Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
World of Tanks - Bad Panther
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- Historical revisionists will try to tell you that the Panther was a bad tank. Historical revisionists are full of shit. It's pretty bad in World of Tanks, though.
WOT intro by: bit.ly/apersont...
All music licensed from www.epidemicsound.com and www.machinimasound.com
This video also available on Floatplane: www.floatplane...
Patreon: / themightyjingles
Instagram: / damightyjongles
Discord: / discord
Facebook! / themightyjingles
Twitter: / mightyjingles
Merchandise!
teespring.com/...
teespring.com/...
For any business, press or industry related enquiries, please contact Jingles.business@gmail.com
or
themightyjingles@thoughtleaders.io
If you have a World of Warships or Tanks replay you'd like to submit, upload it to a hosting service like wotreplays.com or replayswows.com/ and email the link to your replay to charlton.paul70@gmail.com.
Last time I was this early, Jingles was doing "Why you heff to be mad" compilations without fear of copyright strikes.
😂
😮😂
That was a good series
The good old days. I remember when Jingles actually played WOT. Miss those videos!
@@TraderDan58 🤣 I remember when he played Airsoft! Are we getting old yet? 😂💜
4:00 Actually Jingles if you watch closely around the 2:55 mark you'll see the KV2 was already set on fire once and extinguished it. He was either incredibly unlucky or sacrificed an insufficient number of dissidents to the gulag.
I saw a supposed quote from a Wehrmacht Tiger Commander on the Eastern front that made me laugh in a dark sort of way: "We had guns that could cut through enemy armor like a hot knife through butter, but we were outnumbered so badly that we drowned in butter.".
True? No earthly clue, but again, a good bit of gallows humor.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story 😊.
@@gavinhammond1778 EXACTLY!!
At the Battle of Kursk, one of the major Soviet victories of the war, the highball estimate of German armor losses was literally half the lowball estimate of the Soviet losses, which was was fairly typical of Soviet victories trying to break the Nazi momentum. Even if the quote didn't happen, it's certainly appropriate to the situation.
The russians built 54,000 T-34 tanks the US build 50,000 Sherman's while Germany build 8, 000 Panzer IVs and 5,000 Panthers. So yeah German forces literally "drowned in butter"
As a former tanker, it really bugs me that you don't have to account for the gun tube while maneuvering. I understand why that needed to be for a video game, but watching the main gun ghosting through a wall annoys me so.
or driving over tank obstacles which would STOP a tank....
or driving through a house with a cellar and not ending up down there....
Same gripe man.
I've noticed in Gaijin games that the German's WW2 technological advantages mean that instead of fighting it's historical counterparts, the vehicle gets uptiered, where it becomes mediocre, which is a disappointment compared to its reputation.
Typical Russian bias in games
Well yes, because irl, allied tanks (without infantry and air support) rarely stood a chance against German armor. So of course they’re gonna get uptiered, because a Tiger 1 fighting 75mm Shermans every game is not fun
@hazardous401 yeah and it's supposed to be a simulator and you end up playing against cold war era tanks and 40s German tanks have no chance which goes back to my Russian bias remark which is fact
@@simonkennedy4230 It’s not “supposed to be a simulator”, you have a specific game mode for that where you can play like historically accurate battles. The thing about ww2 vehicles facing cold war ones is not strictly a German problem, but a whole other problem regarding BR compression - The T-34-85 can face cold war SPGs; the IS-2 (1944) can face a fucking M48 Patton etc. So before you go crying about russian bias, maybe try out other tech trees besides the German one.
@@simonkennedy42306 day war had panzer 4 and stugs fighting Pattons so it could be worse if you want real historical battles
Fun fact, the more the Germans retreated the stronger the panther got. Because the panther had many transitions issues the tank would break down a lot. As a solution and a very quick and easy way to move tanks long distances was to use trains. So the Germans would transport the panthers to the front with trains then the tanks would drive the rest of the way there. While on route some of the panthers would break down before reaching combat. However, the more they retreated the less distance they had to travel meaning the less chance of it breaking down. This in turn meant that Allied forces who were used to fighting tanks that had more than likely broke down were now fighting fully operational tanks.
The main problem with keeping the Panther in the fight was the terrible German repair and spares system, many tanks were lost simply because the spares needed to keep them running were not available. The panther was so prone to final drive failures that even relatively short distances would be done by train, however as the war progressed the reliability improved, and train transport for shorter distances was more due to fuel constraints than breakdowns. The allies did not generally fight broken down tanks, If the Germans could not recover them then they would generally destroy them.
Well the panther Was probably one of the fastest tanks in development and it got pusched hard in service so the inital Batch was bad and broke down on the way to the front but they fucking build a tank in 2 years and half a year later the panther was on pare with the sherman T34 and pz4 with breakdowns
Also the french used the panther after wwii for same time but they never build New parts aka used the leftovers out of Germany and for sure the force Labor and fucked economy Shows in the quality of these parts and therfore they had shity lifetime and most reports about the final drive are from french Tankers (and too be fair German drivers may have been the more care full drivers but I wouldn't point too the french man and say he broke it 😅)
@@TheLtVoss wasn’t there a thing with the panther where they had to many turrets built but not enough hulls/chassis’s built so they ended up using the excess turrets as fortifications?
The other fun question is: what if the Germans managed to mass produce a cheaper tank? They did not have enough fuel for the few tanks they had. They had troubles training crews.
Hence why I don't buy the 'Germany should have built only Pz.IV's' idea. Fuel, crews and steel simply were too precious. Reliability issues were a crippling blow for sure, but they were more so caused because the Germans released the tank undercooked, out of desperation.
Thats also why I think the original Tiger was pretty much as good as the Wehrmacht got, as aside from weight problems the tank actually was pretty reliable and of course had a fearsome reputation if used correctly. Not nearly enough to win the war of course, and a fuel gobbler to boot, but together with the later Panthers pretty much the pinnacle of 'bang for buck' for the German Army. And much, MUCH more effective than the actually over-engineered Tiger II.
Yeah, the Nazis had 99 problems, but thinking ahead thankfully wasn’t one of them.
In my humble opinion, this would've been worse for Germany. Let's face it - Germany could not out-produce the United States, USSR, *and* the Commonwealth on their own. Germany still would have found itself massively outnumbered.
The idea, in *theory,* was to operate a smaller number of much higher-quality vehicles, thus reducing overall crew requirements and allow Germany to focus their high-quality vehicles into important areas to have the most impact. As far as an overall strategy goes, I think it's a damn good one. Of course, in reality, it's much more complicated than that. Not like this was anything other than a borderline-unwinnable scenario to begin with.
@@the_tactician9858 I would like to shine the limelight on the King Tiger since you mentioned it. It's my favorite tank of WWII, despite its negligible impact on the war. As far as the design went, it managed to sort out, to some degree, a lot of the problems that tanks like the Panther and Tiger had. Of course I still wouldn't deem the Tiger II a *reliable* vehicle, even if you don't count the lack of adequate materials for construction in latewar Germany + poor crew pools.
The KT had the best tank gun of the war, the best armor of the war, and it actually wasn't all that sluggish, either. It's kind've interesting to see a proper evolution and addressing of core issues with the Panzer Corps's tank design even so late into the war in desperation-mode. To me, the Tiger II represents the finality of Germany's quality-over-quantity doctrine to its best example.
A lot of good it seemed to do them in the long run, though.
@@the_tactician9858 Dont forget Stug III
if WG modeled equipment reliability (other then Italian BB guns) a lot of people would love to see American subs on the enemy team "Oh you're shot gunning me? With the Mk 14? Do you mind coming over here and fixing the dents and scratched paint after they fail to explode? You know, assuming they don't run too deep"
"... or circle back and kill you."
The thing about German WWII Tanks and their reputations was that their *capabilities* were fearsome. To the people fighting them, they were visibly very good. It's just all the behind-the-scenes, unsexy things where it all falls apart. It's exactly the sort of "facade" that builds an undeserved reputation. It also means that in games and other fiction, where all the unsexy stuff is handwaved, airbrushed out, and just plain old Not Included, they ARE really quite good (for their era).
tier 6 panthers like the Vk, pudel, bretagne panther needs to be played like a 2nd line support. I always enjoy playing them and get great results like that.
I find them to be great fun, and great tanks.
In a pinch you can brawl, at it's tier, and if you manage to break into the enemy rear..
Sniping from behind, that't right up my alley.
Akshully Jingles...I hope you're well and thanks for a great replay.
Wasn't there a video by Jingles when he was at the tank museum saying that the Panther tank was one of his favorite tanks? The German engineering and how everything fit and mirrored each other vs a T-34 tank which was slapped together and had gaps in the armor??? lol
Yup
I guess changing your mind over time is illegal?
"This is the cable you'd bring to work - but THIS"
[slaps cable bolted to side of Panther]
"This is the kind of cable you'd want to get your girlfriend."
Just because the panther isn't a good tank in WoT doesn't mean he doesn't like the kitty. I do remember that chain comparison to this day
One argument on the history that I've seen is that Germany lacked the manpower to crew and support a "lots of OK" type armoured doctrine, so was looking for a technical advantage to counter-balance.
There we go. Finally someone said it.
The Germans *over*-engineered a tank? Who could ever imagine such a thing....
AKSHULLY Jingles, the Panther was only slightly more expensive than the Pz IV, while being vastly superior in every respect (it was supposed to be the Pz IV's replacement).
From Wikipedia:
- Panther cost 117,100 RM
- Pz IV cost 103,462 RM
Combat ready the Panther actually cost 143,912 RM and took a minimum of 2000 man hours to build (Spielberger - Panther and its variants). The Panzer IV cost 115,962 RM combat ready . vastly superior clearly does not take into account the numerous problems with the Panther.
And considering Germany had to cancel many projects because of lack of steel for example, it's a myth that they could easily produce 10x the amount of other tanks when they would be easier to manufacture.
Sure, the numbers would go up. But probably not to huge amounts.
Maybe UDSSR and America could also produce more tanks because their country was much larger, had more resources and with a larger population? Crazy idea, I know.
PS: your production quality also is not going up when your factories get hammered 24/7 and you force people to do the labour.
@@freddieclark So the Panther was about 25% more expensive, as opposed to 14% more expensive. Ok, but that doesn't really disprove my point.
It was vastly superior in its basic design, based on several years of wartime experience. It had problems because they rushed it into service, but by 1944 most of these had been solved (with the notable exception of the weak final drives).
By 1944 the Pz IV was obsolete. It had a reasonably good gun, and literally nothing else going for it.
@@onepunchbud1472 The big limiting factors for the Germans in tank production was actually the Allied bombing of the engine factories. The Maybach plant was shut down for 5 months at one point.
This also severely limited the production of spare parts, which made keeping the tanks operational in the field _much_ more difficult.
One has to keep in mind that the Germans didn't really have a tank similar to the Sherman or T-34. The Panzer IV was designed as early as 1937. It was a very solid 1937 design, but by 1941 the design had already about reached its peak efficiency, outside of having a bigger gun or more armor slapped onto it.. The Panther meanwhile was designed from 1942, as a direct response to encountering modern tanks from the Allies, and was rushed into service so that it was 'ready' in 1943, ready in the same way a modern AAA game title is ready for launch.
In fact, the only tank that was a somewhat direct German competitor in terms of design age with the Sherman and T-34 is the Tiger, which had been slowly cooked up and was finalized in late 1942. And interestingly, the Tiger was actually fairly reliable mechanically, except when it came to its weight. It was a bugger to repair once it broke down tho.
Also Congratz for doing Medium Mission 14 with Honours !!
Why is it, that many Streamers and UA-camrs forget to meantion those Mission successes ?
Concerning the Panther's price: without the gun and radio, one Panther cost around 120.000 Reichsmark (~560.000 €), which is only a fifth more than a Panzer 4, which cost 100.000 Reichsmark (again without gun and radio).
Yes, it was more expensive than a Panzer 4, but not "hideously".
Reliability issues on German tanks has been blown wayyyyy out of proportion IMO. I mean you try retreating for 2000 miles across Russia in a tank with nothing but an 18 year old "mechanic" keeping you running with rubber bands and bubble gum with any tank of similar size and you will be breaking down constantly too. It's honestly annoying how far in the other direction revisionists have swung in the last few decades. You would half expect the Germans to be fielding nothing better than Bob Semple tanks.
@MrLBPug I mean every ww2 book I have, including various accounts from German soldiers and officers all agree it was shit not to mention post war assessments. I attribute that lack of repair parts getting to the tanks as a major factor into why we now perceive them as unreliable in my original comment. Maybe you misread it? Or are you arguing that late war German logistics were superb?
@MrLBPug The overwhelming majority of people in the tank fandom know nothing about logistics, heck most Sherman fanboys don't know shit as they all love to repeat the claim that the Sherman can't weigh more than 30 tons because no crane could hold it, that is utter nonsense as the Liberty ships themselves had a 50 ton crane and dockcrane could do even more.
Reliability of WW2 tanks is a very complicated and grey area, not least because a lot of factors outside of the tank's design contributed to whether the tank would be in the repair shop or not. Tanks were maintenance hungry beast in WW2, every tank, including the Sherman, needed periodic maintenance to keep it working.
@@Dreachon Logistics is an extremely complex topic that can have a massive amount of variation depending on where/when/what. That said I really don't understand how people can conflate the reliability of a tanks design for the logistical capability of a country to maintain it. A Panzer III might have had minimal issues in North Africa, Italy, and France, but had to be abandoned outside Moscow due to a lack of fuel. Again I reiterate that I myself pointed out that Germany had logistical issues causing the perceived reliability issues which seems to be upsetting people. Why I am being accused of "not understanding logistics" is a bit confusing TBH.
@@enoughrope1638 My comment was directed at LPbug.
I agree with you as there are so many outside factors that can and will influence how quickly that tank will be in the repair shop.
Even something as basic as the quality of the oils to lubricate pieces can have an effect. Or the quality of the gasoline.
Or what if it was a simple repair job that the maintenance crews could not do because they have a whole bunch of anry Russians breathing down their necks.
What I always find weird is that the Sherman fans never seem to ask themselves how the Sherman would had suffered had it been in the same situation as the Panzer IV and Panther.
It would have suffered, and by a lot.
Haven’t tuned in for a while. Missed this. Hope you’re doing well, Jingles!
The L/100 gun on the Panther isnt exactly "made up". It was what Hitler decreed would be fitted to the Panther and it was considered. But the barrel was too long to the vehicle to maneuver in cities and also had difficulty supporting its own barrel weight.
No kidding, that gun was longer than some tanks with their gun barrels included.
It would be interesting for WOT to set an optional mode to make play ultra realistic and include weaknesses in the tanks. Have tournaments with this mode turned on. We could call it "S" mode for Shit mode. Imagine a Panther blazing across the map and having the transmission crunch or a T34 that has a driver too weak to muscle the transmission into gear or a Chieftain that won't start.
hmm, tell the commander : while moving turn the turret so that the barrels isnt turned into a banana and killing the loader inside the turret because you hit a house while trying to yield the gun as a hammer against THAT house !
The same goes for trees.... and driving over anti-tank obstacles - 60 % chance getting stuck for the game.
That sounds like War Thunder with extra steps.
I think Tiger I and Panther with "historical" set up in tier 6 and Pershing and Tiger II in tier 7 would be pretty balanced (they already do).
It is beyond me why they keep those tank in tech tree up tier and give them wierd play style.
If you're struggling with the Panther, don't worry, the real pain, in the form of the Panther II is yet to come 🙂
The Panther is not really bad. It has a good gun and good DPM - which lots of people struggle to bring to bear.
@@belacqua2424 yea, but the Panther II is a 40% tank. Play vs tier 10s with that and you'll know pain...
Agreed, but IMHO, the E50's actually are worth the pain.
You know... aside from the whole having to play at tier 10 part
Panther II is great. Hell I'd say even the Panther 88 is great though not for everyone.
Honestly the biggest struggle is the E50 constantly getting over matched on its side.
I love my Panther, and the Panther II. 3 marked each, and they remain a couple of my most played tanks, and also get featured the most in my own videos. I love the DPM playstyle, but it's not for everyone.
"Bad Panther"?
More like "Pissy Kitty" with how badly that Cromwell sniping went.
Honestly, after playing war thunder and unlocking the Leopards 2A5 and 2A6, I don't miss world of tanks at all anymore.
the artillery was paying attention. It changed flanks and tried to shotgun the cromwell, when realizing, he cant escape.
Dont just blame the artillery for everything.
yeah, he was depending on the Panther to keep the flank locked down, while he can support from behind bushes
he probably wasn't expecting that the Panther would allow the Cromwell to drive through the open without taking a single hit, because the Panther player shit the bed with his aim
Well, everybody hates artillery mechanics in this game (except they play nothing but artillery I guess), but you got a fair point.
Naaaa, arty sucks. Except that Leaf Blower that can burn in the fires of hell for eternity.
The Panther player also didn't anticipate that the Cromwell would be visible when it crested the hill in front of the artillery. I would have been pre-aiming there at least. I couldn't see what kind of hit points their scout had but couldn't understand why he was playing back so far, especially then. Yeah, yeah....sky cancer blah, blah, blah. It's still a gun on the field.
@@seaninness334 Its not so much about, if artillery is good for the game or if the Panther driver did something wrong but about jingles blaming the artillery for sitting in the same spot the whole battle.
the Artillery driver did nothing wrong at all.
The main reason you don't see too much of the Panther gameplay is that not very many people watch my little channel, where the Panther is one of the most often featured tanks.
I love the Panther and all of it's derivatives! I've 3 marked most all of them, and had most of them up to 100% MoE at least once. High DPM, trollish armor on the turret and frontal plate, and enough accuracy and pen to hurt anything it sees.
Jingles, you have to look at the Panther from the German perspective. Every bad thing you had to say about it, were actually its advantages over the Tigers I & II. There was a contemporary comparison that came to the conclusion that the Panther was cheaper to build per unit AND per battlefield effect as well as being simpler and more reliable in the field, especially putting less stress on the gearbox in comparison, of course, to the Tiger.
fun fact, the percentage of T-34 tanks that made it to 330km total driven during June of 1943 was 7.7% (at least in factory trials). the soviet tanks were laughably simple, which gives them a unique charm
Appreciate you Jingles
No pay-to-win tank, no prem consumables, no face-rolling-on-the-2-key...??? Color me impressed!
Giving the Panther's gun some combination of a firing rate buff, aim time buff, and/or damage buff would go a LONG way to fixing things. Maybe even a damage buff for the L/100, just like the long 88 on the Tiger.
These videos have been my lifeline the last 2 weeks since I broke both my wrists thank you for making so many jingles you legend😂
A tank reliability mechanic would actually be a pretty funny April fool's event
Jingles for get we have more historical Panthers at tier 6, 3 of them in fact, and you still don't really see them.
You know tier 6 where the Easy 8 and T-34-85 exist.
The USA's biggest advantage in WW2 the mainland not actually being attacked/bombed at all in the war.
I see this phrase tossed about when discussing sports stars: "the best ability is availability". The same is true with these tanks. It doesnt matter how good your tank's armor and firepower are if it's constantly breaking down and missing battles because of it. Give me reliable over powerful any day of the week
The reason the Panther was a "bad tank" isn't because it couldn't compete with allied tanks. It's that it was *too good* at competing with allied tanks. It was a tank specialized to knock out armored vehicles in a war that was won with infantry. Because of this, the Panther was less effective at (notice I didn't say 'not capable of') supporting German infantry by suppressing allied infantry than the Sherman could do in return, because of things like the Sherman's three .50 cal brownings compared to the Panther's two MG 34s (7.92 mm), and the Sherman's more effective high explosive shells. Essentially, the Panther was an excellent tank that was designed to fight the wrong war.
Well akchyually...
...the thing with the Panther is, Germans tried to emulate the success of the T-34...yet somehow forgot all that made the T-34 a war-winning tank, eg. simplicity, low cost and certain ruggedness (not reliability, as prior to the T-34-85, the tank was quite unreliable and VERY rough around the edges).
The result was a tank that was medium in all but name - it was actually only a couple tons lighter than the IS-2 and had the similar size, but without IS-2s armour and firepower. It could do one thing very well - shoot enemy tanks at a distance. That's good for a tank destroyer, not a general-purpose medium tank the Panther was supposed to be.
This moment at 4:07 with the T-43, was it a dose of 'surprise buttsecks'? It seems to have been caught pants down!
Thanks for the video Mr. J. 😊
To be fair, the Panther wasn't actually that expensive compared to the Panzer IV. Whereas you could get two or two and a half Pz IVs for the price of one Tiger, perhaps even more if you take into account the early production Tigers, but this wasn't the case with the Panther. The Panther was more expensive than the Pz IV, but maybe like 20% or so, maybe a bit more. Although to be fair, the Pz IV itself was a fairly expensive tank, from what I remember significantly more expensive than some other comparable tanks due to certain design elements.
the panther wasn't war winning because it was too over engineered and difficult to maintain. Interleaved road wheels for example, makes it harder to repair the tracks without taking off several other wheels to fix one.
The prototype "Panther" (Mainly the hull) the PZ V/IV down at tier V is about as close as you'll get to a Panther being paired with it's historically accurate foes....It is quite OP though, you have a Tier 7 Panther hull with a rapid firing 75mm gun down at Tier V.
"Quite OP" is kind of an understatement as the PZ V/IV is generally viewed as the most OP tank tier for tier in all of WOT...
A panther with the small turret and the long long gun looks so silly.
GG and WP! doing good work in a not so good medium!
Praise from a very high place ❤❤
@@frainebaxter6437I love a good medium game! Not a fan of heavy games though. they just find the closest hull down spot and spam the gold.🤮
meanwhile there's pure pain to be had in WarThunder fighting panthers in shermans on big open maps....
The Sherman could be lifted Whole buy the dock cranes of every major Port in the world, the German Heavy's had to be dismantled to be shipped
Personally I think modelling vehicle reliability in World of Tanks would be a hilarious April Fools Day prank
9 kills and 3K in that tank. That's amazing. GG sir.
Yeah when you have a good game in the panther it's like "ok I've done enough for today let me go play a different game"
Chieftain: according to a British armour officer, it was the best tank in the world, as long as it broke down in a good firing position.
I was surprised to find out that Panther wasn't that expensive. Germans built 2 Panthers for the price of 3 Pz.III's, that seems like a bargain.
The biggest problem for early Panthers was unreliability, it was rushed to production while desperately needing aeveral months to test and iron out various flaws (same story with Churchill and many other wartime machines).
Above average player in a below average tank (tier for tier) with a great result. tanker1200 played 4 battles in Panther, got Ace, and probably won't play it again.
Panther in WoT faces the same challenges as Tiger I and Tiger II. They are up-gunned and up-tiered. Tiger 131 is fine at tier 6, but Tiger I with the long 8,8cm at tier 7 is bad. It's matched against T29 which was developed to kill Tiger II. King Tiger (C) is fine at tier 7, but Tier II with 10,5cm gun at tier 8 is bad. It's matched against IS-3 which came out after WWII.
3:02 what was that Kwansa guy in the Cromwell on green team's plan? I dont play this game but I like watching it so I dont know if he really thought he was doing something or just trolling. He dies then gets mad at his team. Im just so confused man.
Well, considering the Panther's underpowered engine that constantly broke down, thus leaving half of them inoperable at any given time, it could be considered mediocre at best.
2:20 I'd love to see realistic T34s in these russian games. No 3rd person, no mini map and at the beginning of the match 50% chance your driver is too drunk for you to properly control the tank.
OK, you explained that the Panther wasn't a bad tank then explained all of the reasons it WAS a bad tank. OK, fair enough, you walked that back at the end. Good video as always.
I've been loving your choice of WOT videos Jingles
Thank you very much
lol t-34 being reliable.
In Soviet Russia, "Reliable" just means "Easy to fix."
@@The_MightyJingles The T-34 in general was worse than it's German counterparts.
And the T-34 wasn't easy to fix, they weren't meant to be fixed, other than by replacing the whole vehicle with a fresh tank.
The main reason for the success of the T-34 was the effectiveness of the sloped armor (again the lower caliber German guns), the sheer numbers that the USSR could produce so that a destroyed or broken down T-34 didn't matter as much, and that it could operate well on softer terrain due to the T-34 being lighter and having wider tracks.
Yes, Jingles? How many extra shifts this time? Only 10? Thank you mighty Overlord, I'll get right to it.
@@The_MightyJinglesAckshually, Jingles….
In 1941, the V-2-34 V 12 engine reportedly was good for 100 hours use on average. In 1942, supposedly T-34s could only reliably travel 22 miles before a breakdown. Officially, the head of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army N.Fedorenko stated that the average mileage of the T-34 did not exceed 125 miles before needing an overhaul.
Turret rotation motors would frequently fail, engine air filters allowed dirt and dust in, transmissions were almost guaranteed to fail and early tracks were weak and would snap.
Vehicle losses to mechanical failures are staggering. In total, over 57,000 T-34s were produced, with 44,900 of these lost. It is reported that 40% of these losses were due to mechanical or logistic failures. Overall, between 1941 and 1945 the Soviets lost an unfathomable 96,600 armoured fighting vehicles.
Not particularly good, just good enough. Especially when there were LOTS of them.
@@The_MightyJingles fair enough
I always found it odd that so many arty players can't keep any awareness of what's going on around them. You need to be constantly scanning the mini map for where your team is, what approaches they're taking and where you need to be to provide supporting fire. You have so much down time between shots that not only should you not shoot twice from the same cover but you have plenty of freedom to keep track of any spotted vehicles.
Then again, what do I know? I haven't played in years and only had 5k+ battles in just my GW Panther... :P
Mr. J, you can say the same thing about the T43 and T-20 though, those tanks are dreadful. You don't see many replays of them as well. All tier 7 Mediums are quite bad, but I may be forgetting some newer medium/s that are actually up to par now.
The thing that gets me is that the Panther, even with all it's issues isn't a bad tank. but it's a changing time in German warfare for them. before they could survive on IVs, but then they have to hold the line against attacking forces, so heavy tanks could dig in and be even more of a pain in the backside
it's still not a good tank, but take into account the Germans were on the backfoot and suddenly it having bad transmission when holding the line makes sense....it's not expected to move
It was entirely shit, more often than not they couldn't make it to the fight
I usually say that the Panther, and to a greater extent the Tiger were tactical wonders and strategic nightmares at the same time. Ànd the Sherman was the opposite ! 😅
Germany, as a pretty small country with a small population (compared to the US, the Soviet Union or the the UK with its commonwealth allies) simply had no chance of winning the war. Even in the time period where they "only" faced Britain and the commonwealth after the fall of France, it was pretty much a stalemate already because there was no way Germany could have invaded Great Britain without naval and air superiority. Then they invaded the Soviet Union with which they had a non aggression treaty before and after the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor they also declared war on the US. At this point it was pretty clear how it will end. On the other hand it is pretty surprising how much damage they could inflict despite their huge disadvantage.
They do a good job simulation the tanks but thats all. Firstly, tanks depend on teamwork and none of that in the game. Second , tanks have a host of problems they have to watch out for including , mine-fields, anti-tank guns, infantry bazooka teams (including simple Molotov cocktails) and steep hills( gravity hates tanks). No tank would go into a forest or town without infantry support. If warfare was nothing but tanks running about in no particular order, this would be a great game.
The Panther was the tank that I wanted most when I started playing many many years ago. I remember a game on Mines, when I was a lower tier, where a Panther on my team was face hugging a Tiger, and ended up winning the duel. When I got to the Panther, I was very excited, but only for a short period of time. I had a few decent games in it, but sold it when I got to the Panther II. That was a good tank at the time, but power creep made that not last long. The Panther was a really good tank in Allied General, but I haven't played that in even more years.
That Panther player wouldn't have by chance been me would it have (NA server, mongoosejake username)? I only ask that because I've done exactly that thing against a Tiger 1 and on Mines and it turned out to be a game winning engagement. I had the health to eat the Tiger's shots, and even then he bounced one or two. Just burned him down with the Panther's DPM and then went on to win.
@@MongooseJakeGames it was so many years ago that I would really have no idea what any username was back then. It was definitely on an NA server, I think that was back when there were two servers, so it would have probably been NA East, since that is what I played on. I know it was more than 8 years ago, since that was when I was in a Jingles video. I'm pretty sure we did win the game.
The discussion at the beginning is all about hard vs soft factors
Part of why I switched to War Thunder. Panther is a good tank, and when you have a game that shows tank combat has more to do with penetration and after-pen effects instead of just raw gun size as in world of tanks. Just the limitation of the game.
Hello kitty game live stream. Charity stream would be very fun.
Nice to see a Panther game although I hate the need to have that ugly long 75 L100.
Frankly all the German tanks (historical that is) should be dropped a tier imo. I recall you saying many years ago you were so disappointed when you got the Tiger I at T7 because it just was so outclassed and not fun to play. Both Tiger and Panther should be dropped a tier to 6 and leave them with their historical guns only. Or give us the opportunity to buy a premium, like Tiger 131, with a Panther G at T6. I have much more fun with my Tiger 131 than I ever had with my grind Tiger. A T7 Tiger II premium would be nice as well (that isn't American). Sometimes it's just nice to play at the proper level with the historical equipment (even if they work better than historically).
Jingles, you need to update this post a bit. I think it was you who mentioned the book about the Sherman. Patton is quoted as saying "The M4 won the war." He based this on the reliability of the tank. The same could be said for the T34. They both just ran. I'm an engineer, and you saying "the panther was over engineered" is classic. The version that had the 105 was beloved by the infantry. When the M4 crews wanted to up armor the vehicle, a huge fight broke out regarding if the engine/transmission could handle the weight. The same issue came about with changing out the guns - and it was all logistics.
Tactics win battles, logistics win wars.
The best part of your WoT/WoWs videos is the history.
The T-34 barely ran, at least the models from the first years of the war were utter shit sometimes. But if they had a gun and could shoot it, who cares if the tank breaks down outside of the factory, a new tank is ready in the same time you needed to break down the old one.
Different ideas on logistics. US had to ship tanks over 1000's of miles, so their tanks had to last for years and the crew had to live for longer than even that. The USSR had to fight literally on the doorsteps of their factories sometimes, so they needed tanks that a retard could learn to drive and that could be built in 3 hours by a college dorm household.
Meanwhile Germany needed a tank that gave the most buck for the least amount of fuel, manpower, steel and ammunition, preferably one that could be built enough to make a difference. Hence why they got 3000 different modules with all kinds of specialties while the US and USSR just ended up slapping different modules, armor and weapons on their M4's and T-34's and called it a day (obviously oversimplified)
I have to stand against you here; the T-34 was probably one of the most *un*reliable tanks of the war. T-34 tanks could seldom travel more than ~50km under their own power on average before suffering various failures. The Soviets managed to keep a large active force of tanks due to a sheer volume of produced units and spare parts. The Soviets could afford to produce unreliable tanks because they could afford to endure the consequences of that disadvantage.
Still watching you sir love your videos God bless you 🙏
What I hate about those arguments where they say the Panther or Tiger will destroy a Sherman or T-34 but fail to mention that the German tanks have a 20-30 ton weight advantage that they use for armor and gun. So yeah, they will kill those tanks. A better comparison is the Panzer IV, Sherman, and T-34, which are more evenly matched.
The thing that made the German tanks bad was each part was made to fit that one tank..... Now the Sherman could swap parts from any wreck to get a tank back into service like most the American aircraft could used scrapped planes in the field for parts..
4:45
Sooo... Bretagne Panther does not exist eh?
Jingles... put the shotgun away..
I am aware it is just a premium.
I always wondered why WG hates the German tanks so much. Anythinig related with some WW2 memories?
Considering all the calls of Russian bias in WOT and WOWS, and that German vehicles in both games tend to be not as good as they probably could be, it does seem like WG doesn't like making German equipment good, especially when compared to the way they treat Russian equipment. It likely is due to a bit of animus against Germany from WWII and earlier.
@@NRSGuardian I fully agree
Woot early to a jingle's video!!!!!!!! 6am go brrr with no job after quitting my toxic one!
On the early topics of the video, one could say the Panther wasn't a bad tank, it was just a bad tank for Germany.
Something to consider regarding contemporary tanks:
In real life it is very likely that one side is much better than the other at any specific point in time, even if who has the upper hand varies, it depends on when new weapons are developed or new tactics applied. It makes sense in a game to match reasonably equal tanks against eachother, instead of saying that "all tier 6 german tanks are gods", and "all tier 8 german tanks sucks" (compared to their contemporary counterparts).
So… this time for an… “actually Jingles….” The Panther reliability was higher by the end of the war for the transmission than for allied tanks ….
But…spare parts were NOT plentiful so… having a higher reliability is great but if the other side has spare parts (and for the Sherman could like replace the thing in a few hours in the field…) then it does not matter that your transmission is more reliable and you can drive longer on average without issues then say a Sherman.
Because in the end being able to drive 30% longer on a single transmission is great but useless if the opposing tanks have enough spares to effectively replace the transmission at will and when yours is gone you are unlikely to get a replacement before your tank has to be abandoned due to the way the war is going it still means the Sherman or even in the end T-34 will be staying active for longer then your Panther tank even when it does not get knocked out in combat.
People keep forgetting the German style of ironing out issues seems to have been putting it in the field (looking at you Krista Marine…)and then try to fix things after the flaws come up during the initial deployments.
The reliability from early transmissions was abysmal but this got fixed, the main issue was more… spares and how much time and what do you need to do a replacement for a transmission on a Panther later on.
Wasn't it Tiger that was expensive to make? Panther was relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, one Panther cost 117.000RM, whereas Panzer III cost 96.000RM. Final drive was somewhat unreliable, but nowhere near as bad as the one on the Tiger.
Don't mention the war!
Such a great show
Most panther and tigers were destroyed by air power with the tank units calling in the air liaison officer on the radio. That almost counts as a cheat. Even today tank tracks leaving a dead end trail into the woods will get you a visit from above but today its a nasty little drone wrapped around a shaped charge or stick of TNT.
But they weren’t. Tanks were really hard to kill from the air - only a direct hit from a rocket or bomb would do, and rockets were famously inaccurate. Allied pilots may have claimed hundreds of tank kills, but post-battle analyses determined that maybe 3 or 4 percent of German tank kills were actually due to air attack.
you know i opened a new account a few years ago before i quit the game and played through the leopard line. when i got the panther i passed through it really quickly. the gun worked very well. its just that the developers put that ridiculous long barrel on the tank to make iw awkward. but overall it tool me very little time to get through it. the top fun is excellent
I believe the late war German tanks were simply too heavy for the powertrains installed in them. Their tanks were ambitious and a little rushed, two words you do not want to describe your tank procurement programs.
It's not just the aim time....this player.....painful. Why can't I get enemy tanks like this that hand it to me.
I remember Foch and his "FistPanther" 😀
I think the "ten shermans for every panther" is a little misleading. America could've produced two or three times as many panthers as Germany could as well. No matter which tank Germany chose, they'd be outnumbered
5:50 was really a bad play out in the field of fire from a lot of the enemy team. I notice that you rarely comment on the game play in WoT the same way you do in WoW.
Oh my days, look mum, I’m on youtube ❤️❤️❤️
Not quite tank reliability, but War Thunder... _vaguely_ models material reliability. IIRC, all german tanks actual armor effectiveness is reduced by like 1/5 because they "had poor steel" or something
i might be going crazy, but at 8:04 his turret starts rotating towards the unspotted cromwell, even though he isn't?
The L100 wasnt a made up gun. It was just binned as an idea because it couldnt take an HE round of any description
They could go a long way to fixing the Panther if they gave the L70 gun 200 damage thats probably all they would need to make the tank pretty decent.
The panther was reasonably cheap to manufacture, about as cheap as a Panzer 4 after they had worked out some of the bugs. The reliability was definitely bad, but the reason it didn't help the Germans much was that they simply did not have the resources to keep a force of any tanks operational in enough numbers to defend against the combined armies of everybody they had pissed off. They were fast running out of oil, steel, and men by the time the Panther was introduced, so they really had no reasonable game plan to win the war no matter how good the tank was.
Good morning Gnome Overlord. All the best
4:48
If you want a Tier VI Panther, you can also get the Pudel.
actually Jingles, since you are talking about Revizionism for correcting mistakes regarding historical accuracy, the Panther WASNT over engineered or Expensive, and was the second most produced tank of the war on the German side, and that is despite it being put into production in 1943, as this video from Military History Visualised argues with numbers:
ua-cam.com/video/waW1-UeGawQ/v-deo.html
Ok, was that T-50-2 kill just a replay bug, lag, or the luckiest poor dispersion shot ever? I mean, the barrel looks on target, but the reticle is nowhere near to being on target when he fires.