Panther, on the whole, was the best medium tank (what we would call an MBT these days) of WWII. Could have been improved (better engine and transmission; better suspension - road wheel arrangement - to avoid getting crud, mud and snow between the wheels with problems resulting; power traverse, mainly), but then most things can be. The 7.5cm L/71 gun (especially with Hartkern projectiles) was one of the best of its time, easily the equal of the 17-pounder. Interestingly (since nobody had thought of it yet), the hull shape was almost perfect for Chobham-type armor (as was Tiger II). The wide tracks were excellent in aiding improved mobility.

If I was given the job of optimizing the Panther, would go to a suspension/road-wheel arrangement like M-26 (or Tiger I...), a good diesel, and a rear-mounted cross drive transmission. Plus Chobham armor, reactive applique, power traverse for turret, modern fire-control, and perhaps a 10.5cm gun.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Maybe they should have showed that video at Ft.Knox in early 1944.

 

My brother served in the Pacific Theater in WW2. He spent most of the war as a Stewart tank commander, but got a Sherman in late 44. He thought that Sherman was the best thing since peanut butter, until a cousin he had not seen since before the war came visiting. The two of them got into heavy conversation about relatives and old girlfriends and whatever happened to, until brother ask cousin what he did during the war? "Gunner for a Sherman tank, Europe." came the reply. "I still have nightmares about being in one of those damn things. I'm looking through my sight and see a panzer traversing its' turret. I fire without orders and see the shell hit it square. Big BOOM but it didn't hurt the panzer. The commander has already bailed and I wake up covered in sweat. The wife has threatened to leave me if I can't get ahold of my self."

 

Not sure either who made the comparison, but the infantryman who jumped into the water trench looked to be carrying a Swedish K SMG. John

 

It is Swedish.

My regiment was the Canadian Grenadier Guards. *
They were an armored corps During WWII.
There were still a few WWII vets alive when I was there. Many were wounded in ation, Most died in action.
Most still had nightmares about the Shermans
Were decent tanks until they had to face Panthers and Tigers
If it wasn't for the 17Pdr gun version, they might have been wiped out.

*The Second World War[edit]
The regiment mobilized The Canadian Grenadier Guards, CASF on 24 May 1940. It was redesignated as the 1st Battalion, The Canadian Grenadier Guards, CASF on 7 November 1940. It was converted to armour and redesignated as the 22nd Armoured Regiment (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), CAC, CASF on 26 January 1942 and as the 22nd Armoured Regiment (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), RCAC, CASF on 2 August 1945. It embarked for Britain on 25 September 1942. On 26 July 1944, it landed in France as part of the 4th Armoured Brigade, 4th Canadian Armoured Division, and it continued to fight in North West Europe until the end of the war. The overseas regiment was disbanded on 15 February 1946.[13]
On 1 June 1945, a second Active Force component of the regiment was mobilized for service in the Pacific theatre of operations as the 22nd Canadian Tank Battalion (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), CAC, CASF6 It was redesignated as the 22nd Canadian Tank Battalion (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), RCAC, CASF and was disbanded on 1 November 1945.[14]

 

So was the Panther better than the T-34 ?

 

So, my observation based on a lot of off road and heavy equipment driving (Bulldozers, tracked Skid steers, tractors, No actual tank experience except for 15 min in a T-34) is that the driver of the Sherman was a novice, and the Panther driver had more than a little experience. It appeared that the gearing in the Panther was better for low and slow, or the Sherman driver had the tank in a High range - it seemed to spin and slip the treads where the panther just idles over the obstacles. All in all- the Panther was probably a better tank, kind of surprised no-one re-engineered it and used it post war. Guess there were enough cheap left over allied and German and russian tanks laying around.....

 

I think the French used some Panthers for a while post war.
Some other German armor wound up in Syria.
As far as the Panther being better than the T34, better optics, better gun, and better quality ammo and armor.
But, 5 thousand or so Panthers on 3 fronts versus a LOT more t 34/85s by the end of the war.

 

I read an article many years ago in ARMOR magazine that the French used some Panthers up until the very early 1960's, and in the author's opinion it would still hold it own in a battle. John

 

In a one to one combat the Panther was better than the T-34 or the Sherman but this is not the way things go in a war.
Production - how complicated it was, how many working hours necessary to complet one, how much raw material needed, how skilled labor force had to be - T-34 wins, followed by the Sherman. Panther lurking far behind.
Tactical mobility, on the battlefield - T-34, Panther, Sherman
Strategic mobility, that means capability to be ferried by any means over long distances or to drive a long distance on tracks without breaking at a significant rate, fuel consumption and bridge crossing capability included - Sherman, T-34, Panther.
The main gun on the Panther was surely the best in armor piercing capabilities and precision but the barrel had to be changed after 750 - 800 rounds due to high wear. The gun on a Pz.IV could fire up to 5,000 rounds without significant loss in performances.
The Panther had some unnecessary complications. One could not drive a Panther over 100 km without breaking the final drive. Hell, this was breaking even in rough ground if driver paid not attention!
From the crew perspective the Panther was the finest tank of WW2. But I bet Guderian was not all that happy with how it performed on the field! In fact it was not and in fact he did not asked for a Panther but for a better T-34!

 

PANTHER vs T-34/85 = Target practice for the Panther !

 

Panther vs T-34



Quite.

I have read quite a bit lately concerning the T-34, and it had several really severe weaknesses. For one thing, you really couldn't see out of the damned thing. Secondly, the commander had much too much to do. Thirdly, until quite late in WWII, they didn't have any reliable radios. The turret was too small inside, and at least at first, there was no basket.

It's main claim to fame was that there were something like 30,000 of them made, while there were very, very few German tanks in comparison. The figure of 5000 German MBTs comes to mind, although this is off the top of my head, and I could be wrong.

Supposedly, if one looks carefully at battle records of the German-Soviet war, there were 5 losses of T-34s to 1 loss of German heavy armour.

But Russia could "afford" those losses, and Germany couldn't...and didn't.

 

Having been in Armor (M60 series) in Germany from 73 -78 we were taught not to do many of the things both of those tanks were doing. You didn't elevate over an obstacle because it exposed the most vulnerable part of the vehicle. We didn't run through the trees because it was too easy to get hung up on a stump. And we didn't go through swamps or over small creeks for fear of throwing a tread. Tanks were made for fighting in open country. The best places for them was the plains in Germany or the desert of the Middle East. While the Sherman had many issues it was best known for its speed. In most cases the crews were taught to attempt to circle around the Panther and hit it from the rear, its most vulnerable area. This normally put it out of action very quickly. And, as someone else pointed out, they were easy and quick to build. We furnished many of the allied forces with Shermans also.

 

Brazen Chariots is indeed a good book. i remember his description of watching his 37 m/m tracer go sailing across the desert and bounce off a German tank. He always worried about their short cruising range and running out of gas.

 

M3/M5 were great little tanks, but like the M26, M41, and all other light tanks, more scout vehicles than anything else. My dad was a tank platoon leader on M41's back in the 50's, and still gets teary-eyed when talking about them. Relative to the M4/T-34/Pzkw V discussion, I do not believe that you would get much of an argument from M4 or T-34 crewmen that the Panther was the better tank. Tactically, no doubt, however, a 5-1 or 7-1 kill ratio is still a loser if your enemy can out produce you at 10-1. Add to that, the fact that the German effective strength was even lower, significantly, due to reliability. All this adds up to the M4/T-34 being better strategic systems. But the real killer for Germany, was their lack of real force multipliers. They lost air superiority, never could co-ordinate their artillery, and lost the ability to keep their forces supplied. The real comparison should be the 2 1/2 ton truck to the horse cart.

 

Despite contrary beliefs inside Panther was cramped.

 

Of course a Panther was cramped inside. Not AS cramped as aT-34, though. I have never been in any tank (was a 4815 Mech Maintenance Officer on active duty 1966-1970) that wasn't pretty tight, though some more than others. As best I can recall, I have been inside M-4, M47, M-48, M-60, T-55 and M-41. Oh - also M-1 Abrams when I was a JAG with 1st CAV 1974-77. For a tank, the Abe struck me as fairly roomy, but still right tight.

 

 

commander, gunner loader.

 

I've seen some of those scenes in a longer video before. If I remember right it was a Swedish training film and it was linked here. They also ran a Churchill tank and some kind of light tank. Interestingly the light tank bogged down in the marsh too and the panther did much better

 

The best tank of WWII was in my opinion the sturmgeschutz (long barreled), there were more knight cross commanders who drove a sturmgeschutz than tank commanders.
It even was a rule under soviet tank commanders to NOT engage a fight with a sturmgeschutz if they were alone on the battlefield.
The same goes foor al the low tank hunters (Hetzer ea).

Jean

 

Sturmgeschutzen and Panzerjagern were not tanks. AFVs, yes, and with a tank destroyer function as a secondary or primary role, yes. But not tanks.

 

Gents,

Spin it anyway you want to ...it does not alter the fact the Sherman was high silhouette, burnt up quickly due to gasoline engines, and under gunned. T34, Panther, Tiger were neither and far superior

If "more' is your rationale to give Sherman value added in WWII...then lay it out in the open, we made more Shermans than Brits made Cromwells and the Sherman was clearly superior to the Cromwell. Not saying much is it ?

Fact is the US Army had a POS for a tank . Don't forget..we made more POS than anyone else in battle tanks so were were #1..true statement but irrelvant. We had a POS tank.

 

I think you need to check on the type of fuel used in the German Tiger and Panthers and report back.
SOP for shooting a tank was to shoot it until it burned.

 

In the book "The Sharp End" The Fighting man in WWII is an interview of a British Churchill Tank commander about fighting Panthers and Tigers:

"What do the Germans have most of?
Panthers. The Panther can slice through a Churchill like butter from a mile away.
And how does a Churchill get a Panther?
It creeps up on it. When it reaches close quarters, the gunner tries to bounce a shot off the underside of the Panther's gun mantle. If he's lucky, it goes through the piece of thin armor above the driver's head.
Has anyone ever done it?
Yes, Davis in "C" Squadron. He's back with headquarters now trying to recover his nerve.
What's next on the list?
Tigers. The Tiger can get you from a mile and a half.
And how does a Churchill get a Tiger?
It's supposed to get within 200 yards and put a shot through the periscope.
Has anyone ever done it?
No.

Not mentioned if it was the 6 pounder (57mm cannon) or the 75 mm cannon version of the Churchill. Later it talks about the Churchill when shot would catch fire 3 out of 5 times and take about 10 seconds for the flames to sweep through the entire tank. It then says the Sherman caught fire every time, and flames swept through in about 3 seconds, and the Germans called the Sherman "Tommy cookers" while supposedly the Allies called the Sherman "Ronson" burners. This came from the Ronson add that their product "light the first time".
Still there were way more Sherman's than Panters or Tigers and the fact that the Allies had almost complete air superiority and P47's and Mustangs over almost all advances saved lots of tank crews. John

 

In the book "The Sharp End" The Fighting man in WWII is an interview of a British Churchill Tank commander about fighting Panthers and Tigers:

"What do the Germans have most of?
Panthers. The Panther can slice through a Churchill like butter from a mile away.
And how does a Churchill get a Panther?
It creeps up on it. When it reaches close quarters, the gunner tries to bounce a shot off the underside of the Panther's gun mantle. If he's lucky, it goes through the piece of thin armor above the driver's head.
Has anyone ever done it?
Yes, Davis in "C" Squadron. He's back with headquarters now trying to recover his nerve.
What's next on the list?
Tigers. The Tiger can get you from a mile and a half.
And how does a Churchill get a Tiger?
***'s supposed to get within 200 yards and put a shot through the periscope.
Has anyone ever done it?
No.

Not mentioned if it was the 6 pounder (57mm cannon) or the 75 mm cannon version of the Churchill. Later it talks about the Churchill when shot would catch fire 3 out of 5 times and take about 10 seconds for the flames to sweep through the entire tank. It then says the Sherman caught fire every time, and flames swept through in about 3 seconds, and the Germans called the Sherman "Tommy cookers" while supposedly the Allies called the Sherman "Ronson" burners. This came from the Ronson add that their product "light the first time".
Still there were way more Sherman's than Panters or Tigers and the fact that the Allies had almost complete air superiority and P47's and Mustangs over almost all advances saved lots of tank crews. John

That sounds like an extremely creative piece of writing. Tank to tank kills at a mile or a mile and a half were a small part of anybody's worries until the computer age. I think many people underrate the difference when similar-sounding guns are run by stationary artillery with spirit-levels and mechanical calculating devices. Let alone a warship, with people sitting around a table of dials below the waterling, factoring in everything there is.

The Churchill was conceived as an infantry support tank, on the basis that war in France just might be like WWI. It was intended to flatten wire, cross trenches and tackle strongpoints improvised or not, in field-fortifications, or to be a strongpoint. It wasn't intended for armour against armour comb at all.

It started out with a even more pitiful 2-pounder gun, but the 6-pounder was considered adequate for its purpose, and the small turret helped to permit armour exceptional for its period. It was very difficult to put out of action by anti-tank guns, and would stand considerable damage to the suspension without being immobilised. Its original speed of 12mph declined somewhat with the Mk VII, which was actually more heavily armoured than the Tiger 1. Slowness increased its vulnerability, and from some angles lack of slope did. But I can't see it being worse off than the T-34, with less than half the thickness It shared the danger of any gasoline-fuelled tank, but did have side escape hatches between the upper and lower paths of the tracks. It was also capable of crossing steeper terrain obstacles than most main battle tanks of the war. Much is made of the Churchills' difficulty in crossing a steep gravel beach in the Dieppe Raid, but I think most would have done at least as badly.

The summer of 1940 probably strengthened faith in the Churchill, since the danger of invasion was the major preoccupation, and the Germans had no means of importing many main battle tanks until a port had been taken. By the time production began it had dawned on people what blitzkrieg could be, and consideration was given to discontinuing Churchill production. Besides, the need for armour was too pressing to temporarily immobilise a production line by switching to something else. But uses continued to be found for it, notably at El Alamein, resulting in a continuation of production, and in the bocage country of Normandy.

It is safe to say that Churchills were less in demand than other large tanks, resulting in the wide variety of recovery, mine-clearing and bridging vehicles built on the Churchill chassis.

A point often forgotten about the Sherman is that the decision to rely so heavily on them was made when it was impossible to ship them directly from the US to the continent of Europe, and it was uncertain how that might change after invasion. I believe even the wide-bodied Churchill could be transported by rail to the ports by certain routes. But in general, British railways were built when mid-Victorians took a guess at how wide to make the tunnels. Continental railways mostly had (and have) a slightly wider loading gauge, but not by much. The narrow-bodied Sherman is probably the last main battle tank of anybody's to be transportable just about anywhere by train. Both versions of the Tiger were occasionally transportable by rail in fighting order, on slected pieces of line. But they more often required to have their narrow transportation tracks changed.

Many people forget to remember than the British produced what is surely the best tank design of WW2, the Centurion. Credit for it would be greater if it had gone into production before November 1945. But ordering 800 surely does count as shaking off post-war inertia, parsimony and euphoria.

I do know a railway bridge near my home where the stonework is still patched with brick after a Churchill was stuck there for several days. The road is wide enough for two-way traffic, so I think it tried to cut the corner too sharply, lifting one track off the ground, and they left it there till the bridge could be shored up.

 

'Quantity has a quality all of its own' were the truest words ever spoken about the latter stages of WW2. The allies could put more than a THOUSAND four-engined bombers in the air, by day or night, and sometimes, by day AND night. The German four-engine aircraft, the Focke-Wulf 'Condor' was mostly used for maritime reconnaissance and the occasional convoy attack. And there not very many of them, either.

As for the figures regarding Shermans, let's just read the words written by Belton Y. Cooper in his book 'Death Traps'.

Quote - 'The Third Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired [and] put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580%'.

My dad was inducted into tank maintenance just prior to D-Day, and spent the remainder of the war repairing those Shermans, and other Allied tanks, that were at least salvageable. Even so, he had some real horror stories that he passed on to me when I got old enough to 'appreciate' them. I was able to see at first hand the effects of the 75mm Hartkerngeschoss from Panther on one of the exhibits at Overloon in the Netherlands. The shot penetrated the chilled casting of the right-hand transmission cover, then went up and over the gun and back down into the compartment, exiting through the engine compartment and into oblivion. Only the commander got out, but left his legs behind.

According to the text accompanying the exhibit, the Panther had opened fire at just over 950m.

Let's not overlook that as well as the Mustangs and P47s, the Allies also had the Typhoon and Tempest FGA aircraft. Their onboard load of eight 60 pound rockets was the equivalent of a broadside from a 6" gun cruiser, and the end results were annihilation for the vehicles and their crews on the ground. The Falaise pocket, the definitive Armageddon for the Wehrmacht, was an early preview of the famous Highway of Death in GW1.

tac

 

You are quoting a bozo in Belton Cooper.
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/

We know you are super sensitive about the Typhoons and Tempests but just like the German cats you did not have very many of them.
We never tire of hearing how you won the war.

 

Messers. Larsen and Foley share some brilliant comments and analysis.

 

OUTSTANDING PICK- OFFTOPIC BUT WHY NOT

 

My father was a career armor officer. WWII thru VN Wars. In 37th Tank Battalion of 4th Armored Division which was the unit that busted into Bastogne . He was no stranger to German Armor. He had zero good things to say of the M4 or any of our tank designs in WWII, he was complimentary of the M26 which arrived far too late in the war. He said...as long as you kept a ton of fan belts on hand the M26 did the job.

Now..all you experts who want to praise, shade, spin or manufacture great things to say of the M4 Sherman ...you were not there in WWII. No M4 tanker who fought German tanks will ever tell you the M4 was anything but a death trap. They used it because that is all the US Army had but it was a failure as a tank .

This American thing of always thinking and saying we had the best gets in our way some times. Sometimes truth and fact have to be taken seriously and in the case of M4 Sherman Tank, this tank
was awful. Bloody Awful.

My respects to John Larson, who commented above. He was an all star Green Beret in 3/1 SFGA.

 

Well, no I wasn't a tanker in War Two (born in 1943). However, I was an Ordnance officer for a few years and spoke with folks who ran tanks on both sides in Europe and North Africa twenty years before I went on active duty. Plus studied after action reports and studies of actions. My feeling and accounts indicate the Sherman was NOT a POS. Far from the best tank of WWII, and far from the best medicine for either a Panther or Tiger, but the equal or better of a Mark III or Mark IV (and faced more of those than Tiger or Panther). Like the later M-26, very good automotive (didn't break down as often - still maintenance hogs like every AFV I ever saw). As to "lighting every time" - did that apply to the diesel models frequently supplied to British and Russian allies? In fact, those, until wet storage for ammo was applied ALSO lit up easily - it ws the ammo that usually caught fire first when a Sherman was penetrated. until wet storage came along.

Oh - all those German tanks (ALL of them, from Mark I to King Tiger) were gasoline powered with all that implies.

Now - could the Sherman have been better? Sure. A LOT better, especially the gun. Would it have ever been the 1-on-1 equal of a Panther or Tiger in a fight? No.

 

I agree about General Mattis. Back in 2002/2003 I got to take part in a demo of different gear for the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendelton. We demo'ed the Vector Binocular Laser Range Finder, range, azimuth and hook it to a military GPS and it would give you a 10 digit grid coordinate out to about 12 KM. We started with a Gunnery Sergeant and worked our way all the way up to then MG Mattis. He liked what he saw, but one of his aides made a comment that the system was expensive. MG Mattis turned to the aide and said something like:

"How many Marine SGLI's do we have to pay out before this becomes cost effective?"

SGLI being Service Group Life Insurance, which is paid when a service member dies in combat. MG Mattis had his priorities right, take care of his men and women was more important to him then dollars. John

 

If you are not willing to take causalities you probably should not be a combat commander.

 

My father was a prewar member of a half horse/half armored car National Guard cavalry unit. They converted fully to Stuart tanks and M8 armored cars post December 7th.
They arrived in France in time to participate in the battle of Falais Gap.

Like many WWII vets, he didn't tell many war stories. But he seemed to like the M8, and also seemed glad not to be in tanks. He did mention the many tanks he saw destroyed by shaped charge weapons.