Best Panzer During WW2

[Sergei]

K_Tiger, nobody here has said that Panther was a "copy" of T-34. But you're saying that Panther was not a reaction and that the design was in no ways influenced by T-34, which I think is not very credible.

[K_Tiger]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Diesels are inherently more reliable as they have much less electrical items to go wrong. I take the point about the rest of the German armour but I assume they had some diesel trucks ... God knows why I assume ...

Anyway the diesel engine was a good German design!!!!!

I read long time ago that a WWII diesel tank engine needed up to 5 minutes for a properly start....but i can`t swear on it...

What does the truck fleet have to do with the tank development? Sure, the Germans were able to build diesel Engines, but not with the power to move 50 tonns and up around.

Diesel hase its plus in full consumption...but who knows how the german tank design went, if they hade known the future.

[K_Tiger]

Originally posted by Sergei:

K_Tiger, nobody here has said that Panther was a "copy" of T-34. But you're saying that Panther was not a reaction and that the design was in no ways influenced by T-34, which I think is not very credible.

You can call it like you want "influenced"... so all Tanks are influenced bye the first tanks from 1916...

What i hate is, wen someone put out the drawings from one single Prototype from one Companie with a similiar shape from a T-34 who never got in production state to call the better design "influenced" or a "copy"....really, doesnt matter how you call it.

I stand in front of both tanks and beside the back layered front plate, nothing lead me to the conclusion, the Panther were a follower design from the T-34.

Every nation tried to made their tanks inpennetrable for the ennemy guns and vice versa...if you call this influencing...its debatable.

In my opinnion, the Panther was a result to build a base for a bigger gun, the bad ground conditions in the east, an easier Plattform for further Projekts (like JPanther)to put a bigger engine in a Tank, ect.

So far..

[flamingknives]

I read something similar on diesel engines needing time to start up myself. IIRC, it was in very cold weather. I think the same source mentioned starting charges (like blank cartridges) were required to start the M8 Greyhound in cold weather.

[NickT]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

You can call it like you want "influenced"... so all Tanks are influenced bye the first tanks from 1916...

But there are national family trends quite easily recognised - British cruisers through to Comet and Centurion have a strong family likeness...US M3,M4...German tanks to Tiger I (excluding Panther) - there are distinct national design characteristics that are apparent.

The influence that other nations' tanks had on a country's tank design was normally/typically expressed in up-gunning and up-armouring your existing designs.

The Panther is different - it's not just a bigger version of an existing design, its a brand new design - and given the timeline of its development and the appearance of the T34, it seems a bit wilful not to see the direct impact of the T34 on its design.

But you are right in assuming that I'm not about to produce some faded sepia design directives saying: "Copy T34 and call it Panther"

[Mattias]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

In my opinnion, the Panther was a result to build a base for a bigger gun, the bad ground conditions in the east, an easier Plattform for further Projekts (like JPanther)to put a bigger engine in a Tank, ect.

In the first chapter of Speilbergers book "Der Panzer-Kampfwagen Panther und seine Abarten" the author starts out with presenting the facts and figures of the T-34 because, in his opinion:

In the end, also the construction of the new design, the Panther tank, described in this book was initiated and heavily influenced by the T-34.

That comes after he points out the "tatsach" that the appearance if the T-34 for the first time really forced the OKH to consider new heavy tank designs. And that; The reference to the T-34 goes like a red thread through the study of tanks in world war 2. On the German side it wasn't just the guns and armour of every tank, but the entire anti-tank force of the army that had to be adjusted to the new situation created by the T-34.

(my translation)

What do you base your opinion on K_Tiger?

I for one definitely, let say, imagine I see a lot of similarities between the tanks. The Panther being the more powerful one as it was, step by step, designed to decisively, and in every aspect, defeat it's older cousin.

M.

[ August 23, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Mattias:

The reference to the T-34 goes like a red thread through the study of tanks in world war 2.

(my translation)

Ah yes, the expression red thread being unfortunately continental European and would translate to either connecting thought or indeed main thread but more often the Anglosaxons simply write runs (rather than goes, walks or jumps) all through the [study of tanks of WWII].

You know, just like they never say speedblind, but the more prolix fails to adjust to a slower speed.

Reinforcing your point is Mr Senger und Etterling, in a book I borrowed.

He states that

Einige Zeit dachte man in Deutschland darüber nach, den sowjetischen Panzer einfach nachzubauen. Es stellte sich aber schnell heraus, dass der Aufwand, einen Panzer auseinander zunehmen, zu vermessen und die Maße auf deutsche Standards umzulegen beinahe genau solange dauern würde wie die Entwicklung eines neuen Fahrzeuges. Nach Untersuchungen erbeuteter T-34 beschloss man daher, einen mindestens ebenbürtigen Panzer zu bauen. Entwicklungsaufträge gingen sowohl an Daimler Benz wie an MAN. Der Vorschlag von Daimler Benz erinnerte dabei sehr stark an den T-34. Als Folge daraus war auch der Turm sehr weit vorne auf die Wanne gesetzt, was mit der zunächst geplanten Hauptbewaffnung, der 75 mm KWK 39, noch unproblematisch gewesen wäre. Als aber die neue KWK42, ebenfalls im Kaliber 75 mm, nun aber mit einer Rohrlänge von 71 Kalibern (statt 48 wie bei der alten Waffe) ausgesucht wurde, hätte dies zu einem erheblichen Überhang der Kanone und damit zu einer inakzeptablen Kopflastigkeit des Fahrzeugs geführt. Aus diesem Grund und wegen der allgemein fortschrittlicheren Auslegung wurde deshalb der MAN-Entwurf für die Produktion gewählt.

...which freely translated means something like

For a while there were ideas in Germany of simply reproducing the Soviet tank. It was however rapidly discovered that the incorporation of a foreign design in production would force changes to the majority of German industrial standards, and this would take almost as long as it would to develop a new vehicle. After researching captured T-34s it was decided to develop a tank of at least equal capacities. Development contracts went to both Daimler-Benz and MAN. The prototype of Daimler-Benz closely resembled the T-34. As a consequence, the turret was placed very far forward on the vehicle - not a problem with the planned main armament of 75mm KwK 39. But as the KwK42, also of calibre 75mm but with a length of 71 calibres (instead of 48 as the older weapon) was chosen instead, the design led to a considerable part of the cannon stretching forward of the hull, creating an unacceptable weight strain on the vehicle. Because of this and general design developments, the MAN prototype was chosen for production.

Apparently then, according to the good General, moving from outright designtheft to attempts at pirate copies, and only after failing there, to semi-independent design using the T-34 performance stats as yardstick.

So. Any reviews coming anytime soon in my alarmingly empty e-mailbox?

Cheers (hic)

Dandelion

[K_Tiger]

Hi Mattias,

I didn’t say there was no influences at all, im only every time afraid, when a thread started with "what was the best Tank in WWII" or similar, and someone comes up with somefink like "...look here, without the t-34, there was no way to build a Panther", and that’s nonsense. The most influences came from the own made practices from earlier "VK" projects and from the thousands of German Tanks who were involved in battles in Poland/French/and Russia. This always brought up influences from T-34 on the Panther is in my eyes way overrated. I wouldn’t say anything if Daimler hade got the contract, but it wasn’t so. Indeed, the Daimler Concept was heavenly influenced by the T-34 design, but maybe more to take the attraction from Hitler…but this bullet seemed to left the barrel to the wrong side…

Its like i put always drawings out from Me-107/109 when someone comes up with how good their Spitfires/P-51/Il`s are, or from Submarines...ect. but i dont do it. I hope i made my point of view a bit more clear.

Greets

TC

PS: No, i dont need to show you the opposite. I mean, all Historians start waving with this Prototype (Who hase nothing to do with the endproduct Panther) and i thought this is doubtful. Maybe someone can heal my ignoranz..

[Vossiewulf]

I think it would be most accurate to say that the T-34 established new standards in several important areas of tank performance. You always design vehicles to be better than whatever it needs to beat at that time; so rather than saying the Panther was somehow "copied" from the T-34, it would be more correct to say that the Panther was specifically designed to out-perform and defeat the T-34.

[Alistair C]

Hi,

I think that the title should be the most important tank - the best tank is simply going be the combination of better armour, mobility, reliability and gun power.

If that was the case then i would say the Panther, t-34/85, Pershing, js-3.

However i think that the workhorse of the German armour, the PzIV deserves a vote. Possibly along with the PzIII, but i would lean to the PzIV as it was the only German tank (any tank?) to be in production through out the entire war!

The best PzIV's i think are the later series, the F and G models/versions.

If Germany didn't have the PzIII and PzIV then i believe that the war would've ended a lot sooner!

From these 2 chassis came some of the best armour out.

Yeah, for me the PzIV should be given a lot of kudos to which it currently doesnt - all the glory goes to the Tiger (for beginners) or the Panther (for the smarter people!),

Ciao

[Vixen]

Wirbelwind....it's just plain sexy. :cool:

But really I suppose the "best" would be the Sherman or T-34. Individually they might not have been great, but becuase of the ease of manufacture and general standardization, they didn't create the logistical nightmare that other vehicles produced. Anything built in such numbers that performed acceptably has to be given high marks I think. Quantity has a quality all it's own.

Of course if your talking about a one on one fight with no production, logistical, or any factors other than pure combat performance I'd choose the Panther.....Whirbelwind still sexier though!

[mrpwase]

M17 MGMC Halftrack...meant to be AA but (un)surprisingly good against infantry. But I digress...at the start of my post...? :S

Um...I agree with Alistair, the PzIV is my favourite tank. Undoubtedly not the best tank, but my favourite all the same. I find it quite versatile - even in an operation I made in Jan 1945, a platoon of PzIVF2s still managed to take out two platoons of T-34/85 M44s and two ISU-152s which appeared on a crest overlooking the cemetary the Panzers were defending.

[Other Means]

the T-34. mainly because it did what a tank was designed for, which isn't armour on armour engagements but to exploit a breakthrough. while the Axis were going for bigger & bigger guns & armour the T34 kept to the point.

later, fitted with the 85mm gun it could kill most anything. but it's first job was to race into the rear areas of the enemy & kill the divisions at their roots.

can you imagine Bagration with Panthers? half of them would have broken down within a week. the T34 was always there.

[CombinedArms]

+Q.?|? of WWII is definitely an ambiguous concept--because it opens the question of what do we mean by "best." Back in CMBO days I suggested we consider the "best tank program"--this would be not just the qualities of the individual tank in all of its various models, but the number of such tanks produced and the influence of said tank on the war as a whole. I don't remember the whole discussion, but it seems to me there was a fair amount of consensus for these tanks, in decending order, as the most successful tank programs (considering the fighting characteristics of the tank, the number produced, its reliability and roadworthiness, and its overall impact on the war):

1. T-34

2. Sherman

3. Panther

4. PzIV

5. Tiger

Then we get into a different echelon of tanks that might include, in some order, the Churchill, PzIII, IS-2, etc., etc. Tanks like the Pershing, KT and IS-3 wouldn't rank very high because, while each was a great tank, they didn't appear in sufficient numbers or sufficiently early to have a great impact.

Not that the above list does not include reference to TDs, assault guns and the like. Anyway, one purpose of briefly focusing on tank programs is to suggest that that's a whole different discussion than, say, best tank in CMAK or CMBB. And it tends to produce rather different answers. Helps to explain why the Allies won the war while the Axis seemed to have the "best" tanks.

[SpartanSniperAce]

I'd say IS-2 JOSEF STALIN,the T-34/85, or the Panzer V Ausf G Panther.

[Patrocles]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

+Q.?|? of WWII is definitely an ambiguous concept--because it opens the question of what do we mean by "best." Back in CMBO days I suggested we consider the "best tank program"--this would be not just the qualities of the individual tank in all of its various models, but the number of such tanks produced and the influence of said tank on the war as a whole. I don't remember the whole discussion, but it seems to me there was a fair amount of consensus for these tanks, in decending order, as the most successful tank programs (considering the fighting characteristics of the tank, the number produced, its reliability and roadworthiness, and its overall impact on the war):

1. T-34

2. Sherman

3. Panther

4. PzIV

5. Tiger

Then we get into a different echelon of tanks that might include, in some order, the Churchill, PzIII, IS-2, etc., etc. Tanks like the Pershing, KT and IS-3 wouldn't rank very high because, while each was a great tank, they didn't appear in sufficient numbers or sufficiently early to have a great impact.

Not that the above list does not include reference to TDs, assault guns and the like. Anyway, one purpose of briefly focusing on tank programs is to suggest that that's a whole different discussion than, say, best tank in CMAK or CMBB. And it tends to produce rather different answers. Helps to explain why the Allies won the war while the Axis seemed to have the "best" tanks.

good points!

[K_Tiger]

I wonder for what you guys would vote if someone start a thread with "Whats the best Car today?" would you vote for a Toyota Corolla for whinning the most "realibility" Awards, or for the one most selled?

For me, i would never vote for an upgunned/graded Tank like the Firefly or T-34/85. Both of course no bad Tanks, but if you upgrade your tank to it`s specification limits, you cant call it "The best Tank". Those versions did their jobs well, for a cheap price... but thats it. And no doubt, the T-34 had the same amount of pro`s like con`s....

[krise madsen]

If we forget CM for a while and look at the "real thing", the T-34 wins hands down. It was reasonably effective (armour, firepower, mobility), easy to maintain, and it was cheap and quick to build in huge numbers. And remember, the first T-34's appeared in 1940! Back when state-of-the-art German armour was the Panzer IV ausf. D!

[tools4fools]

Dunno about "best tank".

"Best tank" you want to sit inside when you meet an enemy tank (or 3 or 4) right ahead of you?

Panther me thinks. Capable of killing them, capable of deflecting some of their shots, manouverable enough to retreat if necessary without getting outmanouvred (this gets difficult as more enemy tanks are around...)

"Best tank" for general?

Well, the one who gets the job done. Now suddenly 20'000 Shermans and T-34's start looking way better. Never mind those guys that burn to dead in their 'not so bad' or 'good enough' tanks as long as we get the jobs done.

Question is here:

- Why did the allies not build a tank like the Panther? Well, they actually did - IS-2/3 and Pershing as well as Centurion were all heavier tanks which became standard or were further developed (or new designs) after WWII. All those furhter designs were way more in the league of the Panther than Sherman/ T-34.

To me that shows that the Panther was the way to go and therefore gets the vote "best tank".

Sherman and T-34 were more of less outdated once Panther came into play. Even gunned variants still lacked the armor protection and were overall not as effective.

Point is that the Allies decided that they could do with the greater numbers of their 'good enough tanks'.

Or their heavier new developments were just a tad too late to play a significant part in the war.

Is kind of similar the Germans attacking Russia; They encountered T-34 and KVII in 41. Despites their inferior tanks they managed to get quite close to Moskow. But they realized that their tanks weren't good enough anymore and decided to come up with something new (inspired by T-34, using sloped armor plus wide tracks).

Marcus

****

[Sergei]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

- Why did the allies not build a tank like the Panther? Well, they actually did - IS-2/3 and Pershing as well as Centurion were all heavier tanks which became standard or were further developed (or new designs) after WWII. All those furhter designs were way more in the league of the Panther than Sherman/ T-34.

I don't think you can compare IS-2 to Panther except in weight. T-44 might have been more like it, especially the prototype armed with a 100mm gun (seen below). And later the T-54.

[tools4fools]

One of the tanks I was thinking about was the T-54 when I mentioned *new designs*.

Actually I think the IS/2-10 "heavy tank" idea (and comparable projects in the west) was later abandoned for this new line of "main battle tanks". Or "medium tank" as the Germans called their Panther.

T-34 right there in the same league.

[tools4fools]

Just read about T-44 in Russian battlefield.

Interesting that the:

- glacis had no more drivers hatch - as Panther. The russians now took it even further and did without hull MG.

- Turret moved back (same as done from T-34 to Panther) to accomodate even bigger gun.

- Skirts!!!

- "height of engine compartiment was lowered by relocating the air-filter" - this makes for a way lower hull overall as seen as in the Panther/T-44 comparison pic.

Otherwise the tanks look almost like brothers on the pic, no?

Marcus

****