There's a little bit of an error on the Variants, the Panther Ausf F and Panther II had different design philosophies The Panther II was the answer to the fact the Ausf D were getting shot by Anti-Tank Rifles and was uparmored from 40mm to 60mm the hull and standardization with the Tiger II using its road wheels and tracks but never entered service but was used as a test bed for the Ausf A and G and then captured by the Americans and was grafted an Ausf G Turret The Panther F was basically all about the Schmalturm Turret and would've used the Ausf G as its base along with a new 75mm Cannon
Good video, but just a correction, the glacis plate of the Panther was not around 100mm of effective thickness, but around 139mm (80mm @ 35 degrees from horizontal).
It's entirely FALSE that the Panther tank was developed as a response to the Soviet T-34 tank. The original requirement for a REPLACEMENT vehicle for both the Panzer III and IV tanks, which had overlapping purposes, and, in the end, entirely swapped roles, with production of the Panzer III, save for rebuild of inventory vehicles into the Ausf J and Ausf N types, in favor of the StuG III SP gun (which also, when fitted with the 75 mm L48 weapon, was very effective as a tank destroyer, credited with more AFV kills than any other type),halted altogether, was a vehicle in the 25 to 30 ton range, sporting the KwK 40 L48 main weapon also used on the Panzer IV from the F2 model onward. This program was started by Krupp in 1938, but was halted after the Polish campaign, in favor of refinement of the Panzer III and IV models, and hopes that the war would be called off. Even when it wasn't, following the defeat of France in June of 1940, the production of the German medium tanks proceeded at not too quick a pace. This would change a year later when Barbarossa commenced, and the KV-1s and T-34s were encountered the FOLLOWING DAY, to their Germans' astonishment. The need to build a better tank than what they had was especially evident by a rude defeat in October 1941 at Mtesnk, near Tula, where T-34s virtually annihilated a battalion of Panzer IVs. The VK(20) program, which had proceeded at snail's pace, got instant priority. It helped that a few T-34 "runners" had been sent to Kunersdorf for evaluation. Damiler-Benz already had a prototype that was almost a T-34 copy, but independently arrived at, with the rear engine, rear drive sprocket powerpack (the German tanks until then and the Czech 38(t) used the rear engine, front drive sprocket with the gearbox in front of the driver), which allowed a lower overall profile and better ability to slope the glacis plate. Although Hitler favored the DB design, especially with the diesel engine, which he considered essential for AFVs, the WaffenAmt 6 selected MAN's concept. However, many changes, some insisted upon by Hitler also, led to design and production delays, and this "feature creep" ended up ballooning the tank's weight to almost 45 tons, about ten more than targeted. The original Mayback HL210 engine, also used in early versions of the Tiger I with mixed results, was deemed underpowered, the bigger and "badder" HL230, rather cramped in the Panther's engine compartment, was spec'ed. This led to huge reliability troubles, including ENGINE FIRES. There were other "teething troubles", but the vehicle held promise with its overall protection, mobility, and firepower, in reality, before the idea was coined, one of the first MAIN BATTLE TANKS. Hitler had the Kursk Offensive delayed so several battalions of Panthers could be deployed, this was disastrous, both for the delay overall in giving the Soviets more time to prepare defenses, and for the Panthers as their teething problems had not yet been solved. Needless to say, their debut was a FIASCO, with many of them breaking down right in the assembly areas, and within a week, when Hitler had the Kursk offensive called off, only 16 of the original 200 were still fit for action! They were all withdraw to "go back to the drawing board", so to speak. Most of the Panther's original reliability problems were solved, save for that fragile differential, driver training dealt with that issue. The "G" model, which added a "chin" on the bottom of the turret front, eliminated a troublesome shot trap, and it was probably, WHEN it ran, the finest tank in the war. Most Panthers, along with most Tigers, served on the EASTERN front, where conditions took advantage of their long-range standoff firepower. In the West, although in certain situations they could be devastatingly effective, its strengths could not compensate for deployment in unsuitable terrain, as in the Ardennes, or make up for crew and commanders' inexperience, as experience with lopsided losses to the US 4th AD at Arracourt in September of 1944, where Panther crews kept stumbling into ambushes by Patton's more experienced tankers, whose oft-maligned M4s with their 75 mm M3 guns proved more than adequate to take out these "Big Cats"!
The Panther was the best medium tank of WW2, and don't give me that "reliability" bs argument because by 1944 it WAS reliable. The teething problems had been mostly worked out and it functioned as designed.
The term "best" is different for each nations. Panther is best medium for Germany but definitely not for US (hard to deliver oversea and is more complicated design-wise), not for Soviet since Soviet wants a giant tank force, not a force of giant tanks (at least not yet). The same goes for others.
@@jebbroham1776 You are right on the false criticism of the later models' reliability, (Ausf.G) but if not unreliable, its 'over-engineered'. Just to show you how pathetic Shermanboos can be. Compare any Panther model with the best of the Shermans, the M4A3(W)76 HVSS and the German tank beats it in every respect. Armament, Optics, Armor, Mobility, and by mobility, I mean just about everything: power-loading, ground-pressure, speed, range, maximum grade, trench crossing, vertical wall (or step), ground-clearance and for the last two: fording dept 1.9m to 0.9m, (which means when a Sherman is in dire need of a bridge, the Panther could just wade across! So much for the excessive weight) and turning radius: 4.7m to 9.4m! (which means a Panther can pivot inside the confines of a street, the Sherman needs a crossroad). Sources: Jentz & Doyle for Panther and R.P. Hunnicutt for Sherman.
There was a story about one the Panther Aces, during the Breakout from the Normandy beachhead. He was positioned at the top of a hill, where a road came up in front of him. He ambushed M-4 Shermans until he ran out of ammunition and had to abandon his position. He used every shell he had and still the Shermans kept coming, and coming, pushing the burning hulks out of their way. It was then that he realized that Germany was going to lose.
2:05 The F variant had the Schmal turm or “small turret” as the turret to, as you stated, make production easier. The turret was tested and proven to hold the KwK 43 gun (king tiger gun) but due to lack of space the gun couldnt be reloaded. That turret was also planned to be the main turret put on any panther that needed a new turret As for the Panther II it was indeed built, at least the hull was with it currently residing at the Armor & Calvary museum in Ft Moore (Ft benning) Georgia. The collection has certain dates where they open the collection to the public to come and see the vehicles with the legendary T28 “doom turtel” right across from the Panther II in the collection
"We have lost many brave men, but their sacrifice is not in vain. Our tanks now form a line of steel so powerful that all German resistance will be crushed beneath its mighty treads. Today - we will watch as Seelow falls. Along with all those foolish enough to stand in our way." Viktor Reznov
One of Panther´s problems - of what i´ve read - was the shape of the sprockets inside the drive for the drive wheels. Because they were shaped horizontally they had a reduced distribution of forces. The result was they broke relatively often when the tank was driving faster than approximately 28 mph. So it could never reach it´s actual top speed of 34 mph.
Very true. The Germans could not manufacture stepped sprocket teeth, (like the Sherman's) due to lack of tungsten and other alloys, but they usually broke off, mostly due to driver's incompetence, (and there were many from late 1944) not due to speeding up. Experienced drivers drove their Panthers without mishaps for a thousand miles or more, (Repairing the Panzers” by Lukas Friedli).
I really liked this explanation, nicely done Simple History. The part of the night-vision device was especially interesting because a piece of such technology contributed to develop night-vision devices for new-generation tanks of today's armed forces worldwide.
This may be up for debate but I think the Germans would have been better off upgrading or even a redesign of the panzer 4. When it was upgraded to the 75mm the Germans should have redesigned it with sloped armour and wider tracks.
@@otisred7848The biggest issue of the Panzer 4 was the overloaded suspension, the long 75mm and the extra armor pushed the design pretty much to the extreme, why a common cause of breakdown for late war Panzer 4 was the rolling wheels breaking off due to tge stress from the extra weight. It certainley coudnt handle more, thats why the germans never slaped the proposed sloped armor package on in the first place.
Kv 1 during early barb wos op like the germans couldnt penetrate them with panzer 4s in late kv1's were obsolete against tigers panthers king tigers etc
Excellent work dudes!! I'd like to take a moment to dedicate this to the German collector that had his tank and other relics stolen from the German government, simple history even did a video on it!
Fun Fact: when Simple History says, "over 84,000 T-34s they faced" this line becomes less scary when you hear that Russia had employed over 119,000 tanks throughout the war and lost well over 80,000 of them. They lost more tanks than Germany ever had, and that was with Germany losing tanks in Africa, Italy, and France, not their entire force going in one direction like Russia had the advantage of. Mass producing an underperforming tank does not a good tank doctrine make.
Actually, the Soviets fielded 131,700 tanks in WW2, (pre-war strength + wartime production + Lend-lease) and is known to have lost 96,500 of them. Both figures as per G.F. Krivosheev.
I wonder why the Panther Tanks armor was only at 55 deg to the vertical instead of the 60 deg to the vertical that wouldve given an LOS of 160mm not just 140mm LOS
The panther was the culmination of several factors. The biggest being the torsion bar suspension and sloped armour both developed by Christie. Now Christie after being told NO by the US Army shopped histank to both the British Russians and other countries also to be told NO. The overall best tank of the war never really made it into combate and that would have been the m28 patton with a 90mm HV cannon and thicker armor. The panther in the end was really just a stop gap for the Tiger and the jagtigers.
Was it though? The Panther served by doctrine as the Breakthrough-Exploitation-Medium-Tank in the regular Panzer-Regiments battalions, while the Tigers job was just to create a gap in the enemies defense. Also the Jagdpanther was a Tank-destroyer, its usage outside of dedicated units was of pure necessity due to a lack of Tanks.
In general the panther. Way more of them were produced and the gun of the Panther was as good and equally effective as the tiger's gun despite it being smaller size
"Ausf." is not a word, it is an acronym for "Ausführung", which means version similar to the English "Mk" or "Mark". So you either use the full word or leave it off and say Pan*t*er (hard "t") G.
I'd like to take a moment to dedicate this to the German collector that had his tank and other relics stolen from the German government, simple history even did a video on it!
@@2fwelding842 force to sell and stolen are pretty much the same to me, he wasn't doing any harm and even helped people. Plus what's the point of being able to sell it if he has to pay fines? That's just theft with extra steps
Liar liar pants on the fire the armor wasn’t brittle it was far superior to allied armor the only thing that stopped it was the low amount that were built !!!
But the 75mm gun cannon of the Panther tank wouldve also suffered from low HE punch surely? Given the 75mm gun cannon was more towards tank hunting rather than general support? Hence this is where the Shermans HE punch would be superior to the Panther tanks HE punch?
it is like modern day BMW good performances but bottomless pit when it comes to repairs , but they could still uparmor stationary turrets, it's not thet extra weight will disrupt mobility of vehicle ...
Tbf, their answer was to upgun their current stock of Pz.3's and Pz.4's to the 50 and 75mm respectively. And ofc things like the Stug changing from a close range infantry support gun platform to a tank destroyer 😊
The Panzer IV was actually supposed to use the 50mm Cannon even before the Panzer III, there was a test unit that did use the Long Barreled 50mm Cannon
13:10 Dude... the air was needed to vent the gases from firing the gun, or the crew could die intoxicated. Overheating the barrel was the least of their concerns. As always, hire better researchers. And by the way, T-34s had "brittle armor problems" since day 1, not to mention faulty welding.
This video was made possible thanks to everyone on the Simple History Patreon: www.patreon.com/simplehistory
Om
There's a little bit of an error on the Variants, the Panther Ausf F and Panther II had different design philosophies
The Panther II was the answer to the fact the Ausf D were getting shot by Anti-Tank Rifles and was uparmored from 40mm to 60mm the hull and standardization with the Tiger II using its road wheels and tracks but never entered service but was used as a test bed for the Ausf A and G and then captured by the Americans and was grafted an Ausf G Turret
The Panther F was basically all about the Schmalturm Turret and would've used the Ausf G as its base along with a new 75mm Cannon
Good video, but just a correction, the glacis plate of the Panther was not around 100mm of effective thickness, but around 139mm (80mm @ 35 degrees from horizontal).
"I told mama we'll be seeing tigers, elefants and panthers. She thought I was visiting Moscow zoo.”
- Company of heroes
The powers that be have granted us IS-2 heavy tanks!
@GunnerHeatFire. Also lynx (panzer ll Ausf L Luchs), rhinoceros (Nashorn), mice (Maus), martens (Marder), lions (Lowe), wasps (Wespe), hornets (Hornisse), crickets (Grille) and bumblebees (Hummel).
@@jimroberts3009 Those too!
@@jimroberts3009 the Löwe SPG is so powerful, the US made their own version, the M107 SPG.
I told mother I would be seeing Greyhounds, Wolverines, and Fireflies. She thought I was visiting Berlin Zoo
Should also mention the Jagdpanther, a tank destroyer variant mounting the 88mm PaK 43 to devastating effect
Turretless tanks is such a flawed design even if it was an attempt to mount heavier gun
@@titan_tankeri mean not having turrets are for tds which are better for ambush attacks and can be more angled too
I think this was supposed to come out BEFORE the “panther tank in basement” video 😂
It's entirely FALSE that the Panther tank was developed as a response to the Soviet T-34 tank. The original requirement for a REPLACEMENT vehicle for both the Panzer III and IV tanks, which had overlapping purposes, and, in the end, entirely swapped roles, with production of the Panzer III, save for rebuild of inventory vehicles into the Ausf J and Ausf N types, in favor of the StuG III SP gun (which also, when fitted with the 75 mm L48 weapon, was very effective as a tank destroyer, credited with more AFV kills than any other type),halted altogether, was a vehicle in the 25 to 30 ton range, sporting the KwK 40 L48 main weapon also used on the Panzer IV from the F2 model onward. This program was started by Krupp in 1938, but was halted after the Polish campaign, in favor of refinement of the Panzer III and IV models, and hopes that the war would be called off. Even when it wasn't, following the defeat of France in June of 1940, the production of the German medium tanks proceeded at not too quick a pace. This would change a year later when Barbarossa commenced, and the KV-1s and T-34s were encountered the FOLLOWING DAY, to their Germans' astonishment. The need to build a better tank than what they had was especially evident by a rude defeat in October 1941 at Mtesnk, near Tula, where T-34s virtually annihilated a battalion of Panzer IVs.
The VK(20) program, which had proceeded at snail's pace, got instant priority. It helped that a few T-34 "runners" had been sent to Kunersdorf for evaluation. Damiler-Benz already had a prototype that was almost a T-34 copy, but independently arrived at, with the rear engine, rear drive sprocket powerpack (the German tanks until then and the Czech 38(t) used the rear engine, front drive sprocket with the gearbox in front of the driver), which allowed a lower overall profile and better ability to slope the glacis plate. Although Hitler favored the DB design, especially with the diesel engine, which he considered essential for AFVs, the WaffenAmt 6 selected MAN's concept. However, many changes, some insisted upon by Hitler also, led to design and production delays, and this "feature creep" ended up ballooning the tank's weight to almost 45 tons, about ten more than targeted. The original Mayback HL210 engine, also used in early versions of the Tiger I with mixed results, was deemed underpowered, the bigger and "badder" HL230, rather cramped in the Panther's engine compartment, was spec'ed. This led to huge reliability troubles, including ENGINE FIRES. There were other "teething troubles", but the vehicle held promise with its overall protection, mobility, and firepower, in reality, before the idea was coined, one of the first MAIN BATTLE TANKS. Hitler had the Kursk Offensive delayed so several battalions of Panthers could be deployed, this was disastrous, both for the delay overall in giving the Soviets more time to prepare defenses, and for the Panthers as their teething problems had not yet been solved. Needless to say, their debut was a FIASCO, with many of them breaking down right in the assembly areas, and within a week, when Hitler had the Kursk offensive called off, only 16 of the original 200 were still fit for action! They were all withdraw to "go back to the drawing board", so to speak.
Most of the Panther's original reliability problems were solved, save for that fragile differential, driver training dealt with that issue. The "G" model, which added a "chin" on the bottom of the turret front, eliminated a troublesome shot trap, and it was probably, WHEN it ran, the finest tank in the war. Most Panthers, along with most Tigers, served on the EASTERN front, where conditions took advantage of their long-range standoff firepower. In the West, although in certain situations they could be devastatingly effective, its strengths could not compensate for deployment in unsuitable terrain, as in the Ardennes, or make up for crew and commanders' inexperience, as experience with lopsided losses to the US 4th AD at Arracourt in September of 1944, where Panther crews kept stumbling into ambushes by Patton's more experienced tankers, whose oft-maligned M4s with their 75 mm M3 guns proved more than adequate to take out these "Big Cats"!
finally a good comment... and probably even researched more throroughly than the average simple history video
I thinking about wt players will come here
You were right 😊
Radio wave Microwave Infared Radiation Visible Light Ultraviolet X-Ray Gamma Ray
we are here
WHY IS SMERICAN T25 IN 6BR
The Panther was the best medium tank of WW2, and don't give me that "reliability" bs argument because by 1944 it WAS reliable. The teething problems had been mostly worked out and it functioned as designed.
The term "best" is different for each nations. Panther is best medium for Germany but definitely not for US (hard to deliver oversea and is more complicated design-wise), not for Soviet since Soviet wants a giant tank force, not a force of giant tanks (at least not yet). The same goes for others.
tankie detected. opinion rejected.
@@1Meme2UniteThemAll Your argument is invalid, facts don't care about your feelings.
@@jebbroham1776 You are right on the false criticism of the later models' reliability, (Ausf.G) but if not unreliable, its 'over-engineered'. Just to show you how pathetic Shermanboos can be.
Compare any Panther model with the best of the Shermans, the M4A3(W)76 HVSS and the German tank beats it in every respect. Armament, Optics, Armor, Mobility, and by mobility, I mean just about everything: power-loading, ground-pressure, speed, range, maximum grade, trench crossing, vertical wall (or step), ground-clearance and for the last two: fording dept 1.9m to 0.9m, (which means when a Sherman is in dire need of a bridge, the Panther could just wade across! So much for the excessive weight) and turning radius: 4.7m to 9.4m! (which means a Panther can pivot inside the confines of a street, the Sherman needs a crossroad). Sources: Jentz & Doyle for Panther and R.P. Hunnicutt for Sherman.
There was a story about one the Panther Aces, during the Breakout from the Normandy beachhead. He was positioned at the top of a hill, where a road came up in front of him. He ambushed M-4 Shermans until he ran out of ammunition and had to abandon his position. He used every shell he had and still the Shermans kept coming, and coming, pushing the burning hulks out of their way. It was then that he realized that Germany was going to lose.
2:05
The F variant had the Schmal turm or “small turret” as the turret to, as you stated, make production easier. The turret was tested and proven to hold the KwK 43 gun (king tiger gun) but due to lack of space the gun couldnt be reloaded. That turret was also planned to be the main turret put on any panther that needed a new turret
As for the Panther II it was indeed built, at least the hull was with it currently residing at the Armor & Calvary museum in Ft Moore (Ft benning) Georgia. The collection has certain dates where they open the collection to the public to come and see the vehicles with the legendary T28 “doom turtel” right across from the Panther II in the collection
Amazing! I could watch this forever! 😄🌟
0:52 - 1:00 those were A20s or A32s
Brings a video describing the participation of South American countries that fought in the Second World War II.
"We have lost many brave men, but their sacrifice is not in vain. Our tanks now form a line of steel so powerful that all German resistance will be crushed beneath its mighty treads. Today - we will watch as Seelow falls. Along with all those foolish enough to stand in our way." Viktor Reznov
Can you do the battle of vimy ridge pls
One of Panther´s problems - of what i´ve read - was the shape of the sprockets inside the drive for the drive wheels. Because they were shaped horizontally they had a reduced distribution of forces. The result was they broke relatively often when the tank was driving faster than approximately 28 mph. So it could never reach it´s actual top speed of 34 mph.
Very true. The Germans could not manufacture stepped sprocket teeth, (like the Sherman's) due to lack of tungsten and other alloys, but they usually broke off, mostly due to driver's incompetence, (and there were many from late 1944) not due to speeding up. Experienced drivers drove their Panthers without mishaps for a thousand miles or more, (Repairing the Panzers” by Lukas Friedli).
I really liked this explanation, nicely done Simple History. The part of the night-vision device was especially interesting because a piece of such technology contributed to develop night-vision devices for new-generation tanks of today's armed forces worldwide.
Great video 👍
8:15 the optics in this scene are unrealistic, those are for the 88mm, found on the Tiger, Tiger II, Jadpanther and others
Cool
the Russians did not find out if they sloped it will be thicker it has been known all the way back in 13th or 12th century
are we not going to talk about the sights saying 8.8cm pzgr instead of 7.6cm or is that just a panther II
I can say I found this video to be one of the better videos on the Panther tank and informative.
ne was no best tank of the war the closest one has to be the sherman there was a lot of Sherman's variants
Good tank
Boom
Why is there a tank with 18 kills (stripes on the barrel) in the factory? That doesn't make sense!
Video about the tiger 2 next?
Yep the Panther tank. :P
Ty for this video
This may be up for debate but I think the Germans would have been better off upgrading or even a redesign of the panzer 4. When it was upgraded to the 75mm the Germans should have redesigned it with sloped armour and wider tracks.
Sorry ment to say the 75mm kwk40 long barrel
@@otisred7848The biggest issue of the Panzer 4 was the overloaded suspension, the long 75mm and the extra armor pushed the design pretty much to the extreme, why a common cause of breakdown for late war Panzer 4 was the rolling wheels breaking off due to tge stress from the extra weight.
It certainley coudnt handle more, thats why the germans never slaped the proposed sloped armor package on in the first place.
The first panther version wasn't the first the first was the VK 3002
Yup
Twenty fourth
I thought the most fearsome tank the Germans had was the Tiger?
Kv 1 during early barb wos op like the germans couldnt penetrate them with panzer 4s in late kv1's were obsolete against tigers panthers king tigers etc
Wouldnt be surprist if modern mbt have the same specs as fhis boi
Cool animated videos, I’ve just subscribed as not to miss any future posts, thank you, 🇬🇧👍👍👍👊.
Great video. Could you do it of the Panther II?
Panther II was completely pulled out of the snail's buttocks
Sixth
my favorite ww2 tank panther
here
It's "Krupp", not "Krups". Krups makes coffee machines.
I love how much detail was put into this video especially in the factory shots!!
Excellent work dudes!! I'd like to take a moment to dedicate this to the German collector that had his tank and other relics stolen from the German government, simple history even did a video on it!
Slogan of the Panther “Hans, ze transmission broke!”
Quite funny how the 85mm gun on the T34 was basically equivalent, or even worse than the long 75mm gun on the Panzer IV H/J.
5:14
The dot is so barely visible, I thought it read 285 mph 😅😅
*good to hear the truth spoken and not from some Hollywood movie claiming the Sherman was a great tank!*
I don’t care what anyone says the panther tank is my favourite tank and have one of the best design.
Fun fact: the panther was so close to being a full mbt it was almost classified one
Congrats on 10 years of UA-cam
Favorite Tank of the war for me was the Panther II design. Love that tank
I Like Panther Tiger And King Tiger Tanks
Great video! Do one about the Nashorn, that is such a cool vehicle.
Fun Fact: when Simple History says, "over 84,000 T-34s they faced" this line becomes less scary when you hear that Russia had employed over 119,000 tanks throughout the war and lost well over 80,000 of them.
They lost more tanks than Germany ever had, and that was with Germany losing tanks in Africa, Italy, and France, not their entire force going in one direction like Russia had the advantage of.
Mass producing an underperforming tank does not a good tank doctrine make.
Actually, the Soviets fielded 131,700 tanks in WW2, (pre-war strength + wartime production + Lend-lease) and is known to have lost 96,500 of them. Both figures as per G.F. Krivosheev.
disgusting reuse and reiteration of the turret or rather 75mm gun segment earning a dislike from me
15:49 on the sight it should be 7.5cm not 8.8cm.
germans also captured t34 tanks
I wonder why the Panther Tanks armor was only at 55 deg to the vertical instead of the 60 deg to the vertical that wouldve given an LOS of 160mm not just 140mm LOS
Maybe for transmission space?
Panther's 75 mm had better pen than the tigers 88 mm.
The panther was the culmination of several factors. The biggest being the torsion bar suspension and sloped armour both developed by Christie. Now Christie after being told NO by the US Army shopped histank to both the British Russians and other countries also to be told NO.
The overall best tank of the war never really made it into combate and that would have been the m28 patton with a 90mm HV cannon and thicker armor. The panther in the end was really just a stop gap for the Tiger and the jagtigers.
Was it though? The Panther served by doctrine as the Breakthrough-Exploitation-Medium-Tank in the regular Panzer-Regiments battalions, while the Tigers job was just to create a gap in the enemies defense. Also the Jagdpanther was a Tank-destroyer, its usage outside of dedicated units was of pure necessity due to a lack of Tanks.
How many times r u gunna glaze the panther?!?😭😭
reupload?
German engineering. Ja?
He fell for the fake tank meme......
The king tiger tank is a giant terror tank.
Re-upload?
Love this channel
Hello 👋, I love the videos!
Panzer 6 and panzer 5
VK 3002???
7 hours ago 😮😅😅
7 hours ago 😮😅😅
7 hours ago 😮😅😅
👍👍
first
hello
Thank you for your commitment to excellence! Your videos are always at the peak of quality.🛬👊🎗
Which was better, panther or tiger?
In general the panther. Way more of them were produced and the gun of the Panther was as good and equally effective as the tiger's gun despite it being smaller size
nice one well done on saying German language
Why tf are there bots on a simple history video?
They’re on all kinds of channels.
@@ShadowReaper-pu2hx 😑
Just reposted with older videos >:(
Still lost the war in the end. 😂
Thumbnail is a fake tank
Your videos always stand out for their quality and originality. Thank you for your contribution!🐈🤹❤️
Or you could say “tank” you for your contribution
@@EN_Empire I bet that isn't a real female and just a bot lol just saying
@@michaelhawkins7389 the account was made 3 hours ago
Sherman’s are still better :/
"Ausf." is not a word, it is an acronym for "Ausführung", which means version similar to the English "Mk" or "Mark". So you either use the full word or leave it off and say Pan*t*er (hard "t") G.
At 1.36min, ausf or ausfuehrung was explained. So your comment is somewhat redundant
1:36
@@gantulgaganhuyag717 No, it's not since he keeps saying "Ausf".
@@gantulgaganhuyag717you didn't even correct the actual mistake. It's not an acronym it's a contraction in Deutsch, or an abbreviation in English.
I'd like to take a moment to dedicate this to the German collector that had his tank and other relics stolen from the German government, simple history even did a video on it!
he used the tank to help people in the wwinter
Guessing you didnt actually watch it. He was fined and given a time frame to sell his collection
@@2fwelding842 force to sell and stolen are pretty much the same to me, he wasn't doing any harm and even helped people. Plus what's the point of being able to sell it if he has to pay fines? That's just theft with extra steps
Obamna
Liar liar pants on the fire the armor wasn’t brittle it was far superior to allied armor the only thing that stopped it was the low amount that were built !!!
I scared of German tanks
The sexiest tank ever made
But the 75mm gun cannon of the Panther tank wouldve also suffered from low HE punch surely? Given the 75mm gun cannon was more towards tank hunting rather than general support? Hence this is where the Shermans HE punch would be superior to the Panther tanks HE punch?
it is like modern day BMW good performances but bottomless pit when it comes to repairs , but they could still uparmor stationary turrets, it's not thet extra weight will disrupt mobility of vehicle ...
the sherman had the same thing for the driver in 1942 the crew didn't like it so they didn't use it same with the Germans
Tbf, their answer was to upgun their current stock of Pz.3's and Pz.4's to the 50 and 75mm respectively. And ofc things like the Stug changing from a close range infantry support gun platform to a tank destroyer 😊
The Panzer IV was actually supposed to use the 50mm Cannon even before the Panzer III, there was a test unit that did use the Long Barreled 50mm Cannon
@@yi_hou3092 oh yeah, i mean theres no doubt variants of both! Im sure you look hard enough you'll find a pz 2 with a long 88 😭
13:10 Dude... the air was needed to vent the gases from firing the gun, or the crew could die intoxicated. Overheating the barrel was the least of their concerns. As always, hire better researchers.
And by the way, T-34s had "brittle armor problems" since day 1, not to mention faulty welding.
Soviet Union was not a nation, it was a multinational union.
Your videos are always uplifting and full of joy. Thank you for your warmth and light!🐵🌭🍈