Rare film from the "German war files" pack Uploaded only for research and informational purposes only. legal: I do not own any right on this film, nor I will keep it public if any copyright claim will be raised.
S Van Gaal modern humans are dumb asswipes who are unable to watch this kind of programmes because it is not fast enough and it lacks this false drama witch all the modern shows has it is sad thing
Back in 1991 I worked with a machinist named Otto Shaefer. He was a German tank gunner in WWII. In 1944 he was in a Panther in France when he got taken out. He thinks it was from rocket firing fighter planes. His tank caught on fire when it was hit. He told me he got one of the crewmen out. He said he fell into snow and was captured by Americans that saved his life. He said he was in a hospital for a long time. Otto had terrible burn scars on his neck and arms. He told me his biggest fear was planes not allied tanks.
+Jim Adams It would be fascinating to speak with him regarding life in the German army in those days, especially the defensive last year or so, if he would even speak in detail about it. Even though they were the "enemy" in those days, I give respect to those who would fight on, endure and survive those brutal times. The German equipment just seemed superior in most aspects including on the ground and in the air and their equipment has interested me since I began reading about it some 45+ years ago. Their aircraft were a generation ahead and even when under extreme pressure the developments were amazing. Their conventional propeller driven aircraft like the Ta-152 and others are more than impressive.
+lamwen03 I have one it's pretty good ...SOLDATEN secret recording declassified transcripts of captured germans...it's a good bathroom reader but it's incredibly brutal
"He told me his biggest fear was planes not allied tanks". Concur. That's universally acknowledged and reaffirmed in pretty much every veteran account I've read. Understandable when you consider the, 1. complete air supremacy of the Allies achieved in the West prior to the invasion, 2. the sheer numbers of fighter bombers and bombers available all of which (including RAF BC) were placed at the command of Eisenhower for the duration, and 3. the availability and hitting power of in the particular, rocket equipped Typhoons, P-47s and P-51s.
Slaxok The equipment wasn't it, it was the training and the experience this man had, American's plan to deal with germany was Overrun the shit out of them
The gentleman may have a boring voice.. but this was probably the most objective, unbiased view of the tank I have ever seen. An excellent and well researched commentary, and a series I intend to look into in more detail. I would rather listen to a boring voice who knows what he is talking about than a commentator who doesn't have a clue.. Superb.
You are a complete dimwit if you think a cultured voice is boring. What do you want some over the top Wrestling like moron shouting the odds and looking and soundinglike a complete idiot. Probably so in your case , a real history buff aren't you .
Well written, well presented, well researched and immensely entertaining and informative. The very epitome of what RU-vid SHOULD be offering us all the time.
I gotta wonder.... I find myself, ( short of the Jewish question) agreeing with Adolph Hitler... Communism is the political manifestation of EVIL! It ALWAYS requires a mindless Tyrant!!
+Bicu Alexandru Because he was incompetent. If German generals had followed his orders it would have shortened the war by a year. Instead they routinely ignored his inane instructions allowing Germany to hobble on a bit longer.How incompetent? Do you thing the Soviet Union would have surrendered if Moscow was captured - even though the Soviets had evacuated all of their vital industry beyond the Urals? Well, Hitler didn't before invading the Soviet Union. He expected to have to capture all of the Soviet Union west of the Urals to hold it. Why was that incompetent? Because he expected to capture it all BEFORE THE FIRST SNOWS FELL. He thought it would be such a cake walk that there would be no need to do something silly like making winter clothing for the troops. When his idiotic plan proved to be the amphetamine-fueled fantasy it was, he was forced to go begging to the German people to provide winter hats, coats, gloves, and boots for the soldiers. How pitiful.
don't forget that had Hitler not held back at Dunkirk against the advise of his generals, the war would have ended before Operation Barbarossa. The whole British Expeditionary Force was trapped there. Had he not held off, that was the ball game in the west in 1940.
Bryan Moore Preventing an evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk wouldn't have remotely ended the war. The BEF was the expeditionary force. It wasn't the entire British regular army though it was a sizable chunk of it, and it did have all of their tanks. There were some regular troops left, a lot of reservists and the home guard. Blitzkreig doesn't work against dug-in defense-in-depth such as what the Germans attacked into at Kursk, and that's what the British had prepared for the Germans. There were only a few possible landing beaches, so the British could plan ahead, and had months to get ready. But the ground troops were irrelevant because to attack Britain Hitler first had to defeat the RAF and the superb radar-based interception network, and then they had to defeat the Royal Navy even though the Germans never ever got the better of an exchange with the Brits. Then they had to get their cobbled together invasion...fleet, I guess you could call it a fleet... across the English channel without disaster even though all the Brits would have to do is drive destroyers through the landing barges to wreak havoc.Then they had to stage an amphibious attack with no operational experience in staging amphibious attacks. To find out what happens when an army tries an amphibious attack for the first time, check out the Dieppe raid. So no, there was no way that Hitler was knocking Britain out of the war.
Jeffrey Fisher I think you're missing the point. When people put forth the opinion that wiping out the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk would have ended the war, they don't mean to imply the British would have been defeated. They're suggesting that the British would have participated in an armistice which is what the Germans wanted. This is a reasonable assumption.
It's actually only composed of Allied and German propaganda footage, so it's acutally quite literally Hollywood bullshit, except for German material, which would be Babelsberg bullshit.
My uncle was a M-18 Tank Destroyer gunner. Heard many stories on the Panthers lethal capabilities. He ran the tip of the spear to Bastogne with the 3rd Army. I listened to him and his driver tell the story of knocking out 3 Tigers in about 3 minutes. Great video on the Panther.
The American talks everytime they destroyed Tiger tanks but at the end it was only a Panzer IV, her guns was not strong enough to destroy German heavy tanks
The Panther's Achilles Heel was its transmission. It was designed for a much lighter tank and often the gears were stripped trying to propel a much heavier tank at needed to meet operational requirements.
As a modeler and diorama builder I thank you for the narration in this film. When it comes to markings, camouflage, area of battle. type of vehicles, this footage is indispensable.... excellent stuff.
Actually the Panther was a extremely effective Tank.Only slightly more expensive than Mark IV.It was supposed to replace Mark IV completely but in war time that was difficult. Whenever the bombing of industry stopped German managed to produce 600+ of them a month. Initial batch of 250 had some mechanical problems but so did the T-34.Those were quickly ironed out.And it became a superb tank.Even more feared than Tiger I. As one historian points out.Panther formed the basis for all post war tanks
The German Panther tank is one hell of a beauty. I think it's on par with the Stug III looks-wise. Both tanks were highly efficient, hate to be in a Sherman or T34 encountering either of them.
@@RR18475 source " totally makes the Panther useless and inferior to Allied tanks lol.." is you. " Sherman sucks compared to the Panther? " Again you are comparing Sherman tanks to much heavier tanks like the Panther, .Of course had much heavier armor and cannon than the lighter Sherman. Now grow some skin read some more without getting butthurt.
The basic reason the American military came up with the erroneous idea that tanks need not be able to fight enemy tanks is that they got into the war-planning game late and also had a lot of deadwood in the officer corps that was slowly eliminated as the N. African campaign went on. Due to lack of equipment Germany only began large military maneuvers in 1937, though Guderian worked with the Soviets in southern Russia years before that developing tank doctrine, which seems to have come from Percy Hobart, Liddel-Hart and JFC Fuller, all Brits. The U.S. began maneuvers in 1940. The first one was in the Sacramento, CA area, then they maneuvered in Louisiana. Finally, due to the Carolinas being like Europe terrain wise they were running a giant maneuver there at the time of Pearl Harbor. Other things the U.S. missed out on prewar were the concept of combined arms, which Patton figured out and used to move as fast as he did across Europe. His second tank in each column had a fighter pilot (9th AF) which called in the P-47s to remove bottlenecks much as the Germans used Stukas early in the war. They also did not envision the need for a long-range fighter. Montgomery shortstopped a scandal in Britain concerning Allied tank deficiencies by averring that the tanks were fine, while in actually they were deathtraps versus German armor and something should have been done. After WW II the U.S. continued to produce inferior outgunned tanks versus the Soviet T-54, 55, 64, and 72. The M-26, 46, 47 and 60, the Patton series, would almost certainly have proved mediocre or inferior had the bell rung during the cold war. The U.S. and West Germany tried to cooperate and come up with a superior tank in the sixties, but due to escalating costs they dropped the idea. Each country then tried on their own to come up with a top-level tank. The first Leopard and the early Abrams were the results. The Leopard II differs significantly from the I and the Abrams has been upgraded several times. Meanwhile the Soviets were making tanks 2/3 the weight of Allied tanks and putting huge guns on them, guns that fired rockets, some guided. They tried all manner of experiments. The Brits contributed by coming up with sophisticated armor, Chobham, etc. Other countries have improved on that as have the Brits. Tanks now have skirts, explosive armor all around and trellises to prematurely detonate and defeat shaped charge weapons. Both the Brits and the Germans were experimenting with sabot rounds near the end of WW II. The U.S. uses spent uranium for its hardness for its darts, while other countries either use that or tungsten. There's a problem with radiation from the spent uranium which may possibly turn into a scandal someday if not already. When the U.S. Abrams and the British tanks squared off against Saddam Hussein's T-72s and older tanks in '91, the result was a slaughter, but who knows what might have happened with the same tanks with Soviet crews manning non-export versions of the T-72 with more modern ammunition in circumstances unlike the desert where everything was wide open? I understand that the ammo expended by the Iraqis had been discontinued for use by the Soviets in '72. Tanks in their current form are basically obsolete anyway, so the U.S. military is working hard to come up with cost-effective alternatives. Way back in the sixties during a NATO exercise helicopters popping up over the hills scored a 16 to 1 kill ratio over the tanks in the valleys, and in those days and now a helicopter can be manufactured for less than the cost of a tank. Hellfires and other missiles can wipe out a lot of tanks, as cluster bombs also can. A single cluster bomb dropped from an A-10 on an Iraqi tank battalion destroyed half of it, approximately 16 tanks.
+Sabra S I don't know were you got your info from, but the first US tank division was during WW1, commanded by Major George S Patton, from then on the USA included an all tank division within it's Army, the idea of using tanks as a separate fighting force instead of just in a supporting role for the infantry rests with Patton, he convinced his commanders that this would work to cut through the German trenches in WW1, there by surrounding them and cutting them off, it worked so well that Patton was given the job of running a tank school after the war, the first US tanks were Renault light tanks, by the 1930s they had designed there own, tank numbers were small at first but they had them, like the rest of the US military during the interim war years, the US military began ordering the 1st Sherman tanks from Chrysler Corp in 38, the idea that the US didn't have any war supplies or technology before 1941 is crap, by 1939 the US knew war was coming, it had the technology and was building it, it was just a matter of numbers, this is why when the USA entered the war in 41 it made such a difference for the allies, because not only did the US have the technology it also had the industrial capability to produce war supplies in mass numbers, from 1942 to the end of the war the USA shipped 8000 Sherman tanks to Russia alone under the lend lease program, by 1942 the USA had finished building 4 more new Battle ships, and 2 more new Aircraft carries, if the US had begun building these after 41 they would not have been finished until the war was over,
The Tiger II had a psi of 15.2 pounds per square inch. The Panther had a ground pressure of 10.6. The Tiger II required a separate set of tracks to use, just like the Tiger I (and unlike the Panther). It was very good at destroying roads for following vehicles. Shermans had from 10 to 15 lbs ground pressure---depending on the version. Most were at 13 pounds. They were much easier to tow out of bogs than Tiger IIs. T-34s had 9 psi ground pressure and a power/weight ratio approaching triple the T2
If you ask any tank crew on all sides during the war which tank they would have wanted to go into battle with and it would be the Panther or Tiger. That says it all.
I'd easily take the Sherman or the kv before the tiger or panther......atleast they would make it to the fight. And if they do break down or take damage they are far easier to repair.
Curiously, I'd take the tiger or panther. If they DO make it to the fight they will kick ass. And fortunately, they might not make it to the fight ...which greatly increases the chance that me and my crew will survive. :)
Yeah. It barely got opposed considering the scale of the landings. If they hadn’t wasted the Luftwaffe in the preceding months it would have been a different story; Panzer divisions moving more freely with fighter cover. Would have taken way longer🤷♂️
Towards the end of the war the Germans began to prototype a new Panther tank model which mounted an 88mm gun possibly designated the Panther II. However, the war ended before it could enter production. I believe one prototype was brought to the United States after the war.
Thank you very much for creating such documentaries. As a small child during WW 2, I found all the news on the war fronts so incomplete. And John Wayne movies were worst than nothing - just awful! Thanks again - merle
Spasibo Bol'shoe, Andriucha. S udovol'stviem (Thank you very much, Andriucha. It is my pleasure) ;) I fully agree with you, that in the West, due to Cold War prejudices, wrongly many people consider all Soviet human losses as military ones, when in fact the vaste majority were defenceless civilans. It is time to correct that wrong impression. It is good to find people like you too :)
the panther was in the early models was just as fast as the T34, had better blindale, had a better gun that could destroy the t34 at distances that t34 could not do better engine, the only drawback was that it was larger it is why it is the best tank, for its balance of almost everything, had many mechanical defects for his hasty departure for the offensive of Kursk
This movie mentions that on western front only Sherman Firefly could knock Panther frontal armour, but I think M36 tank destroyer could do so too. Also as war progressed steel used in those tanks were becoming of increasingly low quality: it was hard but brittle, and a hit could result in spalling and killing of crew without penetration of armour plate. Panther was also only 1,2 ton lighter than IS-2, any other country would probably call it a heavy tank..
The pershings sent to europe were part of an evaluation programme of the tank. They were inferior because they were untested. They did the same with the T26E1-1 (prototype M26 fitted with the T26E4 'Super' Pershing gun), that got sent to Europe as well for field testing. It was part of the way of the USA of testing new tanks, half of them 'synthetically tested in the US, the other half sent to the front for field testing. Also, imagine the shock the allies when they saw the IS-3 in 1945.
Plans were made for two versions but never left the drawing board. The only PZ V chassis that carried the 88 was the Jagdpanther you mentioned yourself.
The Panther was close to the perfect tanks, sans two things: first, since it was rushed into service, some had unreliable engines. The T34s were less reliable, but there were more of them, so tank crew with disable tanks could wait for the rear units to roll by and grab a new tank. Not German crews though. But then again, why should you make expensive, reliable engines that will not last longer than the average tank in combat. Second, the interleaved, overlapped road wheels. These have their advantages: better weight distribution and add protection. However, they can be clogged with mud and soil; and in freezing weather, wet mud jam the road wheels. Also, they are more time consuming to replace and maintain.
+Xuan Vinh To Well to Russian, even today, maintainability, a ability to use, maintain and repair their weapons is the highest priority. Keep in mind that most Russian soldiers before the war were uneducated peasants or factory workers, a lot of them could not even read. Every weapon system that was intended to be used in large numbers had to be as simple and reliable or replacable as possible. Germans wanted to create the best possible tank at the moment and one that would keep them in the lead until they won the war. No matter what problems the crews and maintenance personnel had. After all, they were the "uber" race and their "will to win" will be enough to overcome every battle field condition.
Nathan Peterson it's true, but there were so many of them that Soviet crew could simply dismount, grab a new tank as the rear unit roll past them and rejoin the majn force. Soviet tanks were inferior in ease of maintenance to say, the US M4. They called it the tanks that never breaks down.
Giap Vrana Sub-par to British and American vehicles. The transmission was often too delicate for sustained road marches. The suspension, though improved cross country performance, was complex to repair and a waste of space inside the tank.
Though the T-34 has been labeled the top tank in WW II, I doubt that it was. A T-34/85 manufactured in late 1945, captured in Korea and tested at Aberdeen showed some interesting facets. For example, the transmission had no synchronization, so the drivers used what can be described as crash shifting, which resulted in about a half cup of metal lying in the bottom of the transmission case, little pieces sheared off the gears in less than 500 miles of travel. Another interesting thing was that the turret had no basket, i.e., turret bottom. This meant that the gunner, loader and commander were standing on the bottom of the tank and stepping on spent brass and whatever else was on the tank floor when the turret rotated. Soviet battle doctrine had the KV-1 penetrating enemy lines with the T-34's role to pour through and disrupt the enemy's rear. They must have been surprised when the weaker-armored T-34 had no problem penetrating German lines. After the Germans had Panthers and Tigers in the field in numbers, the T-34 with its 85mm gun was considerably outgunned. The tank's two superiorities in my opinion were its ease of manufacture and its wide tracks, which the Germans acknowledged gave it better maneuverability than that of their armor.
This begs the question, "Didn't the Russian drivers know about double clutching?" Or did the T34 have a clutch like a truck? I think I remember that exact tank on Raritan Rd in APG, but don't remember anything about shifting or clutch pedals.
Hi Sabra, you are right in your comments; if you compare tank for tank, Germans made the best tank but it was so expensive in resources, time, material, hard to maintain, etc... that it was eventually defeated by numbers, failures etc... When you look at a weapon system, studies look at the how much "metal you can put on the road", each design is a compromise. The T-34 was easy to build, a lot of cast parts, little machining, no "options", could be built by unskilled labor, etc... and also, it was built for the Russian weather (wide tracks, manageable weight, etc... It was "roughly" built but the Soviet doctrine endorsed "the numbers" and Stalin cared little about men, they were expendable. Sure it took 4 to 7 Russian tanks killed for each Pz Mk V or VI but the Soviets could afford it, Germans could not! That is why the T-34 is qualified as the best tank, the studies are looking at the "big picture". Germany's Bismark-class of battleship was good (it did have flaws though), on the other hand, they only had the resources and time to build two. That has to be factored in the "best of ..." equation. Hope it helps, Ciao L
***** Hi, I must tell you that I am "with" against the wind on this one. You are right. Total war is a compromise of the issues that you mentioned but Hitler just saw the "narrow" picture of a WW I battlefield corporal - he never had the large open-mindedness to get into "total war concept" early, to leave war strategy and tactics to the professionals (his generals/admirals), and diverted a lot of Germany's resources in his ideological pursuits (among many other flaws). I enjoy your comments and wish you and your family to have Happy Holidays, Ciao, L
lancelot1953 I wouldn't say German tanks were that expensive, it's just Germany didn't have anywhere near enough industrial capacity to fight British Empire, United States and Soviet Union at the same time as a blockade and round-the-clock bombing. Too much had to be done at all the same time, you could re-wind the clock and play it back again so many times, but the combined pressure of the top-3 military powers made the war utterly improbable to win.
***** "England was never a top military compared to Germany" The number of battleships, tanks and fighter/bomber aircraft says otherwise. Both pre-war and the production during the war. "the only thing that saved them was the Channel." That logic goes both ways, if the channel was such an impassable barrier then D-day would have been impossible. The reality is the Channel is just another obstacle only made substantial by very strong navy and air power. Britain had this at least to the equal of Germany. Historians are in EXPLICIT AGREEMENT that this is what prevented a Nazi invasion. had it not been for those defences then Germany would have invaded just as they did for Norway despite having to make a long sea crossing to invade there. There is no reputable dissent on this matter. And when the boot was on the other foot, you can see yourself from how much Britain contributed in air and sea power to allow a cross channel invasion the OTHER way. And rightly so it was a team effort. I wonder whose side these people are who try to make it Britain vs America? What's their ulterior motive? "Let's not forget Dunkirk!" Let's not forget D-day. It is in fact YOU who is forgetting Dunkirk, that that was the result of Britain committing the absolute minimum to continental Europe as it was such a hopeless situation as France was so unprepared for war. "Even in North Africa lack of Hitler's support for Africa core led to their defeat." The German Afrika Korps (not "Africa core", you should read more) was supported about as well as it was possible for it to have been supported but there was a limit in how much could be supplied with RAF and Royal Navy interdicting. "If he had concentrated there he could easily take Egypt and move into ME." This is the facile excuse that is repeated so often for Germany in WW2. Apparently Germany needed to concentrate EVERYWHERE at the same time. But that's a contradiction in terms. If you focus everywhere you aren't focusing ANYWHERE. Taking Egypt wouldn't be enough, that's still a long way from the oilfields and yet even further away from German supply lines. Closing the Suez Canal would have not been that easy. "English needed Americans and their colonies to beat Axis forces in north Africa." English?!?! Say that to the fact of the Scottish, Welsh and Ulster regiments! Say that to the Indians, to the Canadians, to the Kiwi. English didn't only need it, BRITAIN NEEDED IT! And the commonwealth needed it to. No one wanted the Nazis to win except the Nazis. You're clueless, I think you got your knowledge of WW2 from bar-room jokes.
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job making it easier for viewers to better understand what the orator was describing. Historians did a very good job presenting actual facts from fiction. Class A research project. Orator presented the documentary very well. combat operations on both sides. Fortunately for the Russian armies. The disillusioned amphetamine addict Hitler. Expected to engage in a very short summer/fall campaign. That might have happened. Had he not sent military forces south, when Guderian was 20 miles from Moscow. Allowing Russian general Zhukov time to fortify Moscow. Reorganize military forces/have eastern troops railed to Moscow. Stalin made the correct decision putting Zhukov in charge of military operations. Slowly pushing back the over stretched German armies. Special thanks to the allied powers for sending Moscow much needed military supplies. Allowing Russian armies to get up to speed by 42.
32:00 perfect example of my issue with new documentaries, just one of many in this one."This Panther was proves the Firefly was effective against them." Ummmmm How? All that picture proves is that Panthers can catch fire. What in the picture proves it was knocked out by a Firefly? He didn't say and I cant see it.
The Red Army got it's ass kicked for a good bit. Even after the many turning points of the war the Soviets still suffered higher casualties for their 'victories'
@@user-fw7ed6nd5c Russian only won because of the massive help from the Americans. If you had been so good, why was stalin constantly begging for the western powers to finally open a second front and the losses don't exactly speak for you either, even though you outnumbered them by at least 8:1 in every battle and you had more dead man.
The second front was opened only in June 1944 - when the outcome of the war was completely a foregone conclusion. The United States opened a second front only to take advantage of the successes that the USSR won for them. Western assistance was essential only at the initial stage of the war. As for losses - yes, this is our memory and pain. As it is now, people close to us are dying from your weapons. We will no longer be merciful to the West, as we were merciful to the Germans following the results of World War II.
What is commonly overlooked is how the world had seen how the Soviet Red Army had it's arse well and truly kicked by the Finns.Hitler no doubt saw how the Finns had given the Red Army such a beating and thought that the Red Army would have been no match for the German Army,especially after the recent successes in Western Europe.Russia though would have fallen very quickly though had the West,especially the USA,not flooded their country with Lend-Lease aircraft,tanks,trucks,Jeeps,machinery,light and heavy weapons and especially food.
silver760 yup! And Germany never had more then 70% of its war resources in the east at anyone time, plus hitler’s personal stupidity and narcissism sealed Germany’s fate.
@Carmicha3l yes its pretty fucking nuts. Such a crazy struggle all around and for them to fight alone basically for that long against massive countries is impressive and a waste as well.
der Sherman Firefly von den Briten war Aufgrund der Panzerkanone auch nicht von schlechten Eltern, angeblich hatte eine Firefly den Panzer VI von Panzer-Ass Michael Widmann erledigt
Pity the poor guy who has to go up against a Panther in a Sherman or Cromwell. They had one major advantage- they could call in an airstrike, but that didn't help when the Panther found them first.
+wotevrpnt that and the Sherman was built by the 1000s, they were cheap and easy to build, easy to repair in the field, Germany's worst mistakes were to over engineer everything, and under estimate the industrial capability of the USA, yes German tanks were fine machines but they were outnumbered by the Shermans, this is what made the difference, it is like ants attacking a wasp, the wasp is larger and deadlier but the ants have overwhelming numbers,
+nfd1960 Numbers are not everything. It is about balancing quality and quantity. Most problems with the Panther were only fixed in the first half of 1944. The British had introduced the Firefly by this time and they had the Churchill. The Soviets had introduced the T-34/85 by this time and had the IS-2. The Americans received the Sherman Easy Eight and Sherman Jumbo only in late december 1944. Too late. American tank crews should have had Easy Eights and Jumbo's in Normandy.
F2000 The US produced 54,000 Shermans , this includes 8,000 that were shipped to Russia between 1941 and 1944, production began in 1940 at Dodge Brothers, The 1st Sherman had 2 short comings it lacked armor and fire power,the early Sherman only had a 50 mm short gun, but after Normandy they shoehorned a 76 mm long gun into it, the lack of armor sometimes made it harder to destroy because many times unless it was hit in the right place the shells went right though and out the other side, like trying to shut a piece of paper, it also made it a lot lighter, the German tanks which got bogged down in mud were the Sherman could go places off road the Germans couldn't, the Sherman could out run and out maneuver any other tank on the battlefield, and it wasn't just used by Americans, all the allies had them, and many of the operators praised them for the superior driver controls, the gun and the engine were the only difference between early and late models, the Sherman was the USAs 1st attempt at building their own tank, before it they relayed on the Renault, I don't think it was too bad for a tank that was engineered in less than a year a was their first attempt to build a tank,
+nfd1960 I definitely agree that the Sherman was a decent tank. My main issue is that the British and Soviets started producing improved tank models when they met the first Panthers and Tigers in 1943. The American leadership waited very long with improving the basic Sherman. The T-34/85 came in time for the big Soviet Bagration offensive. The Sherman Firefly and all the Churchill variants were in time for Normandy. The best shermans, the Easy Eight and Jumbo only arrived in late december 1944. Too late to really make an impact. They were late because of decisions by the leadership not really because of production factors.
F2000 The battle of Normandy showed them wanting, the US military was spending huge sums of money producing everything, so anything that they thought was well enough they left alone, like I said the Sherman had it's faults but it also had advantages as well, just like the other had, German tanks had superior fire power and armor, but used more fuel and weighed twice as much, there for it couldn't off road as much in wet weather, when German fuel supply became short, they couldn't go on the offensive and often times ran out of fuel during battle, Bigger isn't always better,
Ein ebenso interessanter wie auch objektiver Beitrag. Mein Vater diente auf diesem Panzer in der 2. SS Panzerdivision "Das Reich". Er überlebte den Krieg - nicht zuletzt dank der hervorragenden Konstruktion dieses Panzers. Abteilix
Also, especially in 1941, Soviet tankcrews would abandon their tanks quite often even if something small broke down because they simply weren't trained well to use the tanks (especially new ones like the KV series and the T-34)
When I said "heavier tanks..." it was in a conversation only about the Tiger II. Context gets easily lost in these snippets and so I don't blame you. The heavier tanks were definitely harder to tow, as was attested in innumerable German accounts. I was talking about that fact in reference to the T2's 68 tons.
@@daddyplankton5855 Believe it or not, it wasn't the drive system that was unreliable as much as the crews didn't know how to use them. It was noted to have *7 forward gears*. Along with most of them dedicated for steering. Along with it though being able to neutral steer, had a specific mode for it, and was noted to be only turned via this method when under normal or equal ground resistance on both track lengths. If not? Well, usually the final drive broke. In the hands of someone who knew how to use it, the Panther was not only reliable, but had the most longevity compared to almost any vehicle on the World War II battlefield-- some achieving almost 600 miles on the same engine and transmission prior to needing any replacements or major repairs. So not so much the tank was at fault-- yes, it was complicated, but that complicated item put into the right hands made it reliable. As with any tool or machine, though.
Am interesting programme would be about the clear-up after WWII. Who cleared up all those knackered tanks - military or private companies - were they just scrapped? who did all the rebuilding of buildings and infrastructure and who cleared all the dead bodies...
And the JS-2 also despite the armor at say 100mm sloped at 60 deg to the vertical giving a supposed thickness of 200mm flat armor - the problem with the JS-2 armor was actually just too high - the Brinell was clocking at 440 or higher and even if it could digest German rounds it was also prone to shattering with repeated hits ... and as it was cast though later versions was RHA plate. Though one thing the JS-2 does get is the bigger HE punch than the Tiger I or Panther ...
Germany had the best tanks then, and still does to this day. The price? Over-engineering and a pain to repair in the field. But the turret, gun, and electronics of the Leopard series tank is so efficient, America purchases vast quantities for use on their own tanks.
The tu34 was just one hell of a shock. Produced in enough numbers. . . .. I would have been shocked as a german too. Who would have thought they had the brains, technical knowledge, or sufficient industrial base to make it all matter? It just was never in the cards for a country the size of Montana to take on a country that spanned eleven time zones. And then too, these weren't the French. The Russians were in a war of extermination and they just didn't want to die.
You are in right, the T34 is a example for a Effician in Production and easy handle ......and the W2 500Hp Diesel-Engine a Long-Range-Tank!!! Tiger approx 180Km Panter approx 190 or 200, T34 500 km!!
The instant the narrator said the Normandy landings were "virtually unopposed" I lost all confidence in the documentary's creators and stopped watching.
Panther is considered as the ancestor of all modern tanks (speed ,good armour ,good weaponry). It weighted around 45 tons ,so on weight standard it s an heavy tank lol. IS-7 ,designed in 1948) was build as a real heavy (68 tons ,130 mm gun) . If later USSR tanks were faster and lighter than IS 7 ,there is a reason ;o)
This is why I hate British and American documentaries on tanks. I'm hear to learn about the Panther, not to hear ideas of national socialism and hyper Germanic values.
Keep in perspective these films are archival. When they were produced, they were about propaganda. This video is owned by someone and if you wanted to re-edit with a new sound track you would have to pay royalties. To this point no one has seen any value to acquire and change these. The owner may eventually have this removed. We are luck to not pay a premium to see the footage. Part of understanding history is understanding the circumstances of the teller. ( The winner wrights the story ) I understand your frustration but I don't have the the tools, mental or financial to to present something form a pure technical viewpoint. The sad thing is most of the engineers and designers of the time have expired and have reduced the sources that have a valid viewpoint on why the choices in design were made. good luck in your quest
It's reliability issues in the beginning (which most tanks suffer from) were eventually solved after the first few production vehicles. By late 1944 it's serviceability rate was even better than the PZIV. And you will find that even the lighter medium tanks were vulnerable to mud, just read about the German invasion of the USSR in winter, their tanks got stuck just as easily and even the prime movers which were meant to rescue them got stuck sometimes. Bridge ability, i'll give it to you.
Outstanding video!!! I, as I'm sure many other viewers do, appreciate the hours and hours of research and development you put into its production. Keep up the excellent work. Hope to see more of your vids in the future. Meanwhile, I'll subscribe and watch some of your earlier works. gb
He was probably referring to the landings on Juno, Gold, and Sword beaches at Normandy where resistance was much lighter than on Utah and Omaha beaches.
Studies done by allied personal after the war found that the 60lb rockets were unable to penetrate German armor and abandon vehicles were claimed as kills by allied pilots.
You are wrong. Studies found that the pilots rarely hit near the tanks they were attacking. In the rare cases where they actually hit a tank it was demolished.
Hunter Carroll My source is the "Operational Research in Northwest Europe" done by No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group, June 1944 - July 1945. What is your source?
Those operational research you speak of are not really accurate, I'm not trying to discredit allied air power, which was highly effective, just saying those rockets weren't able to destroy the heavier German tanks.
Hunter Carroll The operational research was done in a wholly scientific manner and the results speak for themselves. I have yet to read a report where any attempt was apparently made to salve any feelings. British and American TAF's both made great efforts to denigrate the results because they did not line up with what the pilots said. bear in mind, I am not saying the rocket firing Typhoon was a tank killer, far from it. The studies clearly show that, on average, 18 sorties, firing 140 rockets would be required to produce a 50% chance of a hit. The odds of a single rocket hitting would be 00.5%. However "of the hundreds of abandoned and knocked out tanks that have been examined, no instance has been recorded of a tank that had been hit by RP (60lb SAP) and escaped major damage".
well hands up but if the allies didnt bomb the factories in germany the germans would not have problems to reinforce the tank battalions only problem left was fuel (in late war)
Strategic bombing didn´t have the impact one might expect, specially with everything one can see in so called "documentaries". The peak of German tank production was reached in 1944... when the bombing was the most intense. See what I mean?
yeah but during 1944 the bombing fucked up the production you can see how much when you look how much they did in 1945 i know war ended in that year but still
limso cro To what extent it is something that we will probably never know, although we can be sure that more would have been produced, of course. Still, German wartime production of armored vehicles and aircrafts increased by a factor of almost 4 between 1942 and 1944, corresponding with the bombing period.
@Carmicha3l Really? Cause last time I checked, the rockets were part of the terror bombing campaign the luftwaffe did against the British. To say that the Germans never targeted civilians though is laughable.
my favorite tidbit on this subject was on the Japanese. During a time where the mainland wasn't being bombed, they had the choice to develop an atomic bomb or a microwave "deathray" to defend the coastline. They went for the deathray and failed. history is amazing.
Notice how German tanks have LOTS OF ESCAPE HATCHES!! MORE escape hatches than any other allied tanks. SO MANY escape hatches that the hull, turret sides and floor have escape hatches!!!!!
You my friend are 100% correct .more people need to read what was revealed that night in D.C at the Willard hotel and understand how we are manipulated on all issues !
So true. Germany was fighting for Christian Europe and we helped destroy it in the name of communism, capitalism, and freemasonry.... Gen Patton figured it out and was reason he was murdered and the files are still classified to this day.
Yes, that's what I meant, the Gewehr 43. I guess I worded that wrongly. And yes, the idea of the AK-47 came from the STG-44. There was nothing that even looked like the STG-44 until the AK-47 came out. My facts are right, thank you very much.
It is a T-35 . A 50 tonnes tank without big combat value . Soviets only produced about 60 before war . It was mainly used at parades to demonstrate the achievement of soviet technology to the own people .
+Aaron Ryan It's not that one cannot understand him, but is the enormous torrent of information per second (numbers, dates, names) that is impossible to digest. It feels like someone is "kicking him up the backside" to hurry up. It is almost comical.
Burt Banford I think the panther, one on one, was the best tank of the war. But it was so difficult to manufacture compared to a Sherman or a T-34 that the Germans couldn't produce one twentieth as many as the allies did. Great engineering but economically/industrially unsound.
In theory, the Tiger II WAS better, but only a few hundred were produced compared to the thousands of Panthers. They weren't available enough to make a huge difference.
Tiger IIs were subject to engine fires, torsion bars breaking, and running out of gas. They were underpowered for their weight and too wide for bridges and tunnels. If you could get one to the battlefield and keep it fueled and running it was awesome. But Panthers were much better at showing up when they were needed. Maybe with 3 or 4 years to refine the design...
ja de tiger tank waren ook hier in holland vertelde mijn opa altijd het was echt geen kinder stepje het was voor ons de bevreesde tank en wij hadden al niet en toch dank ik onze zoldaten die hier gevallen zijn mijn en onze helden rust in vrede vriende.RIP.
I would say the Panzer IV at the start of the war and the T34 and Sherman at the end of it. The T34 and Sherman's value is in large part due to them being able to made rapidly at low cost. They were also easily serviceable. Most glorious? Who cares. Which tank succeeded in battle is what matters
I'm damn glad I caught on to these Documentaries cause There's none left on Hulu or NetFlix but a GREAT 1 about the Eastern Front on Hulu is, I think SOVIET STORM or something. Only 2 Season's of Greatest Tank Battles but since last Summer I've FINALLY had WORLD OF TANKS on the XBOX 360 to play and it is SO much Fun.
Panther had better penetration than the 88 on the Tiger and it was faster, cheaper to mass produce and when they got the kinks out of it, the Panther became heavily feared. So i would prefer the Panther any day
Gypsy_on_Drugs but it wasn't heavily armored like the Tiger tank right? It was easily penetrated. Exclude the front sloping armor. The sides were only 40mm thick if I'm not mistaken. Unlike the Tiger.
panther had thicker side armour than the tiger but like you said its only 40mm but slightly sloped and was equipped with bazooka plates which added a slight more protection. Only some models had bazooka plates
Gypsy_on_Drugs ahhh, yes you're right. Oh well, i guess the Panther is indeed a better tank. But I've always liked the Tiger 1 more. Personal preference if you would. Lol
Prior to the German War in the Soviet Union in 1941, virtually every single country or battle that Germany invaded and fought was met with relatively light resistance but that all changed dramatically when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Up until that point the average German soldier had felt a sense of invincibility after experiencing victory after victory in the previous campaigns. However in the Soviet Union the average German soldier began to notice right away that the war in the east was a completely different experience as oppose to 1939 and 1940 in the west. The Germans had taken notice that the average Soviet soldier was a die hard fighting machine and fought back with a high level of brutality and savagery and fighting very hard no matter how pointless or hopeless the situation was. Plus the war on the Eastern Front to the Germans unlike the other campaigns was seen as a war of racial annihilation. The Russians took wind of this and fought back extremely hard. As for the tanks the Soviet Union possessed two the best tanks in the entire world at that time although in the beginning they were still using much older and obsolete tanks. Basically think of it as a way for the Soviet Union to save the best for last. When the newer T34 and KV-1 tanks were encountered it changed everything dramatically. The Panther was based off of the T34 and the Tiger off of the KV-1.
Brutal and savage pretty much describes the general living conditions in the Soviet Union so it was just normal for them but it doesn't explain why they surrendered by the 100,000s.
its sad when you look at all the tanks and then think that all those tanks are gonna be on the side of the road with the engine blown up and bullet holes every where and the tank on fire and the crew burned to a crisp
@@hootsmon4723 Its almost as if you forget that German tanks like the panther, tiger and konigstiger were extremely unreliable and broke down often while American tanks like the Sherman were reliable and easy to maintain.
I am endlessy interested in stuff like this. Putting aside the politics of it all, the momentous efforts that faced both sides brings to light countless accounts of individuals who went through the campaign.
