I think the bigger issue is the King Tiger and JagdTiger never should have been developed. The increased weight, armor, and bigger guns weren't really needed and they used the same engines and suspension as the Tiger and Panther, which put greater stress on them, leading to more breakdowns. They were a complete waste of resources. They could have created more Panthers and Tigers using those same resources.
The myth that the Tiger I and Tiger III weren’t effective emerges from a number of errors, misconceptions and plain cope. The Tiger tanks cost about 50% more in man hours than Panther which is pretty good. Claims they cost 100 times more than a T34 come from misreading man hours for Reichs Mark currency. Western notions of the tiger tank not being needed come from Western nations not confronting Soviet tanks which has significantly greater armour and firepower than Western tanks. Sherman would stand no chance against an IS-2 and even the T34/85. The tiger III was never actually penetrated from the front during the war. -The claim that the tiger 2 was no more effective than the panther also ignores the fact that these tanks were used in assaults that simply wouldn’t be possible by a panther. The tiger had a much thicker armour and could withstand even the 122 mm of the Josef Stalin tank that would cut like a hot knife through butter of a Panther. The Western Allies dealt with the Tiger tank by avoiding it . That’s only possible with massive superiority and numerical superiority. The jagdtiger gave away of carrying the very powerful 12.8cm PAK 44 gun in a heavy armoured package. Soviet tanks were way ahead of western tanks in 1945.. it’s all well and good to talk of saying a Sherman was adequate for everything. Panther was adequate for everything when there is massive numerical superiority or superiority. When things are evenly matched, the heavy armour
once the mechanical problems were sorted out , the big cats had to deal with the fact that the alloys used to make their armour were progressively inferior due to allied bombing of the factories ( although post WW2 , the Brits did " put together " a few ( new) Panther tanks in factories that had survived the bombing )
And loss of critical mining assets in the Soviet Union like Nikopol. Hence why they left so much divisions east of the Dniepr River, even well after the Soviets liberated Kiev and had crossed the pre-1939 border with Poland, to hold onto those mines ,leading to the Cherkassy pocket.
The mechanical problems were never all worked out. The final drive was still a fragile piece of machinery and the poorly trained drivers destroyed them faster then they could be replaced.
It is a common misunderstanding of Germany's war and economic situation to assume conversion ratio "1 Tiger II for 3 StuG / Panzer IV or 2 Panther" would somehow help German forces in any meaningful way A German panzer fighting in battle wasn't just a metal casing of a tank, it was a tank with 5-man crew, ammo, optics, and radio inside, and on the outside, a platoon or two Panzergrenadiers escorting said panzer, and at the rear the commanding officer and obviously not least, the maintenance crews. Making sth like 3 Panzer IV instead of 1 Tiger II meant Germany had to find and train 3 times more crews, 3 times more infantries, produce 3 times more radio, electronics and precision equipment, and if one look a bigger picture in terms of organization, say 3 companies of Panzer IV for 1 Tiger company, then it would be 2 more officers, and 2 more separate support units like repair and such. In late war Germany, resource shortage was obviously dire, but some resources were much critical (and thus more valuable) than others, which effectively shaped their arms production and deployment. 1. (most valuable) Crews / Pilots, manpower that require fuel to train 2. The fuel and oil itself 3. Manpower that don't require fuel, aka foot soldiers / Infantry escort 4. Certain metal or alloys, like copper which is essential for electronics 5. Steel, other materials, and labor hours (they use forced labor) As such, it made little sense for Germany to only prioritize quantity (and soon found many of their tank units under-supported and destroyed) and scrap their Tigers (and bleed out their experienced crew that took a LOT of fuel (in training and for battle experience). Perhaps owning to many often "grouping up" any German tanks bigger than Panzer IV as a single group of "big cats" - It would be misconception to see the Panther as one of German "heavy tank design" like the Tigers, when the two had vastly different design specification Compared to Panther tank, the Tiger II had much better survivability on the battlefield from 1944 onwards, the Panther tank armor was only strong at the front - the side armors were still vulnerable like medium tank, without adequate support Panther tanks could failed horribly, such as in Battle of Arracourt in 1944 against US tankers. Both Tigers got 80 mm thick of side armors, giving the Tiger crews room to deal with flanking attempts rather than instantly being shot out from more than 1 km away like Panther crews did. The Germans used Tiger II to preserve a small group of highly experienced panzer crewman for fire brigades purpose - such preservation would be highly unlikely.
A huge reason for the dismal performance of German armor at Arracourt was that their tanks were brand new (an equal mix of Mark IVs and Panthers) and so were their CREWS. Many officers had little armor experience at all. The more senior officers and a few senior non-coms did have experience on the Eastern Front, but they'd been "recruited" from Panzer divisions anxious to rid themselves of them, i.e. the dregs. Given that most of the Panzer crews had but a few days to familiarize themselves with their mounts before going into battle, is it any wonder they were massacred? Never mind they had no air support, inadequate amount of panzergrenadiers, little artillery support, and poor coordination with the artillery units that did participate.
One thing that it is worthwhile pointing out is that, while there might not have been the crew to man all the Panzer IV's, if a tank was knocked out there would be another tank waiting for them. One of the biggest advantages that the allies had is that a Sherman could get knocked out and, if the crew escaped, they could be back in another Sherman in a very short space of time.
The Tiger I made sense in 1942 and 1943. The real mistake was producing and fielding the King Tiger and it's derivatives (JagdTiger) once it became clear it was too heavy and underpowered to fight. Pz IV, Pz V, and Tiger I was the right mix to carry Germany through to the end of the war. Complimented by the StuG III and the JagdPanther.
The Tiger was introduced before the Panther anyway but as was often the case by this stage of the war, the Panther was rushed through development and final drive issues plagued it for some time. Hitler's constant interfering certainly didn't help.
Seriously, the Panther was a greatly underrated tank. Germany was too obsessed with the super heavy Tiger. As this video showed, the Panther only cost a little more than the Panzer IV, and less than half the cost of a Tiger. Its high velocity gun penetrated even better that a Tiger's 88. And its sloped armor-at least in front-actually offered better protection than the Tiger's. Not saying that it would have won the war, but early adoption of the Panther would have made allied victory much more difficult.
The main problem with the Panther tanks, was the Panther tank. It was over engineered, mechanically unreliable ( at least the original version). During the battle of Kursk 1943. The Panther tank was rushed into service, before all of the bugs were worked out. More Panthers during that battle were put out of action, because of mechanical problems. The enemy action. It's over lapping road wheels gave the tank a great ride, but it you had to repair either a road wheels or suspension. The crew had to take off like 6 road wheels to just repair/replace one road wheel. I like the Panther tank. I think it's a great tank for what it is.
Germany needed StuG's and Hetzer's, not Panthers and Tigers. When the Panther was being produced, the Germans were on the defensive. Their industry was under constant bombardment. Turretless vehicles were technically less-demanding to produce, and could be cranked out in greater numbers as a result. That's what Germany needed, numbers, to counter the tide rolling in from the East, and America's immense industrial capacity. It's all a moot point though, because without a secure source of oil, Germany was doomed anyway. The small Hungarian and Romanian fields were just not going to cut it, it's why the vast majority of the German Army was still reliant on horse-drawn logistics. For the entire war.
Yup, they had to make do with what they had. Goes to show the dedication of a people to a noble cause (the protection of Europe from Judeo-Bolshevism) even to the end
The guy who invented the Blitzkreig, General Heinz Guderian, told Hitler after Stalingrad that they should only produce turretless assault guns and tank destroyers plus a few Panthers for counterattacks. Hitler said no way we are not going on the defensive.
Arguably the bigger tanks were a better strategy for a fuel-starved army with limited tank production capacity. The Panther used about 40% more fuel than the Panzer IV, but was significantly more deadly and harder to kill. Producing fewer, more survivable tanks is pretty efficient.
"Force Multiplication" The theory on the surface is sound but against a foe that will actually fight and isn't intimidated by the quality factor it is a failed theory. We see it even today as the west which has become way too enamored with the WW2 German model forgot that the sheer quantity of US and Russian material was the deciding factor of that war. The entire west is being out produced by Russia alone and China has the capacity to out produce Russia by several times.
The Tiger II was so big and heavy it lost its tactical mobility. It was ok on the plains of Eastern Europe were it could just sit there and pick off the Ruskies at long range. But in Western Europe it was a disaster, at the battle of the Bulge most were abandoned as thay could not handle the terrain.
@@angmori172 The Germans had large numbers of anti-tank guns, SPGs and Jagd Panzers which destroyed many more Allied tanks than the Panzers did. But didn't look as good in the NAZI propaganda films.
It all comes down to which resource was more scarce: fuel or metal. For metal, all those broken down tigers, tiger IIs and Jagdtiger would have been so important to build more panzer IVs and panthers
Its easy for us to say the Tiger was a bad idea, only because we have the luxury to be armchair quarterbacks after the war is over and can critique decisions, The idea of a super heavy tank could not have been too dumb of a concept because the allies saw the same virtues in it and began building their own heavy tanks later in the war, and even post war the allies continued trying to keep making their tanks bigger with larger guns, I think if I was in the Germans position in WW-2, the idea of building a tank with armor so thick nothing could penetrate it and a long range powerful gun to knock enemy tanks at ranges they could not return fire and hope to knock my heavy tank out might be a consideration, especially early in the war against French Armor they had the Char B heavy tank that mauled the lighter German armor and during the desert war the British had the Matilda tank that no German tank gun could stop and the British routed the Germans on occasion in tank to tank battles, then later when the Russian unveiled the T-34 for the first time against the Germans , once again a superior tank almost forced the German army to retreat out of Russia, it was only poor tactics on the allies part that stopped the early use of heavy armor from being a deciding factor, so if I was Hitler, I would think my generals using a super tank with superior tactics could do what the allied heavy tanks did to the Germans early in the war, because I know that I could not produce enough tanks to match the allies production of tanks
I think the Panther with the upgraded gears was the best tank of the war. It is fast and agile and the long 75mm gun had better penetration than the Tiger I's 88mm gun. The sides were vulnerable to a good shot especially up close but even today tanks have weak side armor compared to the front.
It’s my belief the panzer four would have been better. You could produce them in large numbers and not used so much fuel. The numbers could have been 10 to one in favor of the panzer four. Fuel consumption would be the same and with a 75mm, be a formable foe.
Usiing the air war, defense of the reich 1943-45, as an example, Germany was able to produce a high volume of aircraft like the Bf-109 and Fw-190, yet they lacked enough pilots and fuel to fly them. The pilot pool of 1944 was less trained and experienced than that of 1940-41. The same is true of the Panzerwaffe, again not as well trained and lacking fuel. It is a good point that Germany could have fielded more numbers of tanks by prioritizing Panthers over Tigers. Would the absence of needing to supply Tiger Battalions allowed for the employment of more Panthers via savings in fuel and other supplie? Possibly yes, but the training of additional crews would be necessairy. On this point, inexperienced crews contributed to more mechanical breakdowns when operating the technicaly complex 'cats'. As far as the Western Front is concerned, the close quarters combat in Normandy negated most advantages of the long range guns of the Tigers and Panthers. These types should have been sent to the east. Pannzer Ivs and Stugs were better suited for Normandy. Whatever your position on this subject, the German fielded some impressive technical marvels which capture our intrest eever more as time goes on, so the debates will continue. One thing most of us can agree on, it's good that they did not win!
One thing everyone overlooks about the lack of trained tank crews was the Germans lost incredible amounts of them in their lightly armored and inferior non-cat tanks.
Panther is a better use of steel, and steel became a very scarce commodity in Germany during the war due to the demand for it. The 75mm gun on the Panther was a better use of material as Tungsten for the AP rounds became scarce. Late war, Germany resorted to using natural Uranium for AP rounds as Tungsten was no longer available. One of the problems with Germany as a whole, across multiple weapons systems and vehicles was a proliferation of different models. This is simply because war planning had not been undertaken previous to 1939, and even the concept of "Total War" was not adopted by Hitler until 1944, which was 5 years too late, for full industrial war production mobilization. Stalin and the USSR by contrast had implemented war planning and full war material production in the early 1930's with full technical assistance from the USA. The US government approved of the presence of the Soviet KGB openly in production plants of latest aircraft production techniques and designs PRE WAR.
You're kidding right??? Stalin purged his entire army and airforce...killed off thousands of the upper & middle command structure of his army & airforce. when war came they had privates giving other privates orders, they had Bolshevek political officers (NKVD or cheka) shooting anyone who hesitated, or even took time to even think about an order.
No, discontinuing Tiger or King Tiger production in favor of more Panthers wouldn't have made much difference. Indeed, it would have shorn the Panzerwaffe of a heavy break-through AFV and a superior defensive tank. The "but they could replace one Tiger with two Panthers: argument fails to account for the problem that the Panzerwaffe had in provisioning fuel, spare parts, and trained crews for what they had. In terms of kill ratio alone, both Tiger versions well-justified their worth, never mind the enormous "fear factor". However, Der Herr Inspektor-General der Panzertruppen, GeneralOberst "Schnell" Heinz Guderian, disliked all the "Big Cats" (and the Elefant), deeming them a waste of steel, gasoline, crews, and industrial capacity. He felt that the Panzer IV was all the battle tank the Panzerwaffe needed.
After Stalingrad Guderian said they only needed turretless tank destroyers and a few Panthers for counterattacks. But Hitler said no to going on the defensive.
No doubt the Panhter was the most balanced German WW2 tank design. But it really needed a better transmission than the piece of junk they put in it. Though Panther fans insist the transmission was improved, it never cured the problem and it still needed constant maintenance. The JagdPanther could have done the job of the Tiger II using a lot less resources.
The cost of the Tiger programme was a drop in the ocean for Germany. They produced almost as many U-boats as Tigers, each costing 20 times as much as a Tiger. Even a lowly S-boat did cost 10 times as much. Germany also built 30,000 bombers and and heavy fighters, all costing about the same as a Tiger. The Heinkel 177 and radar equipped nightfighters did cost considerably more.
Applies and oranges. Germany made a total of around 1100 U-boats during the war. That was most of her navy. She had few surface warships by the middle of the war. By contrast, Germany and her enemies produced thousands of tanks. Your analysis is a little like saying a rifle isn't that expensive because a cheap tank is more expensive.
@@chiefkikyerass7188A Nashorn tank destroyer with only 40mm of armour ate a Pershing for breakfast at 300 yards in the battle of Cologne. It’s a matter of luck and numbers not armour. The Pershing would have stood no chance against a Tiger II due to the Tigers armour.
The Panther is def the wars best overall tank, at least on paper. The final drive issue was never really solved and plauged it for it's entire life. A good driver could help with this issue, but unfortunately for Germany, good drivers were becoming hard to come by.
I remember when I played in HLL at German side, most ppl usually asked commander for panthers. And if panther is currently unavailable, ppl just say "we can wait for it or just spawn a reccon tank for us"
How many Panthers sent to Kursk actually made it to the battlefield?..and how many SURVIVED?....The answer tells you it was one of the WORST TANKS of WW2
But they designed and built the tiger before the panther, there were 1,347 tiger 1’s and about 5,000 panthers but , so they did build more panthers, now if you have said maybe not build the king tiger and more panthers then yes , overall the panther was probably b the best all around tank of ww2
I agree that they should have made a ton of Panthers, that should have been the primary tank for the German Army. The King Tiger and the Jagdtiger were half-baked and rushed into production, but I am still a big fan of the Tiger 1. The bigger Stug-type assault guns were also incredibly effective in combat, especially in fast-moving attacks. But I always wonder about the small half-track type vehicles, those small little deals that don't have much weaponry and I can't help but wonder how effective those little machines were in the war. I think the Germans should've made a ton of Panthers, Stugs, and Tiger 1's and skipped the small tanks that don't do anything.
Please do not prioritize any one nation , as I saw in many youtube history channel , praising the allies and downgrading germany Present history as it was ... Please
Germany had too many different models of tanks and competing fiefdoms. Plus they made them overly sophisticated and not in sufficient numbers. The most amazing part of of WW2 was how long Germany lasted considering the circumstances. This is a tribute to the German soldier of the past. Will Germany ever find their balls again?
I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure I would consider the Panther the best tank of the war given it's vaunted reliability problems (google " From the Vault: Post War British Report on Panther" ). There's also the fact that the side armor was pretty thin. The Sherman might actually be the best all things considered. But it's all a matter of opinion.
Early to mid Shermans also had problems as well, with fires and ammo cook offs common. Why crews added extra tracks, logs and even sand bags to tanks. they even had to add armour plates to it. Also Sherman US guns could not take out tigers and panther easily. Panthers were great after teething problems and a lot of problems after were due to sabotage and poor quality of martials due to shortages.
@@shaunholmes9900 Every tank has pros and cons. However in the case of the Sherman they addressed a lot of the cons in the form of things like wet storage, different main guns and improved suspension. Also you have to keep in mind that tank on tank combat isn't the only use for tanks. In addition something like 49K Shermans were built as opposed to 6K Panthers, and in general Shermans had much better reliability.
@@zemlidrakona2915 The Sherman guns were mostly ineffective against tanks like Panthers and Tigers. The British even told America of the panther being widely used and they chose to ignore it, thinking it was going to be like Tiger in small numbers. Why we have Firefly used by all others but not US. Wet storage and armour plates still proved that Sherman was under armoured and could be knocked out easily with chance of fires. Improved suspension only helped it get some where. Yeh and mostly Air force had to knock out German tanks as the Us tanks and tank destroyers struggled to knock out German tanks. Numbers sure when you compare size of US and Germany industrial might it kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Panther was a better tank then Sherman as it was a case of quantity or quality. Only with Pershing was US able to take out Panthers and Tigers. Reliability issue on Panther was final drive and a good crew would have no problem and it only really became a problem with new crews hurriedly trained towards end of ww2.
@@shaunholmes9900 These arguments just go back and forth. Let's face it, nobody posting here really knows anything including me, and most people that make videos on the subject. Almost anyone with any real experience with this stuff has passed away. It's really not worth arguing about. It mostly comes down to fan-boyism. If you feel the Panther was the best, that's fine. I'd probably go with the Sherman, or maybe one of the Russian tanks.
@@zemlidrakona2915 I mainly go off what i know and Tank museum. You make a fair point. T34 was good for one battle and would brake completely, crew would hop out and just get in a brand new one. I would say best tank of war was panzer 4. Was there at start and finish. Reliable, Gun was ok could deal with most things due to upgrades through war. Armour was ok as was upgraded as well. was used to great effect as Stug, Nashorn, Hummel, Brumbar and Wirbelwind. Panther was it replacement and then we had Leopard tanks.
The main problem is the engine no matter what kind of tank they built they're always going to have the same engine so you might as well build something lighter so you can scoot and shoot I think it was the m10 tank destroyer they wanted to put more armor on it and the people in the field said no because you can't hit something if I'm not there they were able to scoot in shoot a couple rounds and leave because they were so dark on fast
The original panther tank where the gun barrel sits several shots I don't know how many I know they were at least one there must have been several cuz they fixed the problem with subsequent models but the if you could get around that would shoot just under the barrel the way that the barrel was put in the shot would ricochet right into the tank
I had the good fortune to have seen and touched one at the American Heritage Tank Museum outside of Boston. Going to see Tiger 131 in April of 2026 at The Tank Museum in Bovington England
They should have stuck with the later versions of panzer 4's. could have built loads compared to the tiger 1 & 2 and panthers. panzer 4's had a very good record during ww2
Tbh the stug performed even better and was even cheaper. On the other hand, Germany never really suffered from a lack of tanks, they suffered from a lack of fuel
A panther tank didn’t cost that much more to build than a panzer iv, and a hell if a lot less than any tiger version , they actually designed the panther before it he tiger, hence the panther is panzer 5 while the tiger is panzer 6, it they stopped developing it cause they thought begets won the war, and when they realized what was actually happening they built a “bigger and better “ version , but soon enough realized their folly and built the panther
The Panther was a net drain on the German war effort due to its mechanical issues. For all the effort to build it, train crews, field it, provide maintenance, sustainment, etc. it's mechanical availability was too short to justify the effort. The "juice was not worth the squeeze". In order for the Panther to viable it needed an overhaul of its final drive assembly. It was designed for a lighter vehicle and to be made with better steel, in the end it was a straight cut gear set up made of soft steel and ended up being the Achilles Heal.
As I understand , and correct me if I'm wrong , there were more Panther turrets produced than tank chassis , so several Panther turrets were converted Panther Pillboxes towards the end of the war , which must have come as a surprise to the allies
the soviets during zitadelle - dug-in their tanks (located for their own offensives/counter-offensives) which seem to have worked very well - even more when the germans couldn´t use their stukas - as the 75mm & 100mm PAKs were not really moveable by the crews - a usage as "maginot-line"-style PAKs it was a rather standardized PAK-bunker ... probably the main reason - instead of positioning of e.g. marders may have been the severe fuel shortage germany faces during the whole war
Tiger came first. It would have cost a lot of money to convert those assembly lines to Panthers. Panthers were the most produced German tank the last two years of the war, so the idea that Germany did not focus on the Panther is false. The could not, however, convert all of the assembly lines at the snap of a finger.
Calm down!!, it’s a comparison test in the USA with a captured Panther that was sent to a tank testing ground. There’s other clips on UA-cam showing them climbing obstacles together. The panther getting shot on the frontal armour is a test also, probably the same tank & place.
Having the perfect tank will not win you the war unless you have air superiority, or at least parity. After D-day, the Luftwaffe was practically absent from the battlefields in the West. Tanks, and more crucially their fuel supply convoys, were exposed to extermination by Thunderbolts and Mustangs. The rest is fantasy.
Neither, more Stug IIIs with the long barrel 75mm should have been Germanys “only” tank in WWII in massive numbers. The other two were great tanks but couldn’t be built in the numbers needed to make a meaningful difference.
Just my opinion but I think they would have been better off with more Panzer 4's. A more reliable, less complicated, and less costly to build tank. Better yet half Panzer 4''s and half Stugs. But even that would not really have mattered because they lacked the fuel to power said tanks/SPG's.
Lo serto es que el tanque de guerra evolucionó bastante desde la primera guerra mundial hasta la segunda guerra mundial en poco mad de 20 sños se dieron grsndes avances.
Germany should never had built the Tiger 2, it was just too wasteful, they should had just keep building the Tiger 1’s, and the Panthers. They should had built a Tiger factory in Romania, and use soviet slave labor to increase production, and have it close to the front.
It might have been Germanys best tank, but too complicated and over-engineered like the Tiger. Even if Germany had been able to produce enough, they still would have lost the war for many more reasons. The Tiget and the Panther were just sucking resources for very little gain.
At no stage after 1941 did the Germans have enough oil to run the tanks they had in service at anything over about 50 %, The entire pretext of more tanks more something is totally wrong ,Every dairy memoir from every panzer division is the same days and weeks waiting around for supply Germany's best move would of been no panzer divisions at all and build 40000 Stugs
Meh...those god awful final drives, unrealible engine, poor maintanice ergonomics and dead end suspinsion layout was always gonna be the panther's down fall no matter what they did. They'd been better off improving the Panzer IV design in my opinion. And no it was never a truly effactive fighting vehicle..sry
The concept of how to use tank was still at its infancy during WWII, each nations is still trying figure what's the best, and how to use them. The idea of MBT won't emerge until the 50's by the Soviet (thanks to the German who taught them a valuable lesson). However, should the German choose Panther as their MBT, and didn't go further with more heavy tanks, they still will lose. Without air superiority, a tank, regardless which class, is just a iron mouse that can run. Hans Rudel proven that in the Eastern Front by destroyed more than 500 Soviet tanks.
The US should have let Europe work itself out….The UK would have folded, France would have seen the light and allied with Germany and the Russians would have been liberated from the Bolsheviks….
I think the bigger issue is the King Tiger and JagdTiger never should have been developed. The increased weight, armor, and bigger guns weren't really needed and they used the same engines and suspension as the Tiger and Panther, which put greater stress on them, leading to more breakdowns. They were a complete waste of resources. They could have created more Panthers and Tigers using those same resources.
The myth that the Tiger I and Tiger III weren’t effective emerges from a number of errors, misconceptions and plain cope. The Tiger tanks cost about 50% more in man hours than Panther which is pretty good. Claims they cost 100 times more than a T34 come from misreading man hours for Reichs Mark currency. Western notions of the tiger tank not being needed come from Western nations not confronting Soviet tanks which has significantly greater armour and firepower than Western tanks. Sherman would stand no chance against an IS-2 and even the T34/85. The tiger III was never actually penetrated from the front during the war.
-The claim that the tiger 2 was no more effective than the panther also ignores the fact that these tanks were used in assaults that simply wouldn’t be possible by a panther. The tiger had a much thicker armour and could withstand even the 122 mm of the Josef Stalin tank that would cut like a hot knife through butter of a Panther.
The Western Allies dealt with the Tiger tank by avoiding it . That’s only possible with massive superiority and numerical superiority. The jagdtiger gave away of carrying the very powerful 12.8cm PAK 44 gun in a heavy armoured package. Soviet tanks were way ahead of western tanks in 1945.. it’s all well and good to talk of saying a Sherman was adequate for everything. Panther was adequate for everything when there is massive numerical superiority or superiority. When things are evenly matched, the heavy armour
And they would have still lost.
@@williamzk9083 The E8's in Korea ate the 34/85's for lunch.
once the mechanical problems were sorted out , the big cats had to deal with the fact that the alloys used to make their armour were progressively inferior due to allied bombing of the factories ( although post WW2 , the Brits did " put together " a few ( new) Panther tanks in factories that had survived the bombing )
And loss of critical mining assets in the Soviet Union like Nikopol. Hence why they left so much divisions east of the Dniepr River, even well after the Soviets liberated Kiev and had crossed the pre-1939 border with Poland, to hold onto those mines ,leading to the Cherkassy pocket.
The mechanical problems were never all worked out. The final drive was still a fragile piece of machinery and the poorly trained drivers destroyed them faster then they could be replaced.
It is a common misunderstanding of Germany's war and economic situation to assume conversion ratio "1 Tiger II for 3 StuG / Panzer IV or 2 Panther" would somehow help German forces in any meaningful way
A German panzer fighting in battle wasn't just a metal casing of a tank, it was a tank with 5-man crew, ammo, optics, and radio inside, and on the outside, a platoon or two Panzergrenadiers escorting said panzer, and at the rear the commanding officer and obviously not least, the maintenance crews.
Making sth like 3 Panzer IV instead of 1 Tiger II meant Germany had to find and train 3 times more crews, 3 times more infantries, produce 3 times more radio, electronics and precision equipment, and if one look a bigger picture in terms of organization, say 3 companies of Panzer IV for 1 Tiger company, then it would be 2 more officers, and 2 more separate support units like repair and such.
In late war Germany, resource shortage was obviously dire, but some resources were much critical (and thus more valuable) than others, which effectively shaped their arms production and deployment.
1. (most valuable) Crews / Pilots, manpower that require fuel to train
2. The fuel and oil itself
3. Manpower that don't require fuel, aka foot soldiers / Infantry escort
4. Certain metal or alloys, like copper which is essential for electronics
5. Steel, other materials, and labor hours (they use forced labor)
As such, it made little sense for Germany to only prioritize quantity (and soon found many of their tank units under-supported and destroyed) and scrap their Tigers (and bleed out their experienced crew that took a LOT of fuel (in training and for battle experience).
Perhaps owning to many often "grouping up" any German tanks bigger than Panzer IV as a single group of "big cats" - It would be misconception to see the Panther as one of German "heavy tank design" like the Tigers, when the two had vastly different design specification
Compared to Panther tank, the Tiger II had much better survivability on the battlefield from 1944 onwards, the Panther tank armor was only strong at the front - the side armors were still vulnerable like medium tank, without adequate support Panther tanks could failed horribly, such as in Battle of Arracourt in 1944 against US tankers. Both Tigers got 80 mm thick of side armors, giving the Tiger crews room to deal with flanking attempts rather than instantly being shot out from more than 1 km away like Panther crews did.
The Germans used Tiger II to preserve a small group of highly experienced panzer crewman for fire brigades purpose - such preservation would be highly unlikely.
A huge reason for the dismal performance of German armor at Arracourt was that their tanks were brand new (an equal mix of Mark IVs and Panthers) and so were their CREWS. Many officers had little armor experience at all. The more senior officers and a few senior non-coms did have experience on the Eastern Front, but they'd been "recruited" from Panzer divisions anxious to rid themselves of them, i.e. the dregs. Given that most of the Panzer crews had but a few days to familiarize themselves with their mounts before going into battle, is it any wonder they were massacred? Never mind they had no air support, inadequate amount of panzergrenadiers, little artillery support, and poor coordination with the artillery units that did participate.
One thing that it is worthwhile pointing out is that, while there might not have been the crew to man all the Panzer IV's, if a tank was knocked out there would be another tank waiting for them. One of the biggest advantages that the allies had is that a Sherman could get knocked out and, if the crew escaped, they could be back in another Sherman in a very short space of time.
@@LoneWolf-rc4goand the crew generally escaped.
The Tiger I made sense in 1942 and 1943. The real mistake was producing and fielding the King Tiger and it's derivatives (JagdTiger) once it became clear it was too heavy and underpowered to fight. Pz IV, Pz V, and Tiger I was the right mix to carry Germany through to the end of the war. Complimented by the StuG III and the JagdPanther.
Got to say that the panther is the most attractive tank in the entire war
Excellent video. The T34 was superior however simply because of the year it was deployed. The Panther was rather late to the game.
The Tiger was introduced before the Panther anyway but as was often the case by this stage of the war, the Panther was rushed through development and final drive issues plagued it for some time.
Hitler's constant interfering certainly didn't help.
Seriously, the Panther was a greatly underrated tank. Germany was too obsessed with the super heavy Tiger. As this video showed, the Panther only cost a little more than the Panzer IV, and less than half the cost of a Tiger. Its high velocity gun penetrated even better that a Tiger's 88. And its sloped armor-at least in front-actually offered better protection than the Tiger's. Not saying that it would have won the war, but early adoption of the Panther would have made allied victory much more difficult.
The main problem with the Panther tanks, was the Panther tank. It was over engineered, mechanically unreliable ( at least the original version). During the battle of Kursk 1943. The Panther tank was rushed into service, before all of the bugs were worked out. More Panthers during that battle were put out of action, because of mechanical problems. The enemy action. It's over lapping road wheels gave the tank a great ride, but it you had to repair either a road wheels or suspension. The crew had to take off like 6 road wheels to just repair/replace one road wheel. I like the Panther tank. I think it's a great tank for what it is.
Germany needed StuG's and Hetzer's, not Panthers and Tigers. When the Panther was being produced, the Germans were on the defensive. Their industry was under constant bombardment. Turretless vehicles were technically less-demanding to produce, and could be cranked out in greater numbers as a result. That's what Germany needed, numbers, to counter the tide rolling in from the East, and America's immense industrial capacity.
It's all a moot point though, because without a secure source of oil, Germany was doomed anyway. The small Hungarian and Romanian fields were just not going to cut it, it's why the vast majority of the German Army was still reliant on horse-drawn logistics. For the entire war.
Yup, they had to make do with what they had. Goes to show the dedication of a people to a noble cause (the protection of Europe from Judeo-Bolshevism) even to the end
The guy who invented the Blitzkreig, General Heinz Guderian, told Hitler after Stalingrad that they should only produce turretless assault guns and tank destroyers plus a few Panthers for counterattacks. Hitler said no way we are not going on the defensive.
Arguably the bigger tanks were a better strategy for a fuel-starved army with limited tank production capacity. The Panther used about 40% more fuel than the Panzer IV, but was significantly more deadly and harder to kill. Producing fewer, more survivable tanks is pretty efficient.
"Force Multiplication" The theory on the surface is sound but against a foe that will actually fight and isn't intimidated by the quality factor it is a failed theory. We see it even today as the west which has become way too enamored with the WW2 German model forgot that the sheer quantity of US and Russian material was the deciding factor of that war. The entire west is being out produced by Russia alone and China has the capacity to out produce Russia by several times.
The Tiger II was so big and heavy it lost its tactical mobility. It was ok on the plains of Eastern Europe were it could just sit there and pick off the Ruskies at long range. But in Western Europe it was a disaster, at the battle of the Bulge most were abandoned as thay could not handle the terrain.
Actually a good point, since Germany never really suffered from a lack of tanks, rather a lack of fuel.
@@angmori172 The Germans had large numbers of anti-tank guns, SPGs and Jagd Panzers which destroyed many more Allied tanks than the Panzers did. But didn't look as good in the NAZI propaganda films.
It all comes down to which resource was more scarce: fuel or metal. For metal, all those broken down tigers, tiger IIs and Jagdtiger would have been so important to build more panzer IVs and panthers
The big cats were expensive and accounted for way less enemy tank kills than the Stug!
Its easy for us to say the Tiger was a bad idea, only because we have the luxury to be armchair quarterbacks after the war is over and can critique decisions, The idea of a super heavy tank could not have been too dumb of a concept because the allies saw the same virtues in it and began building their own heavy tanks later in the war, and even post war the allies continued trying to keep making their tanks bigger with larger guns, I think if I was in the Germans position in WW-2, the idea of building a tank with armor so thick nothing could penetrate it and a long range powerful gun to knock enemy tanks at ranges they could not return fire and hope to knock my heavy tank out might be a consideration, especially early in the war against French Armor they had the Char B heavy tank that mauled the lighter German armor and during the desert war the British had the Matilda tank that no German tank gun could stop and the British routed the Germans on occasion in tank to tank battles, then later when the Russian unveiled the T-34 for the first time against the Germans , once again a superior tank almost forced the German army to retreat out of Russia, it was only poor tactics on the allies part that stopped the early use of heavy armor from being a deciding factor, so if I was Hitler, I would think my generals using a super tank with superior tactics could do what the allied heavy tanks did to the Germans early in the war, because I know that I could not produce enough tanks to match the allies production of tanks
The Tiger II was a bad idea. They should have concentrated on Panthers and a supplement of Tiger I's for defense.
I think the Panther with the upgraded gears was the best tank of the war. It is fast and agile and the long 75mm gun had better penetration than the Tiger I's 88mm gun. The sides were vulnerable to a good shot especially up close but even today tanks have weak side armor compared to the front.
It’s my belief the panzer four would have been better. You could produce them in large numbers and not used so much fuel. The numbers could have been 10 to one in favor of the panzer four. Fuel consumption would be the same and with a 75mm, be a formable foe.
Paired with stugs and sp artillery
Man power everyone forgets germany wouldnt have the man power to the tanks
Usiing the air war, defense of the reich 1943-45, as an example, Germany was able to produce a high volume of aircraft like the Bf-109 and Fw-190, yet they lacked enough pilots and fuel to fly them. The pilot pool of 1944 was less trained and experienced than that of 1940-41. The same is true of the Panzerwaffe, again not as well trained and lacking fuel. It is a good point that Germany could have fielded more numbers of tanks by prioritizing Panthers over Tigers. Would the absence of needing to supply Tiger Battalions allowed for the employment of more Panthers via savings in fuel and other supplie? Possibly yes, but the training of additional crews would be necessairy. On this point, inexperienced crews contributed to more mechanical breakdowns when operating the technicaly complex 'cats'. As far as the Western Front is concerned, the close quarters combat in Normandy negated most advantages of the long range guns of the Tigers and Panthers. These types should have been sent to the east. Pannzer Ivs and Stugs were better suited for Normandy. Whatever your position on this subject, the German fielded some impressive technical marvels which capture our intrest eever more as time goes on, so the debates will continue. One thing most of us can agree on, it's good that they did not win!
One thing everyone overlooks about the lack of trained tank crews was the Germans lost incredible amounts of them in their lightly armored and inferior non-cat tanks.
Panther is a better use of steel, and steel became a very scarce commodity in Germany during the war due to the demand for it. The 75mm gun on the Panther was a better use of material as Tungsten for the AP rounds became scarce. Late war, Germany resorted to using natural Uranium for AP rounds as Tungsten was no longer available. One of the problems with Germany as a whole, across multiple weapons systems and vehicles was a proliferation of different models. This is simply because war planning had not been undertaken previous to 1939, and even the concept of "Total War" was not adopted by Hitler until 1944, which was 5 years too late, for full industrial war production mobilization. Stalin and the USSR by contrast had implemented war planning and full war material production in the early 1930's with full technical assistance from the USA. The US government approved of the presence of the Soviet KGB openly in production plants of latest aircraft production techniques and designs PRE WAR.
You're kidding right??? Stalin purged his entire army and airforce...killed off thousands of the upper & middle command structure of his army & airforce. when war came they had privates giving other privates orders, they had Bolshevek political officers (NKVD or cheka) shooting anyone who hesitated, or even took time to even think about an order.
No, discontinuing Tiger or King Tiger production in favor of more Panthers wouldn't have made much difference. Indeed, it would have shorn the Panzerwaffe of a heavy break-through AFV and a superior defensive tank. The "but they could replace one Tiger with two Panthers: argument fails to account for the problem that the Panzerwaffe had in provisioning fuel, spare parts, and trained crews for what they had. In terms of kill ratio alone, both Tiger versions well-justified their worth, never mind the enormous "fear factor".
However, Der Herr Inspektor-General der Panzertruppen, GeneralOberst "Schnell" Heinz Guderian, disliked all the "Big Cats" (and the Elefant), deeming them a waste of steel, gasoline, crews, and industrial capacity. He felt that the Panzer IV was all the battle tank the Panzerwaffe needed.
After Stalingrad Guderian said they only needed turretless tank destroyers and a few Panthers for counterattacks. But Hitler said no to going on the defensive.
No doubt the Panhter was the most balanced German WW2 tank design. But it really needed a better transmission than the piece of junk they put in it. Though Panther fans insist the transmission was improved, it never cured the problem and it still needed constant maintenance. The JagdPanther could have done the job of the Tiger II using a lot less resources.
Way easier to transport and puts less pressure on bridge crossings than tigers
The cost of the Tiger programme was a drop in the ocean for Germany. They produced almost as many U-boats as Tigers, each costing 20 times as much as a Tiger. Even a lowly S-boat did cost 10 times as much. Germany also built 30,000 bombers and and heavy fighters, all costing about the same as a Tiger. The Heinkel 177 and radar equipped nightfighters did cost considerably more.
Applies and oranges. Germany made a total of around 1100 U-boats during the war. That was most of her navy. She had few surface warships by the middle of the war. By contrast, Germany and her enemies produced thousands of tanks. Your analysis is a little like saying a rifle isn't that expensive because a cheap tank is more expensive.
Had they focused on the panther, it would have stretched out the war a little longer, but same result.
If they did that plus had enough gas then that would have been a nightmare for the Allies.
The Pershing ate a Panther for breakfast
@@chiefkikyerass7188A Nashorn tank destroyer with only 40mm of armour ate a Pershing for breakfast at 300 yards in the battle of Cologne. It’s a matter of luck and numbers not armour. The Pershing would have stood no chance against a Tiger II due to the Tigers armour.
The Panther is def the wars best overall tank, at least on paper. The final drive issue was never really solved and plauged it for it's entire life. A good driver could help with this issue, but unfortunately for Germany, good drivers were becoming hard to come by.
I remember when I played in HLL at German side, most ppl usually asked commander for panthers. And if panther is currently unavailable, ppl just say "we can wait for it or just spawn a reccon tank for us"
How many Panthers sent to Kursk actually made it to the battlefield?..and how many SURVIVED?....The answer tells you it was one of the WORST TANKS of WW2
the only way Germany could have won the war was not more Panthers, it's if they invented the drone
Stop
Or the SAM and guided ballistic missiles (hit allied airfields and command posts)
Germany lost the war because of poor strategy, Hitler ignored the fundamental rule of war, never ever fight on two fronts.
Panther technically was more of a tank destroyer than a real tank.
But they designed and built the tiger before the panther, there were 1,347 tiger 1’s and about 5,000 panthers but , so they did build more panthers, now if you have said maybe not build the king tiger and more panthers then yes , overall the panther was probably b the best all around tank of ww2
I agree that they should have made a ton of Panthers, that should have been the primary tank for the German Army. The King Tiger and the Jagdtiger were half-baked and rushed into production, but I am still a big fan of the Tiger 1. The bigger Stug-type assault guns were also incredibly effective in combat, especially in fast-moving attacks. But I always wonder about the small half-track type vehicles, those small little deals that don't have much weaponry and I can't help but wonder how effective those little machines were in the war. I think the Germans should've made a ton of Panthers, Stugs, and Tiger 1's and skipped the small tanks that don't do anything.
My friends father was in the german army in the afrika corp. Serve as tank gunner
I read the French reported that their post war Panther prizes needed their final drive rebuild after just two full tank of gas usage.
More Panthers instead of PzKfpw IVs....and no Tiger IIs
Please do not prioritize any one nation , as I saw in many youtube history channel , praising the allies and downgrading germany
Present history as it was ... Please
Germany had too many different models of tanks and competing fiefdoms. Plus they made them overly sophisticated and not in sufficient numbers. The most amazing part of of WW2 was how long Germany lasted considering the circumstances. This is a tribute to the German soldier of the past. Will Germany ever find their balls again?
Germany should have put all their effort into producing Stugs, Mark 4’s towed artillery, trucks and switched to diesel instead of petrol.
I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure I would consider the Panther the best tank of the war given it's vaunted reliability problems (google " From the Vault: Post War British Report on Panther" ). There's also the fact that the side armor was pretty thin. The Sherman might actually be the best all things considered. But it's all a matter of opinion.
Early to mid Shermans also had problems as well, with fires and ammo cook offs common. Why crews added extra tracks, logs and even sand bags to tanks. they even had to add armour plates to it. Also Sherman US guns could not take out tigers and panther easily. Panthers were great after teething problems and a lot of problems after were due to sabotage and poor quality of martials due to shortages.
@@shaunholmes9900 Every tank has pros and cons. However in the case of the Sherman they addressed a lot of the cons in the form of things like wet storage, different main guns and improved suspension. Also you have to keep in mind that tank on tank combat isn't the only use for tanks. In addition something like 49K Shermans were built as opposed to 6K Panthers, and in general Shermans had much better reliability.
@@zemlidrakona2915 The Sherman guns were mostly ineffective against tanks like Panthers and Tigers. The British even told America of the panther being widely used and they chose to ignore it, thinking it was going to be like Tiger in small numbers. Why we have Firefly used by all others but not US. Wet storage and armour plates still proved that Sherman was under armoured and could be knocked out easily with chance of fires. Improved suspension only helped it get some where. Yeh and mostly Air force had to knock out German tanks as the Us tanks and tank destroyers struggled to knock out German tanks. Numbers sure when you compare size of US and Germany industrial might it kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Panther was a better tank then Sherman as it was a case of quantity or quality. Only with Pershing was US able to take out Panthers and Tigers. Reliability issue on Panther was final drive and a good crew would have no problem and it only really became a problem with new crews hurriedly trained towards end of ww2.
@@shaunholmes9900 These arguments just go back and forth. Let's face it, nobody posting here really knows anything including me, and most people that make videos on the subject. Almost anyone with any real experience with this stuff has passed away. It's really not worth arguing about. It mostly comes down to fan-boyism. If you feel the Panther was the best, that's fine. I'd probably go with the Sherman, or maybe one of the Russian tanks.
@@zemlidrakona2915 I mainly go off what i know and Tank museum. You make a fair point. T34 was good for one battle and would brake completely, crew would hop out and just get in a brand new one. I would say best tank of war was panzer 4. Was there at start and finish. Reliable, Gun was ok could deal with most things due to upgrades through war. Armour was ok as was upgraded as well. was used to great effect as Stug, Nashorn, Hummel, Brumbar and Wirbelwind. Panther was it replacement and then we had Leopard tanks.
The main problem is the engine no matter what kind of tank they built they're always going to have the same engine so you might as well build something lighter so you can scoot and shoot
I think it was the m10 tank destroyer they wanted to put more armor on it and the people in the field said no because you can't hit something if I'm not there they were able to scoot in shoot a couple rounds and leave because they were so dark on fast
Everyone needs to read the books about Albert Speer.
I will look. Sounds interesting.
Yes, Panther 4 tanks were more successfully designed. Thanks for sharing
The original panther tank where the gun barrel sits several shots I don't know how many I know they were at least one there must have been several cuz they fixed the problem with subsequent models but the if you could get around that would shoot just under the barrel the way that the barrel was put in the shot would ricochet right into the tank
Breakthrough tanks. Meant to bust through and cause massive havoc and panic in rear.
If you don't think the Panther is the most beautiful tank of all time, you're clearly delusional.
Panther was good but the tiger 2 was the best
I like the panther but for me the tiger one is the love of my life
I had the good fortune to have seen and touched one at the American Heritage Tank Museum outside of Boston. Going to see Tiger 131 in April of 2026 at The Tank Museum in Bovington England
I don’t usually think of tanks as beautiful but I kinda think the British Mk IV and the M48 Patton both look cooler than the Panther.
Ya gotta admit the JS-3, though it didn't see action in the Great Patriotic War, looked BAD-ASS!
They should have stuck with the later versions of panzer 4's. could have built loads compared to the tiger 1 & 2 and panthers. panzer 4's had a very good record during ww2
Yes they put too much work in making really good looking tanks instead of like the USA and ussr did with the m4 and t34
Tbh the stug performed even better and was even cheaper.
On the other hand, Germany never really suffered from a lack of tanks, they suffered from a lack of fuel
I would have produced mostly panthers but a few Tiger 1’s for specific roles.
A panther tank didn’t cost that much more to build than a panzer iv, and a hell if a lot less than any tiger version , they actually designed the panther before it he tiger, hence the panther is panzer 5 while the tiger is panzer 6, it they stopped developing it cause they thought begets won the war, and when they realized what was actually happening they built a “bigger and better “ version , but soon enough realized their folly and built the panther
*I CAN'T BREED!*
You all should read Arthur Clarke's short story Superiority.
The Panther was a net drain on the German war effort due to its mechanical issues. For all the effort to build it, train crews, field it, provide maintenance, sustainment, etc. it's mechanical availability was too short to justify the effort. The "juice was not worth the squeeze".
In order for the Panther to viable it needed an overhaul of its final drive assembly. It was designed for a lighter vehicle and to be made with better steel, in the end it was a straight cut gear set up made of soft steel and ended up being the Achilles Heal.
As I understand , and correct me if I'm wrong , there were more Panther turrets produced than tank chassis , so several Panther turrets were converted Panther Pillboxes towards the end of the war , which must have come as a surprise to the allies
the soviets during zitadelle - dug-in their tanks (located for their own offensives/counter-offensives) which seem to have worked very well
- even more when the germans couldn´t use their stukas
- as the 75mm & 100mm PAKs were not really moveable by the crews - a usage as "maginot-line"-style PAKs it was a rather standardized PAK-bunker
... probably the main reason - instead of positioning of e.g. marders may have been the severe fuel shortage germany faces during the whole war
panther's reverse speed is the problem.
Reasonably fast is good too.
STUG 3
the Germans needed more PzKpfw IVs, not Tigers or Panthers (fat cats)
Germany needed loyal officers that allied with Hitler.
Yes more panthers it was their best tank by far
Tiger came first. It would have cost a lot of money to convert those assembly lines to Panthers. Panthers were the most produced German tank the last two years of the war, so the idea that Germany did not focus on the Panther is false. The could not, however, convert all of the assembly lines at the snap of a finger.
0:58 a captured allied M3 Lee/Grant tank on the right!!
Calm down!!, it’s a comparison test in the USA with a captured Panther that was sent to a tank testing ground. There’s other clips on UA-cam showing them climbing obstacles together. The panther getting shot on the frontal armour is a test also, probably the same tank & place.
Having the perfect tank will not win you the war unless you have air superiority, or at least parity. After D-day, the Luftwaffe was practically absent from the battlefields in the West. Tanks, and more crucially their fuel supply convoys, were exposed to extermination by Thunderbolts and Mustangs. The rest is fantasy.
Neither, more Stug IIIs with the long barrel 75mm should have been Germanys “only” tank in WWII in massive numbers. The other two were great tanks but couldn’t be built in the numbers needed to make a meaningful difference.
Good looks doesn’t win a war when your opponents out produce you 100 to 1.
Just my opinion but I think they would have been better off with more Panzer 4's. A more reliable, less complicated, and less costly to build tank. Better yet half Panzer 4''s and half Stugs. But even that would not really have mattered because they lacked the fuel to power said tanks/SPG's.
Lo serto es que el tanque de guerra evolucionó bastante desde la primera guerra mundial hasta la segunda guerra mundial en poco mad de 20 sños se dieron grsndes avances.
The Panthers kicked a'
Why didn't the Germans give names to the Panzer models one through four?
Panther, Jagdpanther ,Panzer IV und Sturmgeschutze lll/IV. MG 34/42 und pak 43 L71 88 mm kanonne.
The best German weapens.
Germany should never had built the Tiger 2, it was just too wasteful, they should had just keep building the Tiger 1’s, and the Panthers. They should had built a Tiger factory in Romania, and use soviet slave labor to increase production, and have it close to the front.
Saying the Panther was the best tank of the war, tells me your totally clueless about facts and history
It might have been Germanys best tank, but too complicated and over-engineered like the Tiger. Even if Germany had been able to produce enough, they still would have lost the war for many more reasons. The Tiget and the Panther were just sucking resources for very little gain.
It’s my understanding that Panthers were mechanically unreliable, with many simply breaking down before even reaching the battlefield?
More upgunned and refined mk4s.
They NEVER had the resources to design and build panthers and tigers etc.
You was never going to push start it😅😅😅
At no stage after 1941 did the Germans have enough oil to run the tanks they had in service at anything over about 50 %, The entire pretext of more tanks more something is totally wrong ,Every dairy memoir from every panzer division is the same days and weeks waiting around for supply Germany's best move would of been no panzer divisions at all and build 40000 Stugs
Nope, Stug III
Not quite as it still has issues trying to knock out KV 1 and T-34..
And Panzer IV achieved upgrades on firepower and armour
Panthers could knock out kv's and t34's. Struggled with Is tanks. Panzer 4 late could deal with t34's
@@shaunholmes9900 The production of Panzer IV after 1944 was unnecesary, The Stug and Panther were way to go.
@@chosearmandoarmando3864 yeh. that why we have stug 4, they were already phasing out panzer and converting them to stugs and other vehicles
Wasted opportunity to explore a fascinating topic
Totally pointless without air superiority.
...AUSGEZEICHNET!!!!
Meh...those god awful final drives, unrealible engine, poor maintanice ergonomics and dead end suspinsion layout was always gonna be the panther's down fall no matter what they did. They'd been better off improving the Panzer IV design in my opinion. And no it was never a truly effactive fighting vehicle..sry
The concept of how to use tank was still at its infancy during WWII, each nations is still trying figure what's the best, and how to use them. The idea of MBT won't emerge until the 50's by the Soviet (thanks to the German who taught them a valuable lesson).
However, should the German choose Panther as their MBT, and didn't go further with more heavy tanks, they still will lose. Without air superiority, a tank, regardless which class, is just a iron mouse that can run. Hans Rudel proven that in the Eastern Front by destroyed more than 500 Soviet tanks.
The US should have sided with Germany.
SERIOUSLY ? , do you read what you type before you press " enter " ?!!!!!!
Careful, you might cut yourself with that edge.
If they had, the French would be speaking russian today.
The US should have let Europe work itself out….The UK would have folded, France would have seen the light and allied with Germany and the Russians would have been liberated from the Bolsheviks….
They needed fuel not more tanks