>single handedly mogs every other medium tank produced during WW2 and even some heavy tanks
>still used by nations post war
>influences post war tank development more than any other
>is used as the benchmark for all good medium tanks and some MBTs
How can Sherman shitters and T-34 copers even compete? Out of my fricking way best tank of the war coming through.
*breaks down*
They fixed those problems.
>At more than 50x the cost and with horriffic reliability issues
Panther didn't cost that much more than the Panzer IV
>The french, who used a batallion, had some pretty terrible stuff to say about it
It was used (and loved) by Eastern European forces in post war and who the frick cares what cigarette monkeys think lmao
>Source: it was revealed to me in a dream
The Panther influenced the universal tank concept as well as the Soviets, British and Americans. They copied so many ideas its inreal. I'm sorry you're so asshurt the Panther was the first MBT and the best medium tank of the war.
>Shermans
>Penetrated by a stiff breeze which then fans the flames of ammunition fires
>b-b-b-but muh wet stowage
Yeah its so good they removed wet cope stowage after the war. The allies won the war in spite of the Sherman but because of it.
I dread to think how many tommies and yankees got cooked to death in them. Absolute death traps.
>If Panther was so good why did France retire it for Super Shermans, keeping only the gun?
Spare parts are an issue when you steal your post war tanks.
There is zero reason to engage with morons who repeat the post war tommy cooker meme from the 60s. That meme has been dead longer than you've been alive. Thread hidden.
>I don't actually have any arguments or points so I will resort to childish insults
There are better ways of admitting you've lost the argument. This is just sad.
>Panther didn't cost that much more than the Panzer IV
They were both orders of magnitude more expensive than allied tanks lol
>It was used (and loved) by Eastern European forces in post war and who the frick cares what cigarette monkeys think lmao
It was loved by slavs who didnt have any other tanks cool great, disnt the bulgarians turn them into pillboxes? Must have really loved them
>The Panther influenced the universal tank concept as well as the Soviets, British and Americans. They copied so many ideas its inreal. I'm sorry you're so asshurt the Panther was the first MBT and the best medium tank of the war.
Pic rel, no panther in the list of mbts, sray mad
Also name literally one thing that the cebturion or t54 copied from the panther? Transmission that always breaks? Engine that catches fire? Tiny turret and blind gunner? You WILL ignore this question because you know you cannot answer it and i am right
>They were both orders of magnitude more expensive than allied tanks lol
Source?
>It was loved by slavs who didnt have any other tanks cool great, disnt the bulgarians turn them into pillboxes? Must have really loved them
Shermans got turned into pillboxes too - they must also be hated. Pantherturms were one of the most effective defenses during the entire war that put the fear of god into the allied when they first encountered them in Italy.
>Pic rel, no panther in the list of mbts, sray mad
because all the cool kids use wikipedia as their primary source. rejected.
>didnt answer the question about inspiring mbts, as i predicted
Ladies and gentlemen, we got em
Centurion, M48, T-55, Leopard.
There, now frick off.
Well done, you compiled a list of tanks that were not inspired by the panther in any way, proving me right
Literally not a single meaningful feature of the panther was replicated on any mbt
Inb4: the panther had a gun and mbts have guns
>Allies meet the Panther in 1943
>Centurion, T44 (which would influence T-55) & Pershing all are designed in response to it
>B-B-BUT IT DIDN'T INFLUENCE IT AT ALL
Cope harder? All three of those tanks are measured up to the Panther and designed in response to meeting it.
The allies shit themselves in response to the Panther.
the panther was made in response to allied armor, try again
>allies see a panther
>blow it up with CAS
>go on to design a tank that has nothing in common with a panther
>wheraboos: MUH KRUPP SHTEEEL ALL TANKS EVER ARE COPIES OF PANTHER ABRAMS IS A PANTHER T90 IS A PANTHER
This is why i come to /k/
>not an argument
>not an argument
>oh look not argument
This is why i come to /k/. To see allied shitter cope with no arguments.
>whaaa you dont have arguments
I dont need them, the panthers combat preformance was so bad that exactly none of its features were replicated on post war tanks. You could provethis wrong by showing a feature that a post war mbt rupped off from the panther, but you wont, because you cant, because it didnt happen.
Stay mad
>I dont need them,
And we're done here.
>not a single argument
And we're done here too.
Both of you come back when you're actually ready to discuss this seriously.
>still going
this isn't healthy man
Come back when you're actually ready to discuss this seriously. Your shitposting isn't health anon.
>still going
i'll keep bumping you're thread to keep you happy though
no you come here to get validation from strangers by being intentionally obtuse instead of literally anything else
>allied shitter cope
Who won the war again?
>Cope harder? All three of those tanks are measured up to the Panther and designed in response to meeting it.
The Centurion was in early development before the Pather entered frontline service, not as a response to meeting it. In fact it was more or less developed at the same time as the Comet with the Comet functioning as a stopgap upgunned evolution of the Cromwell in the British tradition of the cruiser tank and the Centurion being a longer-term 'heavy' cruiser that morphed into the MBT concept.
You evidently have no idea what you're talking about if you think it was a response to the Panther since short of the UK developing a time machine the timeframes don't even work out.
The Pershing design lineage and planning dates to long before the panther existed.
Not according to Hunnicutt.
>Literally not a single meaningful feature of the panther was replicated on any mbt
Max power anti tank gun.
Frontal armor many times stronger than side armor.
Good mobility.
>having a good armor, good engine and good gun is copying from the panther
uh?
Because previously there were ideas of mediocrity like Sherman tank (Pershing was exact opposite)
Ideas that tank gun for supporting infantry first (short and weak Sherman 75mm bondooggle), for fighting tanks we would have antintank SPGs with paper thin armor hurr durr!
Or ideas of dividing armor and mobility into different categories (cruiser and infantry tanks).
Also for early WWII design it was unheard to have frontal armor 5 times stronger than side armor.
sherman was the best you could build with ww2 tech on a scale big enough to win the war. when tech advanced tanks also got better
Pershing was build on the same tech.
Also fun fact: you can field 8 M48 instead of the 1 M1
50k shermans vs 6k panther
also shermans were able to operate in every theater on the globe
Another reason why the Sherman is superior to the Panther. The Sherman is a box of a tank, and it's like that because it needed to fit strict shipping dimensions. This allowed the Sherman to easily fit Allied ship and rail transport. Meanwhile, the Panther had to use special tracks and wheels to fit onto German rail. This meant that transporting the Panther was more time intensive than the Sherman which impacted the Panther's strategic flexibility.
>The Sherman is better because its cheaper and worse than the panther
>But you can make loads of them while getting loads of your men killed
>M48 is better than Abrams
FACT!
>us tanker crews suffered 1/4th the casualties German tankers did in the West
[Citation needed]
Any of the war records or post war analysis of them. Less than 2000 American tankers died during WWII, and even a smaller number died in their tanks in combat. Despite the memes, US tank crewman was one of the safest jobs during the war.
*safest combat jobs I should say.
I also watched that video from the Chieftain and the conclusion that was reached was not
>and even a smaller number died in their tanks in combat
It was that we don't know how many died in their tanks vs outside their tanks.
I don’t know what video your referencing. But the total number of deaths is known, it is also known that some tank crewman died outside of their tanks in combat, ergo the number of those killed in their tanks in combat is lower than the total.
And water is wet.
So we have the hard fact of
>not all tankers killed during the war were killed inside tanks
I don't know what to say. Hard hitting facts that one.
Are you autistic or moronic?
>its autistic or moronic to point out that the statement "not all tankers were killed inside their tanks" is not a particularly ground breaking statement.
Not all aircrew died in their aircraft either, did you know that one Anon? Ergo the number of those killed in their aircraft in combat is lower than the total.
It’s pertinent because the discussion is centered on crew survivability. US tank crew loses were already low in totality, and those lost to combat would be lower still. It may seem simple but this
dipshit couldn’t seem to wrap his head around it.
It's not pertinent because you are making a non statement seem like a meaningful thing. You are trying to say something that doesn't have a point. You have no point. There is literally zero point.
Its like saying that not all water is drank out of a glass. "Wow, really anon?"
The point is that American crew loses were incredibly low, which is relevant to a discussion on Sherman crew survivability.
>The point is that American crew loses were incredibly low, which is relevant to a discussion on Sherman crew survivability.
So what is the point is saying that water is wet and that not all American crews die in their tanks.
What is the point you are trying to make? It seems like no point. Contining interacting with you is pointless.
>explain the point
>”but what is the point”
Do you also have trouble lacing your shoes and eating paste?
>explain the point
>there is no actual point being made
>anon questions what is actually the point of your non statement
>concludes that there is no point in continuing with you
and you have the nerve to call him a moron. imagine thinking you've got a gotcha moment by stating that "not all tankers died inside their tanks"
>I don’t know what video your referencing. But the total number of deaths is known, it is also known that some tank crewman died outside of their tanks in combat, ergo the number of those killed in their tanks in combat is lower than the total.
What does this even mean? What are you even trying to say?
The only thing I have to add to that is that the bongs, who took higher casualties due to wearing soft berets instead of helmets inside their tanks, added kettles inside their post-war tanks to stop crews getting out and getting killed so their analysis was probably similar.
>The only thing I have to add to that is that the bongs, who took higher casualties due to wearing soft berets instead of helmets inside their tanks
Per Capita or overall? I don't think its the Berets that caused the casualties if its overall - on top of that they literally had Tank Helmet that was worn.
>added kettles inside their post-war tanks to stop crews getting out and getting killed so their analysis was probably similar.
That's not the reasoning behind the BV. It has nothing to do with casualties outside the tank that is false equivalence to fit your headcannon.
>on top of that they literally had Tank Helmet that was worn.
From 1945 onwards as a direct response to the casualties yes.
Ninteen Fourty Two is when the RAC helmet Mk.1 was introduced.
Ninteen Fourty Two. Stop trying to make everything fit your narrative.
I'll need a citation on that one friend. Particularly since it's based off of an airborne helmet that wasn't even in service until late 1942 itself.
I may be wrong with 1942 I will need to find the book with info in it. However here is a member of the Guards Armoured Divison wearing one in 1943 which is not 1945 as you claim.
Yeh you've got me there. I've also gone and done some looking around and I can't get a solid conclusion from any source either and it seems like the information is very confused because there were two distinct versions in steel and one helmet in a soft fibre material from the early war as well. Looks like the second version is 1945 definitely. So the RAC Mk1 may not be a beret but also isn't steel and not the same as the RAC, Helmet, Steel. I've also seen some claims it was ordered in 1942 but didn't appear until later which might be why the photo is 1943 but I can't get a solid conclusion on that too. Additional there was a dispatch rider helmet of similar design that might predate it..
Actually a pretty interesting rabbithole to go down honestly. Surely some autistic historian has made a British helmets book for this.
I think you're getting confused between the crash helmets (before the war and early war) and the steel helmets which appear mid war.
Possible. Looks like you'll have an easier time looking for HSRAC for the steel variants if you want to go dig some more. Picrel seems to be accurate but frustratingly has no date for the steel version but there's near universal agreement it's based on the MKII airborne helmet so that would give us a minimum date at least.
Now oddly I'm seeing claims the MKII paratrooper helmet wasn't around until 1944 (from the para's own site no less) which clashes with the photo you've got from 1943 and a few other places that seem to have them with 1943 dates in the liners, though given that the liner is the same as the standard infantry helmet I guess they could have been from a different batch. Or the man in the training photo was given one early.
However the MKII was actually the fourth paratrooper helmet issued so perhaps sources are just confused on that point.
If it makes any difference the RAC dispatch rider helmet which is incredibly similar to the RAC Helmet Mk.1 has examples dated from 1942
Right, that means they'd certainly identified a need for at least someone to have a steel helmet for crashes by then at least. Might also be that collectors get confused by which is which and that's making it tricky to get a reliable answer even from collectors' books. Best source would be the documentation for production orders. What a rabbithole.
Right extreme autism and a blurry sample of a book and some helmets says the HSAT Mk1 and MkII paratrooper helmets have identical shells and differ only in chinstrap style and thus number of chinstrap attachment points but that early MkIIs were in service late in 1943.
Now all information agrees that the RAC steel helmets were based on the shell of the HSATs combined with the liner of conventional infantry steel helmets (possibly including the chinstrap configuration?) so logically it probably doesn't matter which of the two they were based on and it's possible for the 1943 training picture to exist and just overlap with the MkII anyway.
Short of buying some obscure book dedicated to para helmets to first work out mk1 vs mkII then buying a bunch of actual RAC helmets to autistically compare the two that's probably where this trail ends. So I was wrong on 1945 but evidently something persuaded them to swap to steel helmets mid-war. Survivability inside or outside of a tank I don't know but frankly I'm less interested in being right now and more interested in getting hard dates.
Canadians got them in June 1943 and it looks like from British stocks so that's the logical date for entry into service. Means it was probably developed 6+ months before.
I nominate you two morons to be the ones who die when the Sherman gets pentrated.
looking at tank crews loss rates id rather been in a sherman getting penetrated than other tanks being penetrated tbh
I'll be in the tank not being penetrated. The one that has armor.
you would've still lost the war and your fraulein is going to get raped by russian while i eat my chocolate and sex your women for cigs
>this is the alliedshitters sexual fantasy
sad
cope more hans
Then I’d still want to be in a Sherman since less than 100 panthers survived the war. There’s a reason there was a lot more veteran Sherman tankers to interview post war than German ones.
>panther is better even though it lost the war
also sherman was bretty safe
>The Panther is a better tank because its larger and cant get into as many fights
>But it sure does look cool in a video game
>the Sherman is better because its cheaper and we can make more of them.
If i was a soviet during the cold war I would prefer being in the T-80 over the T-72, you know, the more expensive one.
To each his own I suppose.
Of course. There's a sort of comfort in being in a more expensive warfighting vehicle, but the Sherman wasn't poor quality. But the opinion of the smallest manpower unit of the military is irrelevant of the facts. The Sherman was adequately protected against most German anti-tank guns, and the guns that were a threat to the Sherman would've been a threat to the Panther too.
>The Sherman was adequately
>can be penetrated by a 1940 AT gun
Which one are you referring to? Because I'll bet that it can be a threat to the Panther too.
Pak38 can penetrate the Sherman frontally.
Not unless you’re firing tungsten pzgr40 rounds at less than 200m. Rounds that Germany ran out of by 1943.
Only at ranges less than 100m. Of course gun emplacements are set up to have flanking shots at tanks going down likely avenues of approach. In this instance, the Pak 38 can easily penetrate the sides of both the Sherman and the Panther. The extra frontal armor would give the tankers peace of mind, but would not significantly reduce the threat of hidden guns during a push.
Nah, pak38 can’t penetrate a Sherman frontally without hitting a weakpoint unless it’s using tungsten rounds. There’s a reason the Germans stopped building 37mm and 50mm guns basically in 1942 and went all in on pak40s instead.
british found that their M4s were able to resist about 40-50% of all shells thrown at them
this is because very few engagments occur at a 12, 3, or 9 0'clock position
theres always going to be some natural angle to the
this is why the churchill could eat 200+ shots despite its armor being thinner than the penetration value of german shells
with the addition of any kind of engagement angle, its effective armor is much higher
Pershing was a worse tank than the Sherman
Early MBTs were derivatives of allied wartime designs.
Cromwell -> Challenger -> Comet -> Centurion
Sherman -> T23 -> Pershing -> Patton
T-34 -> T-44 -> T-54 -> T-55
The only ones that tinkered with Panther design features after the war were the French but they never got any of those designs off the ground and instead went clean-sheet with the AMX-30.
>A30 Challenger
>Having any sort of development influence on the Comet
>Comet influencing the Centurion
Nah m8, I don't think that the stopgap A30 influenced the A34. The Cromwell VII is closer to a direct ancestor.
I don't think the dead end of the Cruiser Tank line influenced the A41 Heavy Cruiser other than as inspiration as to what not to do.
Ah. My bad. I'm not super familiar with british designs. Then what was Centurion derived from? I know it used the Meteor, Merrit-Brown 5-speed, and Horstman suspension so clearly somebody on the design team liked borrowing ideas.
Vickers-Armstrong is the defined designer of the Centurion however a lot of the experience came from the fighting in the desert so its a combination of all tank experience up to that point.
Leyland designed the Cromwell, Birmingham Carriage & Wagon Co designed Comet, Vauxhall the Churchill, Vickers-Armstrong the Valentine.
The specifications came from the Tank Board hence the names for all of them (A27 for Cromwell, A30 for Challenger, A34 from Comet etc)
The Panther had a transmission on the opposite end of the tank from the engine. All future MBTs use transmissions that are on the same end as the engine to eliminate the need for a long drive shaft going through the tank. This alone shows that the Panther did not directly influence MBT design.
>if one single feature does not exist on preceeding vehicles it completely discounts that vehicle from influencing all future vehicles
I don't think that's how that works.
>If a major, key design facet does not match, it discounts the claim that the vehicle influence future ones.
>Especially when virtually none of the vehicles desing features match future ones and those that do are already nigh-universal in the vehicles' own generation.
FTFY. Deal with it, wehraboo.
Such as? Newsflash, Pantehr wasn't the first tnak to use first gen thermals, either LMAO.
>Literally disproven.
In your demented wheraboo fantasies only. Overlapping roadwheels were and are a maintenance nightmare. And the less said about the Panthers gearbox and suspension system, the better, given dealing with that shit was literally putting maintenance technicians on suicide watch.
>Oh wait none of the previous ones
Panzer II, II and IV all had direct access hatches to the transmission system in the fornt of the tank, you braindead moron. The whole fricking point of their stepped front was that it made the transmission box easily accessible.
>FTFY. Deal with it, wehraboo.
But you literally didn't say anything of value?
>Such as? Newsflash, Pantehr wasn't the first tnak to use first gen thermals, either LMAO.
What the frick are you talking about? Thermals? What?
>Not an argument
>Panzer II, II and IV all had direct access hatches to the transmission system in the fornt of the tank, you braindead moron. The whole fricking point of their stepped front was that it made the transmission box easily accessible.
Shitter if you needed to replace the tranmission (THE panther maymay) you needed to do the same shit on earlier tanks.
Finally please learn how to communicate
>desing
>Pantehr
>fornt
embarrasing.
>you're
>you are thread
embarrasing
it's bait you nuts, i know its fun laughing at idiots but it only encourages them, don't take him seriously
>doesn't have an argument
>he's the idiot
>its bait!
>its HIM who is shitposting
>Not ME!
Oh the ironing.
>you needed to do the same shit on earlier tanks.
And they couldn't look at the process and think "how can we make this better"? They had examples from the other side to look at.
>Its not an issue on earlier tanks
>why change something that's not an issue
Post war revisionist attitutes don't make reality in the past anon.
Meanwhile the British improved the Merlin to the point where the engine and all the necessary supporting components, apart from the fuel tank, was unitized into one singular powerpack that could be bolted onto any vehicle that could fit it. They did this because they clearly saw the benefits of having such a system. The Germans didn't think that far ahead?
>But you literally didn't say anything of value?
I told you the proven, undeniable facts. Your continued braindead wehraboo denial does not change this.
Post-war tanks took literlaly nothing from the Panthers' design, except lessons in what NOT to do. Deal with it. Or don't. Your opinion does not matter to the cold, hard proven facts, nort does your braindead denial.
>What the frick are you talking about? Thermals? What?
Answer the question, little wehraboo shitlord. What exact technologies did the POanther invent that, and I quote, "that took nearly 20 years to be introduced onto other tanks"?
>Shitter if you needed to replace the tranmission (THE panther maymay) you needed to do the same shit on earlier tanks.
Except not, becuase the transmission was far easier accessible and thus far easier to replace on those earlier tanks. And if you had any clue of what you're talking about, you would have knwon as much before opening your braindead wehraboo mouth and outing yourself an ignoramus.
Finally, pl.ease learn to not be a subhuman wheraboo shitter talkign about things he knows literally less than nothing about..
Also, try to leanr how to form an actual argument. Playing grammar nazi, eprsonally attacking anyone calling you out on your worthless BS and repeating tired old wehraboo lies ad infinitum - aka all you've done in this thread - does not constitute one.
>literlaly
>POanther
>becuase
>knwon
>pl.ease
>talkign
>leanr
>eprsonally
>I told you the proven, undeniable facts. Your continued braindead wehraboo denial does not change this.
Dude, just trust me bro.
>Answer the question, little wehraboo shitlord. What exact technologies did the POanther invent that, and I quote, "that took nearly 20 years to be introduced onto other tanks"?
Infra red (protip, its not thermals).
>Except not, becuase the transmission was far easier accessible and thus far easier to replace on those earlier tanks. And if you had any clue of what you're talking about, you would have knwon as much before opening your braindead wehraboo mouth and outing yourself an ignoramus.
If you want to replace the transmission on any German tank you still have to remove a lot of the tank to get it out. Not much change on the panther unless you think the access hatches allow you to replace the whole thing. The panther transmission meme is literally historical revisionism that is magified by French incompetence with post war tanks they captured.
>Finally, pl.ease learn to not be a subhuman wheraboo shitter talkign about things he knows literally less than nothing about..
Still waiting for a single backed up fact from you king shitter. Learn to spell and then come back. You currently give off the vibes of an actual subhuman who is dragging his knuckles to type.
lmao
>Post-war tanks took literlaly nothing from the Panthers' design
>no panther in the list of mbts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_KF51
>Penetrated by a stiff breeze
The Sherman had thicker armor than the Pz4 even the up-armored versions.
>which then fans the flames of ammunition fires
Which all tanks suffered from.
>Pz4
Sorry, I meant the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausführung K832/3 PanzerProstataMassagegerät
>Panzer IV
>Relevant when discussing the Panzer V
The Pz4 was the main tank of Nazi Germany during WW2 and was a thinner box than the Sherman. But fine, back to the Panther. It's size armor wasn't that much better than the Sherman and it was a larger target. Shermans could easily penetrate the side of a Panther at combat distances even the 75mm M3 versions. That is, if a Sherman tank battalion ever sees a Panther in combat because the Panther battalion's supply chain (horses) were bombed by Allied air and the crews were forced to abandon their tanks due to a lack of fuel.
>It's size armor
I meant side armor.
>I-It's side armor was thinner than its frontal armor
Name a single tank that couldn't be penetrated from the side. Not an argument.
>Name a single tank that couldn't be penetrated from the side
I'll give two. The T-34 and KV tanks at the start of Operation Barbarossa.
>Not an argument.
It is an argument because it affects the tactics used to deal with the tank.
But both of those could be penetrated.
>It is an argument because it affects the tactics used to deal with the tank.
What the frick does that have to do with anything? Are you literally going to argue
>just flank bro
>But both of those could be penetrated.
When up-gunned German tanks were fielded, but not before then, at least not reliably.
>What the frick does that have to do with anything?
If the enemy tank could be feasibly penetrated in combat, then it reduces the need of up-gunning your tanks. Then again, the Allies had less of a need to up-gun because they owned the air and their artillery practice was second to none.
>just flank bro
Pretty easy to do when you have air supremacy and outnumber your enemy over 8 to 1.
>When up-gunned German tanks were fielded, but not before then, at least not reliably.
Because tanks are the only thing on the battlefield that has the ability to penetrate enemy armor
Because tanks exclusively fight tanks
Because 1v1 me outside exists in your mind.
>Because tanks are the only thing on the battlefield that has the ability to penetrate enemy armor
Hard to use horse-towed tank guns when you're on the offensive.
>Because tanks exclusively fight tanks
Alright. Huh... Those P-47s is getting awfully close to those wonderwaffe Panthers. Where's the Luftwaffe? Oh right, on the runways waiting for fuel that will never come.
>not an argument
>not an argument
How exactly are these arguments against the panther again? Oh wait they aren't and you're resorting to memes.
>Uh oh it looks like our CAS are friendly firing us for the 15th time today
>But at least we aren't speaking German!
>How exactly are these arguments against the panther again?
Fair enough. The Panther was a flawed design because it wasn't what the German Army needed. They needed a tank that could be produced and maintained at large numbers comparable to the Sherman and T-34. They needed a tank that suited the limitations of German logistics at the time. They needed a tank that could fit on pre-exiting German rail without needing to temporarily modify the tank.
They DIDN'T need a larger more heavily armored and armed tank that would consume more of the limited supply of steel and fuel. It didn't matter if the Panther had better tank-on-tank fighting statistics than the Sherman, because the Panther wasn't a sustainable design for the German Army during the course of the war.
>Instead of doing what we are currently doing lets stress our production even further by building inferior vehicles but more of them
>We deffo go the fuel to pull this off guys
Germany made the tank they needed to make exactly because of the situation. Fewer but superior vehicles put less stress on logicistics.
You're an idiot. You haven't got a fricking clue. You're too busy guzzling fuel down like its going out of business.
you lost
>not an argument
No. You did.
>Instead of doing what we are currently doing lets stress our production even further by building inferior vehicles but more of them
Building a tank that's less than the most steel and gun you can put on a chassis doesn't make it an inferior tank. The Pz4 and Stug3 were more than adequate tanks for their time.
>Fewer but superior vehicles put less stress on logicistics.
In a vacuum, yes, but the Panther had many design realities that ended up straining the German logistic system.
First, it's fuel consuption was comparable to the Churchill tanks, while the Panzer IV had almost double the fuel efficiency.
Second, the Panther was a difficult tank to repair. It's overlapping road wheels added more downtime than the bogie system of the Panzer IV. To replace the Panther's transmission, the forward crew compartment needed to be removed from the tank before any work could be done. Meanwhile, most smaller tanks just had a cover over the transmission. Replacing transmissions were more necessary for the Panther because it was a 35 ton design that grew to 45 tons which would put strain on the undersized transmission.
Third, the design wasn't mass produced enough. More tanks don't just mean more tanks on the front consuming fuel, it means that replacing losses would be easier and spare parts plentiful. The lack of such spares meant that Panthers had to proceed with caution to reduce losses which harmed their strategic fighting capability.
On top of all of that focusing on having fewer but highly superior fighting units is a bad idea strategically as it means that your frontline is less flexible and more easily bypassed.
>First, it's fuel consuption was comparable to the Churchill tanks, while the Panzer IV had almost double the fuel efficiency.
Yeah, fricking source?
>Second, the Panther was a difficult tank to repair.
>muh wheels meme
Literally disproven.
>Meanwhile, most smaller tanks just had a cover over the transmission.
Really, which German ones? Oh wait none of the previous ones because you would need to do the same fricking procedure to fix transmission issues. Idiot.
>Third, the design wasn't mass produced enough. More tanks don't just mean more tanks on the front consuming fuel, it means that replacing losses would be easier and spare parts plentiful. The lack of such spares meant that Panthers had to proceed with caution to reduce losses which harmed their strategic fighting capability.
Bullshit. Source?
>On top of all of that focusing on having fewer but highly superior fighting units is a bad idea strategically as it means that your frontline is less flexible and more easily bypassed.
Not a thing. Germany was on the defensive.
>Really, which German ones? Oh wait none of the previous ones because you would need to do the same fricking procedure to fix transmission issues. Idiot.
So you admit that all germam tanks were dogshit
>Hey look, you have this MAJOR LOGISTICS FLAW SUDDENLY
>But wait no we don't because this has been the procedure for the entire war up to this point so its literally business as usual
>sO yOu aDmIt tHaT aLl gErMaM tAnKs wEre dOgShIt
>Yeah, fricking source?
You got me there. I tried following sources on Wikipedia and ended up with German books I can't read.
>muh wheels meme
Look at the wheels of the Panther and the Sherman. Which one looks more easily accessed?
>Literally disproven.
Source?
>Really, which German ones? Oh wait none of the previous ones because you would need to do the same fricking procedure to fix transmission issues.
A simple transmission cover was impossible for the Germans to design even after looking at the Allied tanks?
>Bullshit. Source?
No source needed, it's just logic. If you have more tanks in spare, then you can easily repair or replace losses.
>Not a thing. Germany was on the defensive.
Still applicable because the defensive line isn't static, and passively waiting for the enemy to come is dumb as hell.
>Not a thing. Germany was on the defensive.
It's literally the thing that caused the whole damn eastern front to collapse in summer '44, you gigantic, blithering moron. Too few tanks, too few bodies, no ability to react to soviet attacks along the line in sufficient strength anymore, and that's how you lose the Baltics, Belarus, half of Poland and an army group in a couple months.
>Tanks are a war winner
I didn't realise we were back in WW1 where that meme was still alive. No. Tanks are not a war winner. They are a useful tool but not a war winner.
You'll find that its MANPOWER SHORTAGES that caused the collapse in 44'.
Read more you utter shitter.
It's EVERYTHING shortages that caused the collapse in '44. Though the absolutely dire shortage in any kind of useful mobile reserve (aka tanks) was a particularily important factor in turning it from a small oeprational defeat into a strategic disaster.
Try reading something deeper than History Channel-tier, you literal subhuman moron.
>oeprational
It's MANPOWER shortages that caused the collapse in '44. You can see this by the TOE changing for multiple different units with squads being dropped and squad sizes being reduced. Equipment wise Germany was in a better position than any other time in the war you dumb fricking Black person.
The average German soldier had more firepower than any other time in the war the reason this happened is they didn't have enough fighting men you dumb fricking Black person homosexual. Read more tank shitpedia you fricking subhuman.
Eastern front collapsed because Germans send Panthers to fight Allies landed in Normandy.
>Panther because it was a 35 ton design that grew to 45 tons
Not it fricking wasn't you homosexual, the pre-production prototype of the Panther weighed some 200-600 kilograms less, not 10 tons.
Do you have any idea how little armor the Panther would have if it weighed 35 tons? It'd be like 10mm all around.
>They DIDN'T need a larger more heavily armored and armed tank that would consume more of the limited supply of steel and fuel. It didn't matter if the Panther had better tank-on-tank fighting statistics than the Sherman, because the Panther wasn't a sustainable design for the German Army during the course of the war.
It was opposite. Germans had co chances to meet Allies tank numbers due lack of fuel. THey had only way to make OVERMATCH tank. And BTW their design principles were copied by everyone in end of the WWII and further
>our tank needs to have gun that pens enemy tank no compromises
>our tank needs to have frontal armor that stop enemy tanks guns
No "75mm is enough because tank is for supporting infantry not fighting tanks" bondoogle.
No "paper armor is enough because its cheap" bondoogle.
>our tank needs to have gun that pens enemy tank no compromises
Actually one of the lessons from WW2 was that tanks often end up fighting non-tanks and need dual purpose guns that can effectively fire both AP and HE loadings. The MBT concept outright requires that.
>Actually one of the lessons from WW2 was that tanks often end up fighting non-tanks and need dual purpose guns that can effectively fire both AP and HE loadings.
Which is why the main tanks fielded by the western allies at the end of the war have an inferior HE shell compared to their midwar tanks...
The lesson wasn't learned.
This is why Sherman tanks adopted 76 gun with inferior HE shell (comparing to 75mm) despite all b***hing and moaning of fudd boomers "hell with penetration muh HE!!!"
This is why Abram tank doesn't even have HE shell...
>The Panther only had a 75mm tank gun. There were no serious plans to equip a larger gun to the Panther.
There is 75 and there is 75. Panther's 75mm had much higher penetration than 88 of the Tiger I and could penetrate Soviet heavies of that time no problem.
>Seems like Germany shouldn't have picked a fight with the Allies.
Well staring war with USSR and USA without wining previous war was clear mistake.
>This is why Abram tank doesn't even have HE shell...
[citation needed]
Name one.
Not that anon, but...
>M68 105mm (aka the RO L7) used the M393 HEP-T
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105%C3%97617mmR#High-explosive_squash_head_(HESH)
>M256 120mm useed the M908 HE-OR-T
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120%C3%97570mm_NATO#High_Explosive_(HE)
>M256 120mm used the M908 HE-OR-T
>adopted in 2003
>obstacle reduction round
>punny explosive charge
>terrible for shooting infantry
This is the point
Also US adopted M830A1 as secondary round that has reduced caliber and explosives charge in favor of better AT capability (faster round, flatter trajectory). Its intentionally worsening anti infantry capability in favor of the AT.
120mm Abrams tank got proper HE only with M1147 in 2022.
So yeah.
>Also US adopted M830A1 as secondary round that has reduced caliber and explosives charge in favor of better AT capability (faster round, flatter trajectory). Its intentionally worsening anti infantry capability in favor of the AT.
It has a very slightly smaller but significantly more advanced warhead with airburst capabilities. Evidence at time of adoption is that this gave it BETTER performance against bunkers and soft targets. Please go back to war thunder.
>but significantly more advanced warhead with airburst capabilities.
Anti helicopter capability That has zero use against infantry. Better for everything EXCEPT fighting infantry.
>Please go back to war thunder.
Funny yes, because war thunder doesn't have infantry and therefore WTizens love AT rounds and don't care about anti infantry.
In fact come to think of it by the principles of HEAT sacrificing warhead size for velocity actually reduces armour penetration. Accepting that it still moves fast enough and goes far enough to actually hit the target of course.
>Anti helicopter capability That has zero use against infantry. Better for everything EXCEPT fighting infantry.
I forgot the helicopter point yes, though airbursting against non-infantry soft targets seems useful.
>Funny yes, because war thunder doesn't have infantry and therefore WTizens love AT rounds and don't care about anti infantry.
Pretty much yes. Also doesn't care about fuel, spare parts, being too fat and heavy to cross bridges or go in railway tunnels and so on.
>though airbursting against non-infantry soft targets seems useful.
Fake and gay.
Also you do understand the reason it has a slightly reduced calibre is because that's how sabots work right? Higher velocity in this case was desirable not so much for AT capability (while it does make it fly faster and flatter velocity doesn't affect HEAT penetration) but because the fancy new fuse was intented to allow it to shoot down helicopters as well as infantry, bunkers, trucks, buildings, possibly light APCs...
Basically any target you can think of. Because if they wanted pure AT capabiltiy they'd obviously just stick to the fricking KE penetrator. Speaking of sabots, by the way, the UK had them available by the middle of WW2 and intentionally chose to arm Cromwells with a gun that didn't have the fancy new sabot round available in favour of HE capability. Something with essentially made the front armour of a Panther irrelevant but was never issued in huge quantity.
>It has a very slightly smaller
Fun fact: M830A1 - 4 pounds of explosives.
Russian 125mm HE - 10 pounds of explosives.
>Higher velocity in this case was desirable not so much for AT capability
Higher velocity is much more desired for AT. Essentially it increases effective range against AFV by 40%.
>but because the fancy new fuse was intented to allow it to shoot down helicopters as well as infantry, bunkers, trucks, buildings, possibly light APCs...
That fancy fuse has no use against infantry only against aircrafts.
>Higher velocity is much more desired for AT. Essentially it increases effective range against AFV by 40%.
Velocity increases range but has no effect on the actual penetration of a HEAT round which is the very reason for HEAT being a thing in the first place. Though in a modern context HEAT in terms of armour penetration capabilities is only useful for knocking out older tanks and lighter armoured vehicles anyway. Reducing warhead size and increasing velocity actually reduces penetration for HEAT shells assuming you don't change the explosive used.
>That fancy fuse has no use against infantry only against aircrafts.
Which is not a tank either by the way. And so this means they reduced the raw AT capability of their non-primary round to go swat helicopters out of the air. Hardly putting AT above everything which was the original point.
>Though in a modern context HEAT in terms of armour penetration capabilities is only useful for knocking out older tanks and lighter armoured vehicles anyway.
That is point M830A1 is round primarily dedicated to killing light AFVs and obsolete (T-55/62 tanks).
Ignoring obsolete options:
M908
M830 and M830A1 (dual purpose HEAT rounds )
Additionally the M1028 canister round that's obviously not designed for anti-tank purposes.
And finally the newly planned AMP round's name literally stands for 'Advanced Multi Purpose' capable of dealing with armour, infantry or buildings which will replace all four of the above.
What video game are you getting your knowledge from where you think the M1A1 Abrams, which uses literally the same gun as the fricking Leopard II by the way, doesn't have HE capability?
Obviously the M1028 not being HE but additionally not being an AP round it's relevant. You are genuinely moronic if you think the mainline NATO tank gun would come without HE capability.
HESH has uses for destroying structures but was really designed mostly for anti-armour work and since spall liners became standard is only maintained for British autism reasons since it requires a rifled barrel usually.
>Well staring war with USSR and USA without wining previous war was clear mistake.
No. The ultimate mistake was pissing off Britain. Nazi Germany's ultimate goal was to take Russia, and abandoning it would have serious political ramifications for the Nazi party, but to fight the USSR they needed to go through Poland which Britain explicitly stated they'll go to war over.
>Nazi Germany's ultimate goal was to take Russia
Yea Hitler's spiritual LARP was greatest mistake.
In conflict USSR proved to be most reliable German ally but Hitler flushed this sudden opportunity down the drain because of voices in his head.
>In conflict USSR proved to be most reliable German ally
I wouldn't call them "allies" they just agreed to divide up smaller nations, but there wasn't any resource exchange like what the Allies did.
>but Hitler flushed this sudden opportunity down the drain because of voices in his head.
There's also the fact that the Nazi party used the German people's fear of communism to take power. Calling commies the greatest enemy that deserve to be exterminating, and then befriending them wouldn't go well within Germany.
>public conveniently forget how WWII started
>because Russians are good guys they fought ebil Nazism! Give them a slack!
What are you even arguing?
Who else did offer such significant boots on teh ground military help for Germany?
Well Italy tried to help but failed every time and ended as burden that needed saving.
>Who else did offer such significant boots on teh ground military help for Germany?
The Soviets just helped divide up Poland. There wasn't a lendlease style of exchange between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
>The Soviets just helped divide up Poland
>just provided more boots on teh ground effect than everyone else
>There wasn't a lendlease style of exchange between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
You wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)
>Germans had co chances to meet Allies tank numbers due lack of fuel.
Seems like Germany shouldn't have picked a fight with the Allies.
>THey had only way to make OVERMATCH tank.
That is an incredibly stupid idea. Having fewer units meant that they can't support each other as easily, and are liable to be outflanked and caught in bubbles which is exactly what happened to the Germans during the battle of the bulge.
The whole idea of fewer units made = stronger units only holds up if half as many strong units makes them twice as strong as regular units, but that's not the case. Shermans outnumbered Panthers 8-to-1, but they were not 1/8th as effective as Panthers. They were much closer to the Panthers in fighting ability than you think.
>And BTW their design principles were copied by everyone in end of the WWII and further
The Panther was designed as a large medium tank, with Tiger 2 tanks serving as breakthrough tanks. MBTs are designed to fill both the roles of a general purpose medium tank, and a breakthrough heavy tank.
>75mm
The Panther only had a 75mm tank gun. There were no serious plans to equip a larger gun to the Panther.
>The Panther only had a 75mm tank gun. There were no serious plans to equip a larger gun to the Panther.
He's talking about the Sherman mate.
>Seems like Germany shouldn't have picked a fight with the Allies.
This relates to the Panther how?
>That is an incredibly stupid idea. Having fewer units meant that they can't support each other as easily, and are liable to be outflanked and caught in bubbles which is exactly what happened to the Germans during the battle of the bulge.
The whole idea of fewer units made = stronger units only holds up if half as many strong units makes them twice as strong as regular units, but that's not the case. Shermans outnumbered Panthers 8-to-1, but they were not 1/8th as effective as Panthers. They were much closer to the Panthers in fighting ability than you think.
Is this when you start pulling the ONE famous battle where Shermans managed to get the drop on Panthers? You really going to play that card?
>This relates to the Panther how?
Nothing. Just a side comment.
>Is this when you start pulling the ONE famous battle where Shermans managed to get the drop on Panthers? You really going to play that card?
I'll give you two more battles where the Shermans fought Panthers and won, Battle of Dompaire and Battle of Arracourt. Of course induvial battles don't show the complete picture, which was that fewer units were less effective at fighting.
>Battle of Arracourt
Hello History Channel.
See.
>Of course induvial battles don't show the complete picture, which was that fewer units were less effective at fighting.
See
>Is this when you start pulling the ONE famous battle where Shermans managed to get the drop on Panthers
it was the largest battle in normandy before the bulge, which is why its studied so heavily
previous encounters for the panthers were even worse
the first 30 panthers to engage american positions after D-day were annhilated before causing any damage
the US ballistics research lab concluded based on a sample of 200 verifiable tank on tank engagements that the M4 sherman was equally as effective as the panther on the attack
but 3x as effective as the panther on the defense
this was primarily due to outnumbering the panther 7:4, but also because the sherman was much more suited to close range combat in western europe
rotatable periscopes for all crew, faster turret traverse, and the ability to get multiple angles on a target and reduce the effectiveness of heavy frontal armor were all important factors
>The whole idea of fewer units made = stronger units only holds up if half as many strong units makes them twice as strong as regular units, but that's not the case. Shermans outnumbered Panthers 8-to-1, but they were not 1/8th as effective as Panthers. They were much closer to the Panthers in fighting ability than you think.
Except you can make like 1.5 Pz4 for every Panther. But the Pz4 is even weaker than the Sherman, and now you need 1.5 as many crew, spare parts, etc.
So now you have even worse logistics, for no combat improvements, AND higher manpower requirements which the enemy can erode away anyways.
Hence why they made the Panther. It was a desperate move but the only move they had left.
>I don't have an arguments about the panther itself
k.
>Shermans
>Penetrated by a stiff breeze which then fans the flames of ammunition fires
Warthunder and its consequences have been a disaster for the armchair general community.
>Yeah its so good they removed wet cope stowage after the war. The allies won the war in spite of the Sherman but because of it.
>I dread to think how many tommies and yankees got cooked to death in them. Absolute death traps.
Sherman crew was one of the safest combat roles of the Second World War. The ease of egress and relatively decent armor kept it less than 2 killed per tank knocked out, the lowest of any medium iirc.
>The ease of egress and relatively decent armor kept it less than 2 killed per tank knocked out, the lowest of any medium iirc.
Not much comfort when you can and are frequently penetrated by guns introduced in 1940
As was the panther, whose crew were more likely to burn to death.
Which 1940 gun can frontally penetrate the Panther? I can name which one can frontally penetrate the Sherman.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
The US 90mm and 76mm
I’m going to need a quote on that. Because that is plainly untrue.
>90 mm gun
>90 mm M3 in 1940
>90 mm M1 being used for AT work
>90 mm M1 having ammunution capable of AT work
So that's one of them right out.
Which US 76 are you refering to? I can't wait to disprove this one.
>inb4 but it was developed from it
Why would the US need an AT gun that could frontally penetrate a Panther in 1940? What is being proven here? This seems like a silly line of questioning.
Also, the M1918 155 mm GPF. The US had those in inventory in 1940 and they could frick a Panther up good and proper.
>Why would the US need an AT gun that could frontally penetrate a Panther in 1940? What is being proven here? This seems like a silly line of questioning.
The point is that the Shermans protection is so lackluster that an AT gun made in 1940 can penetrate it.
1940.
you are acting as though this is a sticking point but everyone else is 83 years ahead of you, they've already factored in the "lackluster" protection, and determined it was not a significant element in real combat
>they've already factored in the "lackluster" protection, and determined it was not a significant element in real combat
M4A3E2 enters the chat
M4A3E2 is pretty unique
the Sherman was so good+cheap the Allies looked at the cost of getting some decent heavy tanks in short order, then said "no frick it just put more armor on a Sherman instead"
and it worked, with minimal consequences, they did get run into the ground due to heavy use & slightly worse reliability though
>M4A3E2 is pretty unique
So unique that the crews made field expedient Jumbos but cutting up damaged Shermans and Panthers and making their own.
But its not a it was not a significant element in real combat. We don't need to up armor our tanks because they have lackluster protection.
We don't need to pour concrete on the. We don't need to put thousands of sandbags and also fill them with concrete. We don't need to weld all our spare track to them. We don't need to make franken jumbos.
Armor is all good here.
>We
>our
you are not part of any German state and never will be moron lmao
Black person I am talking about the Sherman and I am immitating what tanks crews actually did.
Reading comprehension much?
>Reading comprehension much?
why would I read your posts charitably, going so far as to creatively re-write them to make sense for you, when you failed to engage meaningfully with mine?
have a nice day gay
>But its not a it was not a significant element in real combat.
if frontal armor was extended to be immune to all german weapons it would only make the tank 10% more survivabile
side armor must also be increased
which is what the jumbo did, and it was slower as a result of the lower gear ratio
the jumbo was a specialized assault tank, and it was used as a specialized vehicle being a platoon that was used to reinforce units when needed
>We don't need to pour concrete on the
the germans also poured concrete on their armor
the IS-2 is a tank not wanting for protection and it also had mesh armor installed
crews arent aware of operational factors and tend to think solely in terms of "thicker is better"
which is why patton chewed out crews who placed sandbags on their tanks
>We don't need to pour concrete on the. We don't need to put thousands of sandbags and also fill them with concrete. We don't need to weld all our spare track to them. We don't need to make franken jumbos.
That’s true though. Those were all ineffective and pointless. Just because the GIs believed it doesn’t make it accurate, hell their the basis of a huge amount of fuddlore.
*they’re
>That’s true though. Those were all ineffective and pointless.
Not the point.
>Just because the GIs believed it doesn’t make it accurate, hell their the basis of a huge amount of fuddlore.
The fighting men felt that the armor was inadequet and that something needed to be done by it.
>determined it was not a significant element in real combat
Clearly it was otherwise why would all of these things happen.
So clearly you are talking out of your arse.
The fighting men also though that keeping your helmet strapped on could cause the concussion from an explosion to rip your head off and that .30 carbine could be stopped by a winter coat.
>Clearly it was otherwise why would all of these things happen.
Because 18 year old GIs who are scared and have no real education in armor penetration or design will believe and do stupid shit.
>See burned out Shermans and have multiple tanks in your unit get penetrated
>Decide to do something about it
>Some autistic on a mongolian basket weaving forum says you're a moron who does stupid shit
I appreciate you trying to weave the narrative this hard but it doesn't add up to reality. If it wasn't a problem why would such an effort be made by so many people to fix a problem that didn't exist.
Why did so many soldiers and marines leave their helmets unstrapped?
I don't fricking care as I'm not talking about that. Separate issue for separate reasons. They aren't comparable.
Because both are examples of troops in the field taking ineffective action based on fear, with no basis in the reality of the time. Why should I trust the opinions of soldiers who put concrete and sandbags on their tanks, which would be about as effective as papier-mâché to a World War II antitank gun? In fact it was worse than papier-mâché because all the added weight reduced the tanks mobility, rendering it more vulnerable. Anyone familiar with armor testing procedures or design did everything in their power to stop the hodgepodge armor.
The men operating the tanks had no real understanding of what their armor could or could not stop, their anecdotal opinions are irrelevant.
>Because both are examples of troops in the field taking ineffective action based on fear, with no basis in the reality of the time.
So reacting to your fricking tanks getting penetrated constantly is to be completely disregarded because it doesn't fit your narrative?
It clearly was a problem else there wouldn't have been an effort in multiple armies across multiple nations to address the problem.
It was clearly considered an issue at the time and was clearly a significant element in real combat by the actions of the troops
ergo this statement is false
>they've already factored in the "lackluster" protection, and determined it was not a significant element in real combat
Unless you can disprove that the people at the time didn't think it was a significant element in real combat.
I await your evidence.
>It clearly was a problem else there wouldn't have been an effort in multiple armies across multiple nations to address the problem.
And every nation strongly discouraged the act because it provided little benefit while also straining the usually maxed out suspension
Germany outright issued a "dont weld tank links" memorandum because add-on armor was useless
Crews did it because they dont understand how ballistics work and want to maintain the illusion of control on the battlefield
Therefore "crews adding makeshift armor" does not equal "the tank is poorly protected"
Because even well protected tanks will eventually get makeshift armor due to most crews dont really have access to statistical analysis
>And every nation strongly discouraged the act because it provided little benefit while also straining the usually maxed out suspension
Citation needed (no they didn't, Patton isn't a nation)
>Germany outright issued a "dont weld tank links" memorandum because add-on armor was useless Crews did it because they dont understand how ballistics work and want to maintain the illusion of control on the battlefield
When? Where? Who?
>Therefore "crews adding makeshift armor" does not equal "the tank is poorly protected"
Because even well protected tanks will eventually get makeshift armor due to most crews dont really have access to statistical analysis
Conjecture. Prove it. I don't see well armored tanks getting concrete poured on the front of them. I don't see them getting tracks welded on. If the protection is suficient then the crew will feel its sufficient and won't act on it by adding their own shit.
What they thought was irrelevant. Just because a lot of people have an ill-informed opinion doesn’t make it accurate.
>they've already factored in the "lackluster" protection, and determined it was not a significant element in real combat
I agree. This is an ill-informed opinion and it is inaccuarate.
Would you like me to start quoting the 1945 report on the assesment of US equipment to prove you being wrong by the people in the know at the time?
I will if you actually start to engage with actual proof instead of constantly conjecture and what aboutism otherwise I'm not going to bother getting the book out.
NTA but tank crews are actually a pretty shitty source for hard data in WW2. Famously inexperienced American tank crews reported Tigers at far higher rates than they could have encountered them given the number on the western front and in general frontline troops often b***h about perceived flaws in their equipment that are a result of their own incompetence or lack of training.
See also: the M1 Carbine being underpowered in Korea when it was just morons missing.
>The M4A3E2 is not proof that this is false
>The field expident protection in place with multiple divisions, armies and fronts is not proof that this is false
>This is not a normal reaction to combat experience and seeing your tanks get penetrated over and over and therefore rectifying a problem
"they've already factored in the "lackluster" protection, and determined it was not a significant element in real combat"
Conclusion: you are an idiot who not only has to be led to water but has to be forced to drink it
>The M4A3E2 is not proof that this is false
It isnt
Its a specialized vehicle designed to conduct breakthroughs
Only to be used for a short distance before being replaced by lighter tanks
>field expident protection
That’s a good euphemism for “shit that does nothing but break your transmission”.
>muddies the water with whataboutism
We're talking about Shermans, the efforts of crews to remedy inadequet protection and most importantly to debunk this statement
>they've already factored in the "lackluster" protection, and determined it was not a significant element in real combat
What the frick does helmets unstrapped have to do with the price of fish?
>What the frick does helmets unstrapped have to do with the price of fish?
Because it was an example of an effort by so many people to fix a problem that didn't exist.
>See burned out Shermans and have multiple tanks in your unit get penetrated
grunts will slap hilly billy armor on pretty much anything
the only ones who didnt were the japanese where it was explicitly disallowed
even tiger tanks had sandbag armor on them occasionally
what soldiers do to their tanks has little bearing on its actual effectiveness because they only see the tactical level
>Some autistic on a mongolian basket weaving forum says you're a moron who does stupid shit
it was discouraged by many allied commanders who rightfully saw it as a waste of time
even purpose built armor modifications would only bring protection up by about 10% because you need to armor the whole tank, which would also require changing the gear ratios to compensate
So it was "a significant element in real combat" by those who used the equipment in the time period.
Thank you, that's all I wanted.
>So it was "a significant element in real combat"
the conclusion was that it was significant morale booster with no tactical advantage
crews simply do not concern themselves with strategic information and will have a very straightforward "thick armor good" instead of "a 10% increase in survivability is not a significant enough reason to weld a 2in plate to the front"
At close range and with the right ammo. In which case the Panther would get penned by a M1918 3-inch.
Again, I don't understand this line of questioning. Doctrines were different and the strategic situation was different. At the end of the day the Sherman was successful in its role wherever it went. Panther was not and only had a couple times where it even acted in it's designed role where it then failed. Does that sound like it was an effective design to you?
>Yeah its so good they removed wet cope stowage after the war
the wet part of wet stowage never helped that much in the first place
what actually helped was its placement in an armored box on the floor of the tank, a much less likely place to be hit
though they drained the water-mixture from the tank, they kept the position in the hull in all future designs
the M60A1 patton only keeps a small ready rack in the turret with the majority of its ammo on a floor bin
Mogged
>PotatoBlack person who is paid by Russians
A less biased "source" please.
Sherman had one of the best survival rates among its crew when hit.
Sherman armor was decent for its time.
Comparable to t-34 and better than panzer iv.
>the universal tank concept
Literally just a medium tank. Everybody was already using medium tanks in the mbt role in WW2, heavy tanks were rare. Many post war "MBTs" were still classed as medium tanks.
There is no "universal tank concept", that's a moronic meme cooked up by historians. People kept using medium and light tanks, heavy tanks fell out of use because medium tanks got heavy enough for any practical purpose.
Also, it's hilarious to me that people credit the panther with being the first mbt rathed than the sherman
>medium tank used in conjunction with numerous heavy tanks
vs
>a medium tank that was deemed good enough with respect to the logistical hassle it required to do away with heavy tanks entirely in the field
US forces in WW2 had light tanks, and they had Shermans. Just like modern armies have light vehicles and mbts.
>Literally just a medium tank.
What the frick are you trying to say here? Tank destroyers were a moronic pre-war concept that didn't work well in practice and ended up being used as ersatz shermans or ersatz artillery batteries.
In other armies they weren't even doctrinally separate, just cheaper versions of regular tanks without turrets relegated to AT units previously equipped with AT guns.
>Tank destroyers were a moronic pre-war concept that didn't work well in practice
on the rare occasions they were used exactly as intended they actually did well
and they performed well even when just used as replacement towed guns
they were so successful that they totally replaced towed guns after the war
and were only replaced themselves by MBTs and missile carriers
>In other armies they weren't even doctrinally separate,
SU-100s were literally in a separate unit that specialized in tank hunting
an SPG regiment had 1 battalion of SU-100s to commit to where the enemy tanks would be in the highest concentration
with SU-76 battalions for infantry support
this is more or less how they were used in the US army
TD battalions would just split up their forces to shore up infantry units and replace their towed guns
>What the frick are you trying to say here?
>no! you cant install AT gun on tank! no! its illegal! tank is for fighting infantry! Here is your tank and here is your tank destroyer!
>Germans: *puts AT gun on Panther*
>everybody be like: "oh shit!"
fpbp
>cigarette monkeys
stopped reading. The French do three things better than anyone else in Europe and cooking and fricking are #s 2 and 3 respectively.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!1 RELIABILITY AND LOGISTICS ARE JUST israeli MEMES!!! IT’S NOT FAIR THAT THEIR TANKS HAVE GAS AND NOT MINE! STUPID ALLIEDBOO BIAS!!!!!
>Panther had a shitty transmission you had to dismantle half the tank to replace
>T-34 had a shitty transmission you had to use a sledgehammer to change gears with
I think I found out why nazis and ziggers seethe about trannies so much.
>single handedly mogs every other medium tank produced during WW2 and even some heavy tanks
At more than 50x the cost and with horriffic reliability issues
used by nations post war
The french, who used a batallion, had some pretty terrible stuff to say about it
post war tank development more than any other
Source: it was revealed to me in a dream
>>is used as the benchmark for all good medium tanks and some MBTs
Source: skaggs the meth dealer
Name one postwar mbt inspired by the panther? Protip u cant
>At more than 50x the cost
Stopped reading there.
It was about as cheap as the panzer IV, which was about as expensive as the t34 and Sherman (no the t34 was not super cheap in man hours or material).
Cheaper than the pzIV actually by the F variant due to the much cheaper turret but those Panthers never reached mass production.
Where are you getting your information? I've always found to many difficulties trying to get an answer:
1. Vehicle types: If you're going to compare tank production costs in dollars and/or manhours we need to at least agree on what models of each vehicle.
2. Exchange rates: A Reichmark in 1940 was 2.5 to 1, by 1945 it was 1 to 1 despite the lack of foreign exchange due to the war. A Panther that might have cost accounted for 146K RM could cost between 60K USD or 146K USD.
3. Production styles: While all the combatants used mass production techniques to varying degree, there is still large gaps. Should the Panther be penalized for Germany's failings? Should the Sherman not get credit for design features that made it suitable for mass production?
4. Fit and finish: The Soviets were notorious for poor quality control and fit and finish issues. Should the Germans or be penalized for finishing their tanks properly when it comes to calculating manhours per unit?
5. Production efficiencies: As a production line matures it usually finds ways to save labour/costs. The only way to be fair is to average them over the entire production run, but we don't have that sort of data.
6. Input costs: A lot of the cost related to the production of tanks comes from inputs. Steel for instance. Should any of the producers be penalized for their internal steel/input costs?
7. Lack of data: There just isn't enough and the Soviets didn't use the same accounting
8. Methodology: Some producers costed tanks without guns, radios, or engines, making comparison difficult.
9. Different factories: Some were just faster than others for the same item.
By all accounts, the Sherman was easiest to produce when accounting for actual production. They used every mass manufacturing technique conceived of, the tank design was optimized for production at the expense of effectiveness, and the scale of production would have captured every efficiency.
because america built more shermans than Germany built Panther road wheels while still being a really decent tank that, unlike Panther, saw extensive post war service and upgrades
If Panther was so good why did France retire it for Super Shermans, keeping only the gun?
>If Panther was so good why did France retire it for Super Shermans, keeping only the gun?
first of all, no, they didn't
they used both Shermans and Panthers at the same time and M-50 were never adopted by the French. They helped design it though. The gun is not the same 75mm either, btw.
Their Panthers were captured leftovers that were beaten up even before they entered French service, the factories making all the parts were in shambles and French aren't going to allow, let alone bankroll the necessary renovations of German arms and tank industry right after the war.
It has nothing to do with the flaws/qualities.
>single handedly mogs every other medium tank produced during WW2 and even some heavy tanks
Doesn't matter because the spare parts plant got bombed and its fuel supply has been taken over.
>still used by nations post war
Briefly, and
>influences post war tank development more than any other
The T-44, M26 Pershing, and Chieftain tanks were more influential than the Panther on modern tank design.
>is used as the benchmark for all good medium tanks and some MBTs
Not really. It just followed the general trends of tank design at the time. As did other nations.
>How can Sherman shitters and T-34 copers even compete?
By being on the side that didn't need to desperately outgun their enemy.
>How can Sherman shitters even compete?
>influences post war tank development more than any other
Yeah. By providing designers with an example of what NOT to do.
objectively true, only anglo seethe keeps this from becoming the mainstream opinion
E-50 would have been the interesting one, if that would have materialized.
cope
OPs post is bait
Don't mind me just using tech that took nearly 20 years to be introduced onto other tanks
>The M4 Sherman proved to be reliable, relatively cheap to produce, and available in great numbers. It was also the basis of several other armored fighting vehicles including self-propelled artillery, tank destroyers, and armored recovery vehicles
>The designers stressed reliability, ease of production and maintenance, durability, standardization of parts and ammunition in a limited number of variants, and moderate size and weight (to facilitate shipping and for compatibility with existing bridging equipment size and weight limit restrictions[9]).
Which of these factors is the panther better in? Reliability? Maintenance? Durability? Cost? Versatility to fit other rolls? Ease for shipping?
Not dying to a stiff breeze for a start.
>when one of the major selling points of your tank is that its cheap
I'm glad you value the lives of your men so low.
This breaks the pantherbros.
Plz look at the process to replace the transmission of a panther vs that of a sherman
>panther 2 never ever
Medium tank engagements mostly came down to who saw the other first and thus who fired first. Taking logistics out of the picture anyway.
>Gun that shits all over everything the allies have until the 90mm at the very end of the war (its been killing Russians since 1943)
>Armor that shrugs off the best the allies can throw at it and requires a lucky shot to penetrate
>Fights in every theatre and makes a good showing of itself over and over
>Allies are so impressed by it they get the Germans to build more to study it and compare their designs to
Even the Allies appreciated the good qualities of the Panther, why can't you?
Panther was a fat b***h
>Panther? Nein, ich am American! Love apple pie and baseball!
Seems legit to me.
Really? Name Donald Duck nephews
Circumcised Panther
I know next to nothing about armor/tanks but they're kino as frick. Please post kino pictures. Thanks anons. Here's a Cadillac Gage Commando Scout. I have no clue if it was good or it was shit but I like the way it looks.
The sexiest Panther
Are you a war Thunder dev?
Shermans had a positive k/d against Panther tanks.
>single handedly mogs every other medium tank produced during WW2 and even some heavy tanks
lost the battle of arracourt to "inferior" medium tanks
>still used by nations post war
the french used them for 4 years and rated them poorly
the panzer IV saw more action
>influences post war tank development more than any other
the french maybe and the british used a few components in the centurion
but US post-war tank development was based on the M26 pershing, in turn based on the T20-T25 series of tanks that were in development since 1942
the soviet T-55 was based on the T-44 which was a result of a drive to replace the T-34, all going on before they even met a panther
>ACK MEIN KRUP STEEL THEY TOLD ME ALLIED TANKS COULDNT KILL A PANTHER
Why the frick do people making these threads always talk about muh Panther. I'm not going to argue about the merits or demerits of the Panther but there are German late war weapons that deserve the wunderwaffe label much more than the god damn fricking Panther. Picrel, the Zaunkönig torpedos, the X-4, etc. For fricks sakes the Panzerfaust was a far more influential design, perhaps not flashy enough to be "wunderwaffe" but traces of its design remain in many modern AT systems. Yet for some fricking reason you twats always screech about
>MUH PANTHER TANK
>How can Sherman shitters and T-34 copers even compete
By driving on victory parades
They had horses! What where they thinking?!
>single handedly mogs every other medium tank produced during WW2 and even some heavy tanks
Only on paper. In practice there were never enough, or good enough to turn the tide.
>still used by nations post war
One nation, that was so hard up for tanks post-war that they raided scrap yards.
>influences post war tank development more than any other
Nah. That would be the Centurion and Patton (once they figured out what the frick they wanted to do with it) in the west, and T-44 in the east.
>is used as the benchmark for all good medium tanks and some MBTs
Lol. No.
If the panther was so good, then why is it basically the only medium tank that never saw successive development into the cold war era? No effort was made to continue production beyond a handful of vics that ended up on firing ranges. No effort was made to retain hulls that made it through the war. Even the nations that used it quickly dropped it for other options as soon as they became available.
>If the panther was so good, then why is it basically the only medium tank that never saw successive development into the cold war era? No effort was made to continue production beyond a handful of vics that ended up on firing ranges. No effort was made to retain hulls that made it through the war. Even the nations that used it quickly dropped it for other options as soon as they became available.
Why would a medium tank from a nation that was disarmed and torn apart at the end of the war not have an immediate development..
Why indeed. Also why would you carry on the development of another nations tank? Oh wait you just steal the good parts and incoprate it into your own design.
moron.
>Why indeed. Also why would you carry on the development of another nations tank? Oh wait you just steal the good parts and incoprate it into your own design.
What specific elements unique to the panther’s design were incorporated into postwar tank designs?
>Why would a medium tank from a nation that was disarmed and torn apart at the end of the war not have an immediate development..
the US wasnt shy about stealing things from germany if it was expedient
the M60 was inspired by the FG42, the M72 LAW is loosely inspired by the panzerfaust, and so on
but nothing in the panther survived into the next generation
the panther ended up being a dead end in tank design
pretty much all tank in mass production were dead ends, created by the unique circumstances of the time
post war development in the US was largely driven by the M26 pershing
the first T25 rolled off the assembly line only a few months after the panther was encountered and well before it was deployed en masse, the only effect the panther had on its development was a thickening of the frontal hull from 3in to 4in, which proved detrimental as the engine was not increased to compensate
for the soviets part, the T-54 was intended as a successor to the ill-fated T-44, which took similiar design elements but with all the actual mechanical bits beign wholly unique
while the T-44 was trialed against the panther to test its effectiveness, the T-44 has no overlapping design with the panther bar sloped armor
>It wasn't a problem
>They just did all of these things to solve a problem that wasn't actually a problem even though they witnessed first hand that this was actually a problem that needs to be fixed
>But they don't know that this is a problem because everything is actually fine, they're actually only acting on fear and its not actually a problem that needs to be fixed
>Don't worry about those burning shermans, not a problem. Don't worry about the 50mm holes in the front of that Sherman its not a problem
>REEE STOP ADDING ARMOR ITS NOT A PROBLEM YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING
All I get from this is that it was a problem.
>It wasn't a problem
it wasnt
>They just did all of these things to solve a problem that wasn't actually a problem even though they witnessed first hand that this was actually a problem that needs to be fixed
soldiers will add armor to anything they have
its not indicative of actual performance because it helps them cope with the random brutality of war
>Don't worry about those burning shermans, not a problem
shermans didnt actually burn often
dry ones did between 60-80% of the time
wet ones 15% of the time
soldiers simply see the ones that did, even if they were a minority, and assume its a regular issue
>REEE STOP ADDING ARMOR ITS NOT A PROBLEM YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING
this was the conclusion most forces reached during the war
if the panther was so good, then why did germany lose the war and broke it's transmission everytime?
if anon is so smart how come he can't make an actual argument?
>because tanks win wars all by themselves
>because tanks win wars all by themselves
not an argument
if the germans could design and deploy such a good tank, then why did they lost?
and also, if it was so good, then why it could get penetrated from the front by a firefly?
The firefly was itself clearly a copy of the Panther.
should have made a flintstone version for when they ran out of gas
It's not a medium, frick off.
>How can Sherman shitters and T-34 copers even compete?
Panthers produced: around 6 000
Shermans produced: 49 234
T-34 produced: 84 070
Geee i don't know man
>Implying economic production has anything to do with quality
By your logic China makes the best steel and concrete in the world lmao.
>another "Germany should've just spammed vehicles" boomer take
many such cases among history channel watchers
All those Sherman tankers complaining about how the Sherman was unarmored and vulnerable and got its crew killed.
How many of them weren’t dead?
>single handedly mogs every other medium tank produced during WW2
How so? It's heavy, unreliable, it's huge, it's expensive.
>still used by nations post war
By Romania and France, even so they were ditched in less than a decade. Compare that to T-34/85, M4 or Centurion.
>influences post war tank development more than any other
How so?
>is used as the benchmark for all good medium tanks
By who?