we look at soviet tanks of the time german ones werent more heavy or used differently. Remember the benchmark for german tanks was never the western allies and always the soviet union. Both the soviets and the germans had a tank race going on while the western allies were just there and developed alongside it.

The green screen is acceptable but the composite is hardly good enough to make the scene look real.

I've always wondered about the switch to the Tiger II. The original Tiger was a well proven design, more mobile good enough in most situations. Still the whole point is moot as Germany was going to lose no matter what at that point. But after all these are just fun things to speculate about with friends also interested in tanks.

The Germans had fuel problems from the start of the war. Hence the desire to control the Caucasus oilfields which was a partial impetus behind the invasion of the USSR. Sticking with IIIs and IVs wouldn’t have changed this situation.

@@CmdrTobs I'm trying to make the point that fuel was always an issue for the Germans, the later gas guzzling tank designs just made it worse. Even sticking with only IIIs and IVs would not have eliminated the fuel issue.

The Tiger I was faster across country than a Panzer III and with a much lower ground pressure.. What were you saying about mobility?

No don't think so if we follow the logic and the purpose of introducing Tiger and other heavy tanks. The purpose of Tiger is to handle enemy heavy tanks such as Churchill or IS or KV, and it is designed to handle multiples of them (the quality mantra). It also supposedly should handle more Mediums when needed compared to a single Panther. This is just an example but, if Panther is supposed to handle 2 or 3 Sherman or T-34, a Tiger is supposed to handle 4-5 Sherman. No data at production cost but it probably will not even reach 2 times the cost of Panther, while supposedly able to handle more tanks than a Panther, while also keeping 5-man configurations. And in a way, while Hitler does meddle, it probably does not affect it that much and its not like its illogical too on what he's thinking. Even American are using M6 to sell war bonds even though they never use it, and people understand size easier.

When you think it through, the Germans didn't actually produce that many types of tank. Throughout the entire Nazi era there was the Pz I -VIB, so seven German types, plus the Pz 35t and Pz 38t. That's nine types in total, and seeing as both the Pz I and Pz 35t were to all intents and purposes out of production before the war actually began, really just seven. Further; at any given point in time they generally had, at most, five (and more usually four) distinct chassis under production. The difference is the huge variety of converted and captured equipment they fielded, which makes what their factories were actually doing look far more of a mess than it really was. In the same time frame, the US army manufactured the M1 combat car, M2, M3, M5 and M24 light tanks, the M2, M3 and M4 Medium tanks and the M6 and M26 heavy tanks, so ten types. There was also the M7 and M27 medium tanks, but they were really prototypes similar to Panther II and Neubaufahrzeug. Similarly, from 1934 through to 1945 the Soviets built the T-37, T-38, T-40, T-60 and T-70 light tanks, the BT-5 and BT-7, the T-50 infantry tank, the T-28, T-34 and T-44 medium tanks and the T-35, KV series and IS series of heavy tanks. Lets not even get started on the British. They built literally dozens of different models of tank in this period. However, it is fair to say that once they got settled into production in earnest, the Americans and Soviets produced fewer types of chassis at any one time (typically just three) than the Germans whereas the British were in more or less the same ball park.

@@ArchusKanzaki , thanks for the reply. Really helpful.

Appreciate the reply. Thanks much.

@@ArchusKanzaki Steven Zaloga had put out production estimates for Panthers, Tigers and what not in his book "Armored Champion," giving ranges like: - Panther without gun, radio or other components coming in at 117,100 Reichsmarks, on up to 176,100 Reichsmarks (with everything?); - Tiger at 250,800 Reichsmarks (without gun, radio or other components), on up to 299,800 Reichsmarks (with everything?); - and just 321,500 Reichsmarks for Tiger II. So seems possibly a Tiger was like around 1.7X the price of a Panther. The Panzer IV Ausf. G was estimated at 125,000 Reichsmarks. Zaloga cites in a note for this table on pricing: Vincent Bernard "Panzer Produktion," Blindees & Batailles, 2012 He also noted that prices with Panthers at least could vary by factory. Otherwise, seems some view as a myth that a Tiger was supposed to handle 5 Shermans. I can't say - maybe on defense, with sufficient number, under conditions that hindered combined arms for Americans (bad weather/visibility, or built up urban environments, impacting air support and field artillery) that could have been the case. But not sure it was a given.

Yes, plus that the allied advanced weapon programs stayed rolling after the war so remained in a level of secrecy. It's much harder to persecute a german engineer for leaking info on an abandoned third Reich weapon system, providing he did not continued working on it for an allied nation after the war, then an allied engineer talking out a system that started in the war and still was developed.And this also goes for some journalist or historian uncovering and publishing it, or someone handing over documents. And of course people generally ignore the fact that the nuclear bomb pretty much trumps anything else in most advanced technology developed in WW2. We have a plane that goes two times faster, something that sees in the night ten times better. Well the Manhattan project had created something that exploded 200-400 times stronger than anything that was around before and announced according to some historic conventionce the the entering of a new age. From the machine age to atomic age.

A sane addition to our forum. Thanks for it.

The US split the atom....just sayin...

High velocity guns like 75 and 88mm were generation ahead of any other. And they had jet planes year ahead of anyone else. But their electronics and organization of mass production were lagging behind.

The USA developed proximity fuse which was a true super weapon. And the USA put this weapon into the field both for AA guns and artillery.

I’m still like the theory tbh. Yes they had man power shortages but they also had huge skills shortages. Germany was not a motorised society like Britain and especially America, they did not have a population of ready trained mechanics and drivers to draw on. The Panther was difficult to drive and quite a bit more complicated than PzIVs. The Soviet Union had similar problems and produced easy to make, repair and drive tanks. Anyhoo, it was all for naught as the allies had far better equipment on the whole and far better tanks being introduced at wars end.

@@devensega far better tanks? Which was?

@@AKUJIVALDO Britain alone had the Comet and then the Centurion, Americas late war Sherman's were excellent and had introduced a heavy tank at wars end. No matter what Germany did they weren't getting beyond 1945, they'd lost the war by 1943 anyway.

@@devensega Comet wit its flat frontal armour? Centurion who had no chance to fight with German Panzers? US Heavy who was like Centurion? Shermans were excellent? Which model, what availability of these "excellent" models were in front line service against Germany? Oh my, someone is high on ineffective propaganda claims... Germany fought until 1945 and they lost on 1945. You can make claim that Germany lost on 1943 or 1939 or 1933...fact remains that Germany lost on 1945.

@@AKUJIVALDO The War was lost by 1943, the Germans kept fighting after this point. The Germans had no tanks to follow Tiger 2 (they had plans but no prototypes) while the Allies were introducing T26, Centurion and IS3

Nick's been tilting at that windmill for years...

Their is already like an hour long video lecture he made

1. "The Sherman was the best tank of the war" 2. "The Sherman was the worst tank of the war" 3. "The Sherman was the most reliable tank of the war" 4. "The Sherman had the best survivalability of any tank of the war" 5. "The Sherman had the worst survivalability of any tank of the war" 6. "The Sherman had a positive kill ratio against the Tiger and Panther - by far" 7. "The Sherman was fuel effective" 8. "The Sherman was never meant to fight other tanks" 9. "The Sherman was the best infantry support tank of the war" 10. The Sherman was faster, more agile and had better off-road mobility than the Tiger and Panther" 11. "The 76 mm armed Sherman was a Tiger killer - especially from the front - the 76 mm was the equal of the Tiger's gun" 12. "The Sherman had a much better HE round than the Panther" 13. "It is unfair to compare the Sherman with the much heavier Panther" 14. "The Sherman could undertake road marches the Tigers and Panthers could only dream of" 15. "The Sherman was much easier to maintain than the Panther" 16. "The Sherman was much cheaper than a Panther" 17. "The Sherman was much easier to produce than a Panther - German industry was hopelessly inefficient" 18. "The 75 mm armed Sherman had no problem dealing with Panthers and Tigers" 19. "The 75 mm was the best tank gun in the war - the long 75 and 88mm guns in German tanks were overkill" 20. "The Sherman almost never broke down" 21. "The gun stabilizer was a HUGE advantage" 22. "The faster turret traverse of the Sherman was a HUGE advantage - under all conditions and ranges 23. "The one who fires first will ALWAYS win - and that's the Sherman" 24. "The Sherman couldn't be larger and heavier to due to cranes etc." 25. "It was easy to outflank German tanks" 26. "The optics in the Sherman were much better" 27. "The gunner and commander in the Panther were practically blind compared to the Sherman" 28. "Ronson" was a post war invention" 29 "Sherman crews absolutely loved their tank - German crews and Generals hated their own." 30 " The Sherman would always come in packs of 5 - the Panther and Tiger would always turn up alone". 31 "The Sherman was much more advanced than German tanks". 32 "The Sherman had almost as good armor as the Tiger, despite weighing 25 ton less" 33 "The US Army had a long and difficult supply line - the Germans a short and sweet one.

Hallo Hilary... I may have used you as a source....

couldn't find it ,Any link please?

The reality is "Germany was never as good as has been made out"

That's simply night vision, nothing to do with goggles

You are correct! The average Joe Public (and some combat arms officers) does not consider the impact of logistics on the battlefield!

The horse-drawn supply train was for the infantry divisions. Panzer divisions used motorised supply, at least as long as they could still equip them.

And what's wrong with horses?

The 109 was better than any fighter of it's time when introduced. It continued being competitive throughout the war with improved designs.

Most German aircraft engines had design and manufacturing flaws that limited their usefulness in combat. There's plenty of German reports where 50% of their bombers and fighters sent off on missions had to return to base shortly after taking off due to engine problems.

I don't recall when the IR Panthers were deployed, but a unit of refurbished Lees with IR searchlight turrets for AA purposes had been secretly deployed to cover the Franco-German border area for the late '44 push

The night vision itself is infared detection. Infrared is basically a torch that shoots out light that the human eye can't see. So to see the infrared you need infared detection. If you using nightvision against someone else nightvision you see them as clear as day as if they have a giant torch on their head. The equipment they proably reffering to is the T3 Carbine, which is M2 rifle with a nightvision scope. They using it in the pacific, but I don't they they used it in the Europe.

I caught that too. This seemed like a pitch for Panthers, is there a premium coming out on WG? My biggest thing was him saying the reliability issue was a myth but only mentioning that it was just as hard to fix as it was on any other tank. Ok, but that has nothing to do with it breaking MORE than it does on other tanks.

@@timothyhouse1622 since early 1944 Panthers, Tigers and Panzer IVs achieved almost the same combat ready rates. A statistic after the battle of the bulge showed, that more Panzer IVs had brake downs related to their final drives than Panthers.

maybe. All tanks had issues with different engine and suspension parts that required replacement and repair. People say the Sherman was a more reliable vehicle, when in reality it was simply easy to work on, in comparison to tanks like the Pather.

@@uni4rm do you know why Sherman transmission broke on less frequent rate but could be repaired/replaced fast? It was a simple double herringbone gear with the final drives. Which reduced to stress on individual teeth which is a big thing when there harden alloys are drying up.

Then why do Panthers, Centurions and M26 Pershing all used double reduction gears with straight cut gears as final drives? And why does the Panther and Centurion ARVs had no issues towing tanks above their weight class? And do you really believe a radial engine, 30 Zylinder Chrysler multibank engine or a twin diesel of the m4 are easier to maintain than regular v12 engines? Didnt you listen to the video, it already said, that the Panthers final drives are as easy to replace as on other tanks! Panthers achieved the same combat ready rates as Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs since early 1944.

I am sorry I need to add that a water molecule is weak but together .....Reminds you of T-34`s and Shemans?

It was utterly outclassed. Riveted, 47mm gun armed vehicle going up against Grants and Shermans.

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for the response. I understand that, but was it a particularly difficult tank to escape from? Would it pass the "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire" test. I have not found a single photo of the interior of the tank, but I can't imagine it was very ergonomic just looking from the outside.

I've not seen an intact one inside, really. However, the hull hatch is on the sides, a little behind the crew, so I can't imagine getting out would be massively easy.

Allowed target identification out to 400m in total darkness.

@hognoxious Well I don't know that!

Lanchester Square Law didnt work in WWI. It was useful when troops had muskets and didnt care about camouflage. I WWII USA assumed that US army Sherman is (as I remember from Chieftains "tank myths" video) is 3,7 times more effective than the Wehrmacht Panther. Also US tank destroyers that that 3:1 kill ratio were considered "a successful failure" because they were less useful at other things than a proper tank.

Panzer IV had reached the end of the line when it came to how room there was for upgrading it. The later models were already pushing the design past its limits. Upgrading it in any meaningful way would have required redesigning the entire thing, and at that point you might as well design a brand new tank.

Yes. the PzKpW II, III and IV all used a Bosch AL/ZMA Inertial starter. The Tigers and Panther used a Bosch AL/ZMJ. Some parts were interchangeable between the two models but they otherwise differed in the input gear, train and clutching mechanisms. According to the operator's manuals, this was the way that a cold engine always had to be started. A YT video is pointless as it won't show the sequence of steps performed by the driver. In the 1944 Tiger driver's handbook that I own, it lists 7 steps even before the wireless operator and loader even move the handle (and another two between winding it up and winding it down again).

The fact that the Germans felt it was appropriate to give an award to someone for getting their vehicle to 4,000km is probably telling in itself...

@@TheChieftainsHatch Yes, but still it says: The engine and the transmission could achieve that. This matter is true on every single tank. [And from a tank what had a problem with the final drive and could achieve the same range without transmission/engine/final drive replace like a sherman, ofc I would gave him a medal]

@@TheChieftainsHatch And sorry I forgot the mention it in my previous comment: As I said in my first comment, the vehicle crew had no or little bit experience with the tank driving/using. This matter increase the chance to give a medal/attention for somebody who achieve those km with that kind of tank.