@@user-ef4gf7rr9r Still, a behavioural custom that led to Germany to its prime that no one really sought to talk about why they achieve much at such tremendous speed. Here's a thumbs up for ya.
@@terragaia7092 I mean, sure they kicked ass early war but to be fair that was more dude to doctrinal advancements, mechanized divisions, using radio..and hesitance by the allies during the phoney war. They steamrolled into france with relatively crap tanks mainly because Guderian and pals ignored commands and kept pushing, and at any point could have had their traffic jam bombed to hell or cut off if they didn't luck out. And their supply lines being mainly hoese driven was never going to work, and they ignored all the logistical guys saying they couldn't sustain a drawn out war l The writing was on the wall already by 42 And once they actually faced equal forces they got curbstomped, their manpower, logistics, fuel, were all screwed And yet in a war of attrition facing the soviets who were mass producing only a few models.. They kept making a shit ton of different models in small amounts that were difficult to maintain repair or even drive I mean basically all the ferdinands catching fire from being underpowered so they just added more armor showed their poor planning
@@matthias3257 because germany's slow and inefficient arms industry never managed to produce nearly enough tanks to even lose that much... where as the 'inferior' Russian tanks were everywhere on the eastern front? Panther may be superior to t-34 on paper, but the russian infantry had a hell of a lot more tank support than the Germans could have ever hoped for... a big reason why they were consistently outmanuver and outgunned from 1943 onwards Honestly, for all the mythology of the Panzer divisions, the german army in 1939 was poorly mechanized by world standards, in terms of tank/infantry ratios. The only thing truly superior was the way Germany concentrated it's armor during the battle of france. Once they lost the ability to do that, they were utterly unable to mount an effective offensive again (or defensive, given how decisively they lost on the eastern front...) Why did the Russians lose more tanks? 'cuz Germany could only dream of actually being able to produce 80,000 tanks... hell, they couldn't manage to make 8000 panthers and tigers combined... so yeah, that sounded cool in your head, i'm sure, but it doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny, now does it?
I was reading some of the battlefield accounts from some of the various SS Panzer divisions from WWII the other day. The one thing I noted that these accounts always gave praise to what ever tanks they were driving or commanding. But the Panther tankers seemed to have a real love for it in particular. Even when noting some of the short comings that you noted as well. Take for instance the loading process that you tried to simulate. I remember one account of SS panther TC noting how fast his loader was "once they removed the recoil guard." Seem given the tone of the interview it was common place when being refitted with a new tank for what ever reason. It was also noted that the Transmission had to be replaced every 1,200 KM. They also noted the process was to Remove the turret, remove the top plate over the driver/radio man positions, pull the old transmission, place new transmission or a rebuild one back in. Start to rolling again I think was 6 hours, 4 hours if the field crew was really good.
You would think so huh but Russians tank killing squads often climbed onto the back of the hull and top of the turret in efforts to disable the closed up tanks. So much so that the germans eventually made a small self defense weapon for the top of the turret. The German elephant tank destroyer suffered immensely at Kursk because it had no capability for close in self defense at the time.
Good tank or not that's the most beautiful tank I've ever scene. The restoration is awe inspiring. This baby looks like it rolled off the assembly line this morning. RIP gentleman that did he restoration. You can tell this was a labor of love.
it does make me wonder, would it be possible to get testimonials or interviews from former Panther crews with regards to living and fighting in the Panther?
There's one history channel Pz. IV documentary where they had a former late war post Seelow Heights defeat Pz. IV commander doing some talking... The late war guys are probably in short supply these days, and the earlier Pz. IV guys are probably all at the pearly gates right now
Solders often have what I can only describe as Stockholm Syndrome at times. The equipment looks terrible, probably is, but the men using it praise it nonetheless. There's also the fact this tank has a lot of expectations loaded on it, being the best tank of the war, supposedly. So even it's not the worst thing ever, and there is a lot worse, it doesn't live up to all the hype, especially when you look at tanks like the Panzer III.
@@CallanElliottIn what ways did the Panzer III not live up to expectations ? As far as I can tell, it did what it was intended to do and did so to its highest potential.
@@nicholasabe5551 I meant the Panther. As far as I know, the Panzer III and Panzer VI are fairly excellent tanks. If you want to see why, Nick has an ITCH on it, and Potantial History did a vid as well.
Yeah, I was impressed just how much the ergonomics seemed to suck, one would think if you're going to make such a huge tank that the crew should at the very least be comfortable.
true but I'm old enough to remember some of the comics from the 1960's and the artists had obviously never been in a tank ... they had the things outfitted with cots, all sorts of room and such. As we've seen the insides were rather cramped, and while I think they're better today, I think that they're still pretty cramped for space as everything is bigger (gun, ammo, etc)
ret7army Well, by the looks of it you could probably have strung a hammock from one side of the hull to another under the breech and had a pretty nice sleeping place. The Panther seems to have a lot of waste of space that doesn't do the crew any good.
heh, you may be right, I know that one of the crew usually slept under the breach on the M60 series we had back then the rest had to sleep outside or just be miserable
If you reduce the volume, you reduce the surface area you need to armor, which reduces weight, which increases speed and fuel economy, and all that saves money. Or you can increase armor for the same weight. Smaller tanks are smaller targets, too. And easier to transport. Anything more than what's necessary for the crew to function is inefficient and maybe dangerous for the crew. But it's a balance - the crew has to function, supplies have to be loaded into it, etc.. I'm always surprised at what appears to be the poor ergonomics in tanks, especially early ones. Maybe it sounds like a 21st century first world problem, but a little ergonomic design would have been cheap, added no weight, and maybe gone a long way toward improving ww2 armor. ...Which is my roundabout way of saying I agree.
Tanks have always been a marvel of engineering but also has been the kind of man that would take to fighting in a steel tomb. Maybe those tankers were rebirthed mine workers from the anicent mines of yore. Frankly the infantry offers better survival rate, at least the individual soldier if not in a static position has the freedom to choose his cover & concealment. And is a slave only to his weapon's maintenence or additional equipment assigned to him. Experienced duty on tracked vehicle and as a ground pounder...give me the ground any day....great narrative. The restoration is superb! Looks brand new!!
Well, if it worked for you, more power to you. I picked up the trick in my first gunnery, and in fairness, I was always found it easier to fine-tune with the turret and not the CWS thumb control. Never caused an issue, as you'd engage the PC with the .50 when turret down for a zero engagement time. Only then would you worry about the main gun. That said, in Iraq, I was invariably used the CWS control to move independently of the turret.
Now if we could get a Tiger 2 review that'd be awesome. You mentioned to me on a stream that there were difficulties in getting the people who have the US's Tiger 2 to let you look at it, but I imagine Bovington wouldn't have an issue, right?
The interior is correct. not the best ( some parts missing) but they can make a video, Another option is waiting for the final parts of the restoration on the thun kingtiger (Swiss) And yeah they are the Kingtigers what awaiable to make a video for the interior. The others are empty.
***** It was over a year ago, the World of Tanks Facebook page posted that the Chieftain was streaming WoT, and I asked about a King Tiger Inside the Hatch.
It appears that the German over-reliance on fixed, rigid crew roles (to the extent where the ONLY person who was permitted to see a damn thing was the TC) badly handicapped the tank's overall ability, particularly in the critical area of short-range situational awareness. A master TC with a highly trained and perfectly obedient crew was a lord of war (particularly at long range, like Nick said), but put a novice or inattentive TC in a Panther filled with veterans and they'll all still die very quickly from simple infantry weapons and common AT guns engaging their flanks. I'm not sure I'd want to go to war in a tank where my sole job is to service the warfighting skills of my TC according to his verbal instructions and nothing else.
I've gotten in a few arguments with people who insist this is perfectly acceptable doctrine. In particular the driver and especially the gunner need to have a degree of awareness almost comparable to that of the commander so they can act with any degree of autonomy.
@@Duckiputz which is ok if you train two years in peacetime before going to war. Not so good if you're scrambling to replaced crews lost in Russia to stop red army offensive.
@@Duckiputz and what was the training regime for tankers in 44/45 when the bulk of the panthers combat took place and the teething issues were addressed, if not fully resolved?
What rigid roles, all crew members were on the lookout, the gunner had a two stage aiming sight with twice the angle of view than the Shermans sights, the reason the Sherman got sights both coax and on the roof is because neither were of good quality, not because of some great insight. Initially the Shermans in Africa 42 started with just the roof periscope and no magnification, yes you red it right NO MAGNIFICATION, thats already a big problem because the gunner has to be able to observe and with 1x you wont see crap above 300 meters especially where the shell drops. Second issue was the link between the roof scope sight and the gun, it was notoriously unreliable and couldnt hold zero. It was so bad that in the report after the end of fighting in Africa the request for new sights was literally summed as "give us the same sights as the Germans" so they got the coax ones, but the coax one also had issues, it had a horrible narrow picture, half of it compared to German ones with same/similar magnification, o both types of sights remained. Its funny how ppl rate the Sherman so high for visibility when the CO didnt have a damn 360 view cupola until late 43, something the Germans were fast to install even on captured Soviet T34s and KVs in 41, and after initial experiences in Poland that was one big push to give every tank, even stuff like panzer 2.
Now that was educational, I've always had high regard for the Panther it's a cool looking machine it performed well etc my favourite tank of the war but my god how the hell were you supposed to operate one!
+TheChieftainWoT and all. Excellently beautiful restoration, simply immaculate par excellence. Here's to it standing the test of time for another 71+ years !! Thanks again Mr. Moran (et al), The Littlefield Collection & their staff, restorers, volunteers & families etc, and to WG & the camera minion(s). Looking at how cramped it can be in places, it does show some of the rushed development is evident along with the idea of armour being master to servicing critical problems. And highlights indirectly the possible factor of its initial 'tank shock' when against fresh enemies to it, that was almost a psychological weapon itself assisting the Panther crews in using its claws. If some of the reports of some of the 'Youth' crews doing well in this are true, that could confer the extra room likely available to them to work more efficiently at times perhaps. The auto generated subtitles are almost as hilarious as Mr. M's wit and humour is alone in dealing with this tanks details, facts and its 'ergonomics'.
Being a little guy did make these tanks much more comfortable. In my halftrack manual it tells you to adjust the track tension by having “an average size man (175 lb)”stand on the top of the tracks so you can measure the sag. I haven’t been 175 pounds sense 1987
The standard German panzerwaffe ersatz field "test" for firmness of ground to roll a tank over, if in ever in doubt, was to piggy back another crew member on your shoulders, or have him hang off your body-both feet off of the ground, then the carrier to hop in place on one leg, bearing his weight & your own!...IF you didnt sink/impress more than 2 inches, you were go to go to proceed....HA!
this man always complain about tanks and space. Yes there are some horrible tanks but from him sherman is the best tank. No point talking on that point.
when he said he would like for the turret to be a little taller.... that really blew my mind. the things almost comparable to a KV-2 the silhouette is huge. they really screwed up on crew interface.
Panther should have been built with a larger turret ring but the height is not that bad. The Chieftain is 6ft 5 in. The average German loader in WW2 was 5ft 9in. Then there is the issue of The Chieftan pulling a round from the sponson. Why? Panther has a quick access rack in each corner of the fighting compartment. rear racks are 6 to 7 rounds, the front are 3 to 5 rounds. The floor is so high to clear the dual torsion bar suspension which gave the Panther its off road speed.
After a life reading about the Panther, I have learn a lot with this video. Even reading webpages as old "AFV interiors" didn't get an idea about how cramped the vehicle is.
Reports indicated that only around 30 percent of available panthers were ready for action at any given time. They were prone to breakdowns and one example is that in the early models, final drives were expected to last only around 150 miles and engines and transmissions were only good for around 800 miles.
Are you sure it was miles and not kilometres? It's just a question and not a criticism because I read a book and the TC who was the author commented that at 1,000kms they were well passed the engine replacement. I need to read the book again to see if the transmission was mentioned and I do remember it being said it took an appropriately fully equipped and manned field maintenance crew a whole day to replace the engine (or was it the transmission).
Thank you so much, watching your videos, teaches us so much. An ATF is so much than what the numbers in a book tell us about it, or so much less. Thanks again.
Awesome, thank you for these fantastic videos, and insights into these vehicles. I really like the insight you provided at the end about the strange choices the German engineers made, and also how difficult it was to service the transmission on this tank. I would assume that the German Army probably abandoned a lot of tanks as the war dragged on? I can only imagine the nightmare logistics that would have to be involved to recover this vehicle, and then service/repair it.
Pretty much with the gradual withdrawal post Battle of Kursk they usually abandoned the tank with the intent of scuttling it with presupplied explosive charges Such charges were used on this specific Panther when it fell through the frozen surface of a Polish river and basically blew out half of the original turret IIRC
Mr. Moran, I love these videos. It is fascinating to hear the opinion of a real tanker who has lived and fought in a tank. So many "tank nuts" get so hysterical over the statistics of some tanks that they fail to remember that the tank is a weapons system and needs to be evaluated as a system, which includes crew. Admittedly you are probably much bigger than the average German tanker of 1943 to 45, but I hadn't realized that Panthers were so cramped. They look so big from the outside that one would expect reasonable room inside. Having heard the comments of the crew of a rstored Hetzer at Ft. Knox and your comments, it seems that the Germans put engineering ahead of any human concerns. Both Panther and Hetzer look suitably dangerous on paper (and certainly were in many conditions), but the ergonomics are very poorly thought out. Either loader would have been exhausted after an engagement. Plus, as you mention, the rate of fire suffers from poor ergonomics and large rounds. One can only imagine the Panthers sitting around a battlefield or repair depot immobilized while M4s or Churchills rolled past on their way to Germany.
Factor in that by late war the majority of Nazi weapons being assembled in large part by slave labor who risked their lives to sabotage equipment thus contributing to the dismal ready rate of Panther in particular
People underestimate his eight. If he is 190cm+ he is 15-20 cm higher than the average tanker probably. Its a HUGE difference. Panther wasn't cramped at all, its sights are indeed somewhat lacking, but you cnanot possibly call that "cramped". I won't even address the "german tanks were sabotaged by slaves" thing because its loudicrous. Its a popular myth. POW workers only did simple repetitive jobs, they did not touch any complex element of German weaponry. Germans weren't stupid. Also you are all overexagerrating the problems with panthers. Who told you that most panthers were always in repair? THis is probably another myth. At Kursk? Yeha, when they were still not fully developed and in a frotnal attack most panthers suffered alot of operational losses...but what is your proof that "Panthers sitting around a battlefield or repair depot immobilized" ?
Really loved this video. I thought there were more panning shots than most videos you folks have done in the past. I was able to better see the two forward positions (radio and driver) much better and imagine what they were like to sit in. Really hope you continue to do more sweeping shots, even if you're not able to be in the shot yourself, just so we can clearly see.
The work that must have gone into that restoration , it is a really great job. As for the tank it looks cool from the outside, but damn I would not want to go to war in that tank indeed, I am taller than you are and it would be torture hence.
Pretty IMPRESSIVE such a tank-(Along with the Tiger 1 & 2 & other assault guns)- was able to go from pure thought>design phase>wood mock-ups>prototype>series production>manufacturer testing w/re-designs>then the real test under combat conditions in a short 2 years time frame eh?! -All being done under a war-time economy, allied bombing raids, espionage, sabotage, dealing with railroad interruptions-re-routing, shuffling &/or losing vendors, manufacturers & access to raw materials! -Contrary to our globalized manufacturing process, considering most EVERY single component present in the tank, every screw & fastener, all the wire, etc>etc>etc> was primarily refined, constructed & produced from raw materials in Germany itself?!-(Roughly the size of WA & OR combined)- CZ's SkodaWerks, or scavenged/"requisitioned" from occupied territories, REALLY puts things in perspective doesnt it?....Its kinda hard to believe really....;)
I like this review. It just goes to show how limited the on-paper statistics are when it comes to sizing up the combat effectiveness of a vehicle. On paper, this thing should have utterly annihilated the Sherman. Yet in reality, the Sherman performed surprisingly well against not only this vehicle, but all the other German tanks. It all just goes to show how much produceability, maintainability, and ergonomics matters. For all its limitations, the Sherman was produceable in huge numbers; it was easily maintained in the field, which meant any given US tank division had a large percentage of its on-paper strength ACTUALLY available for combat operations, and finally, the Sherman was a reasonably ergonomic, well laid out vehicle that maximized the crew's ability to fight effectively in the tank. All this worked to make the nominally inferior Sherman more effective than one would ever imagine from the statistics alone.
It seems like with some simple modifications, this could've been a better tank: 1) put a turret traverse motor on it 2) poke a hole in the roof for a unity sight for the gunner 3) make the loader's periscope rotatable 4) Ditch the back hatch, put a loader's hatch on top instead 5) Tiger I cupola with flip up hatch with spring 6) counterweight on the back of the turret to ease it's rotation 7) I know they started to do this, but Tiger II's road wheel design I don't know how they could fix the final drive in the front without radically changing the front-- maybe make the entire front compartment a module that could be lifted out as a unit?
I'm entirely fine with Nicholas' verdict. The model A that he was climbing around in is "work in progress". I'd very much love to see what he thinks of the late model G. Supposedly, according to mr Zaloga, that one had most of the kinks ironed out.
Most designs of the era - not unlike modern ones - were "flawed" in some manner. Products of war conditions and available technology. Panther was last "not overly overdone" German tank that thanks to this 75mm gun could turn inside out any opossing tank.
seeing how unpleasant the interior was makes me see why it was that experience crews where so important to making the vehicle capable of using it to the fullest. can you imaging having only one experienced crew member or two you would be at a severe disadvantage until you got more experience in it
As I said in part two, I really think the German Tankers were better served by the Pz IV despite it's age and flaws. It is really valuable to have the impressions of a modern tanker looking at the single most pristine example of this design though. Even with it's very real desperately deep flaws, it looms large in post WWII tank design. I wonder how much the fear of it and the JS series are why American tanks stagnated in the Patton series for nearly 40 years till the M1 finally was born from the disaster of the MBT-70.
I used to really like the Panther. Now, I am pretty non-pulsed, possibly even disappointed. it looks good on the outside and had a deadly reputation, but isn't something I would want.
It's official. The Panther was decidedly mortal. As a teenager I recall the designer notes from the Avalon Hill war game Panzerblitz stating that the Panther influenced tank design well into the 1950s. Now these three fine reviews have poked a few holes into that theory. Still...once its bugs had been worked out this had to be a lethal machine. Thanks for the commentary Chieftain. Cheers!
He says it’s cramped and difficult for the crew to get the best out of, but if you watch the video he did about the Comet, that tank appears to be even more confined than the Panther for the crew to operate. I’m just curious if he thinks later allied tanks were better or worse in some respects than the Panther, since he’s had a chance to look inside and get a feeling for what they’re like.
Ive read more than a few accounts in my WW2 German Armor reference books, concerning the more adventurous Panzerwaffe crewmen completely deleting/removing the KWK 7.5cm cannons protective L & R recoil cage parts, on left hand side of KWK, cut-off just behind the recoil 'BraunArk Fluid' cannon recoil length of throw metering instrument device found on the inside of safety plate on the Commanders side of the gun. And on the right=hand loaders side, the safety bar tube completely removed @ its forward mounting point location.... -Such REALLY opens up the turret space (Aside from the spent case collection box, which could also be removed to free up valuable/UNcluttered turret floor space. Just needing to modify the small air compressor & its protective/commanders footrest mounting position right next to the spent shell box) -Which the UNsung heroes of the PanzerWaffe could prob easily take care of for a few bottles of booze in trade? -Such men being the PanzerWerkStattCo's best, brightest, creative & clever bunch of improvisational mechaniac masters due to unique war circumstances & the present/looming issues concerning overall German tank design & over-complicated engiNERding.... -Sure, that cannon recoil cage is there for crew safety, but considering theyd always tended to fire from a stand-still position, I'd consider that takes winning position above in-built safety elements during a critical projectile vehicle penetration, or worse yet: fire/ammo cook off situation where the crew needs to exit as quickly as possible... -With the recoil guard gone, the gunner could prob relax a bit n' breath a bit easier, the loader would just have to mimic what Abrams loaders do after loading, squish themselves up flat as poss against the turret war & grasp two purpose made hand holds... -Now as tthe a Panther tank commander, his right arm comes pretty near to the left side of the cannon & its recoil throw, but Im sure a few tankers modified an acceptable work around feature for the commanders safety after removing that recoil guard? (Ive yet to see photos of such ersatz mods, but have seen photos were the crews had removed the cannon recoil cage completely) As a Panther T.C.O I DEF wouldnt want my right arm even slightly bit by that 7.5cm during recoil!
I think that is a good analysis Chieftan. Panther is an excellent design in terms of weapons and armor, but crew functionality seems to have been an afterthought. Add to the design philosophy, the generally poor state of crew training in the late war, and you can easily see why battlefield performance of Panther is hardly spectacular. I finished reading 'Armored Thunderbolt' recently, and Steven Zaloga makes a good case as to crew training and battle experience counting for far more than equipment quality. It's like the 'Red Baron' once said, "All the fancy maneuvers won't save you if you cannot put rounds onto your target." If an inexperienced gunner can't hit his target, an inexperienced loader can't reload quickly, an inexperienced driver ruins the transmission, an inexperienced radio operator can't communicate effectively, and an inexperienced commander can't maintain situational awareness, it doesn't matter one bit how well designed the tank is...
***** VK 30.02 didn't really exist, except as a blueprint or prototype... You're right about SS Units, they absorbed far too much of the best equipment, and wasted it on the battlefield. Generally speaking, the Sturmartillerie battalions had the best combat records for german armor. StuG's formed the backbone of the German's armored forces. That has to do more with the fact that the crews were recruited from artillery units, rather than the infantry. Thus, they were already experienced with firing large caliber guns. However, during the mid to late war period, the Eastern Front had first call on men and resources, so most of the best, and most experienced tank crews fought there. There were good tank units in France, but after the Falaise Gap the German Panzerwaffe never really recovered. There were a few big engagements, but the Germans got their butts kicked in them. Even the celebrated 'Battle of the Bulge' was a total disaster for the Germans, losing something like 90% of all armor that fought in it.
***** Replacement troops outnumbering veterans, and casualty rates in the triple digits was a common occurance in all armies on all sides in World War Two. The 82nd Airborne had over 200% casualties, and don't even mention the U-Boat crews! The Sherman's absolute mechanical reliability was a huge factor in maintaining armored strength, but it is true the US fielded better crews than the Germans during 44 and 45, because we had the luxury of fully training our replacement crewmembers using the latest battlefield lessons, while the German's were forced to steadily decrease their training regimen to provide sufficient numbers of replacements. By the end of the war, what replacement tankers the Germans could provide had as little as 14 days of training in some cases. During the battle of Arracourt, those two Panzer Corps had as little as a week to familiarize themselves with their Panthers, and went into battle totally unprepared. They lost over 200 Tanks and Armored Vehicles, while the US 4th Armored Division lost just 48 Tanks and TDs.
***** Yes, the Germans never even got close to matching Allied tank production. In fact, all by itself, the Detroit Tank Arsenal outproduced the ENTIRE German tank production industry! What tanks the Germans did produce, at least 80% of all production from '43 to '45 went to the Eastern front. To make matters worse, instead of focusing their production efforts on one or two tanks that could do the job, the Germans produced a bewildering array of specialized vehicles, tank destroyers, and assault guns. To be honest, the Germans were utterly shit at using the production capacity of the places they captured. Good thing, that.
***** No offense, but pretty much everyone is questioning Belton Cooper these days. Historians, veterans, vehicle restorers, modelers, archivists, etc. He's pretty much lost his credibility as far as I'm concerned. The basic premise behind his book "Death Traps" has been thoroughly debunked. I would suggest you check out the huge Sherman book by Hunicutt, or even give "Armored Thunderbolt" a read, it's very good, if a bit short. If you want some video, check out the 'Operation Think Tank', or the 'Myths of American Armor' videos, which are available right here on the Chieftan's own channel. "Operation Think Tank" is especially good, even though the editing is a bit screwy.
Watching through all the analysis points on this series, it seems to me that the Panther was a tank that would have been absolutely devastating in the hands of a master crew, but also one where an average crew would spend more time fighting the tank than fighting the enemy.
It was a rushed design by a company that didn't have experience in tank design, put in production without testing. The plan was to have something on the ground until the Panther II was ready. But the never had the resources to develop the Panther II, so they were stuck with what they had. Later versions came with some improvements. You also have to consider that tank crews were mainly guys below 1.70m tall, not 1.90m+ like the Chieftain is :)
on wearing helmets in the tank, Wehrmacht tankers had a thing called the "Panzerhaube" which is basically a very large padded beret. Lighter than a helmet, served the same purpose and kept your head safe (and warm) and did not impede your movement or vision (German helmets being a bit more expansive and protective than, say, an M1). Also worked great with a headset. On a general note, a German Panther tanker (Gunner) I spoke to was rather in favour of the tank. Yes, acquiring and laying on a target required the cooperation of TC and gunner, which was exactly what they were trained to do. And yes, the TC scarcely ever buttoned up, vision being all important and the protection being decent.
Tim Smith Can’t really find evidence.The “Schutzmütze” (Germ. protective headgear) seems to have been on the books for most of it but from 1942 there was a greater drive to more standard gear.The woollen Schutzmütze could have been too expensive, so it might have been on the books but you had to know someone to “organize” one.
Maybe it was training. perhaps the Panther crews were trained in a way where the tank performed very well. Same with Tiger tanks. They weren't perfect but he crews were trained really well with what they had. Early war anyway.
Well yeah, that would be true, but the problem is that they WEREN'T well trained, at least not by the time the Panther came around, which is why it didn't actually fare that well when you look at hard numbers.
@D - that was because Hitler felt betrayed by his elite SS troops and stripped them off of their valuable equipment, like panthers and the like. At this point, Hitler was already a drug mess with irrational behavior.
I have this feeling that most of these things that seem so difficult and awkward to some dude who''s messing around in a Panther (or whatever tank) for the first time get to be a lot easier when you've done them hundreds of times. After you've crawled in and out of the loader's hatch twelve times a day for a year, you probably get a knack for it and don't think much of it any more. Same goes for crawling out underneath the gun (things like opening the commander's hatch can't be helped too much though), loading the cannon, etc. The human body can train itself to do pretty amazing things. And these were all pretty much boys, barely in their 20s, which makes it all much easier. And they were smaller. Of course it's always BETTER if it's easier; no matter how fast you train yourself to load a shell into a Panther's gun, the same person could do it even faster in a tank with a better layout. Of course that doesn't take into account the tangible benefits of the smaller turret: you're less likely to die because it's harder to hit, and the less tangible: smaller turret is lighter, so you can move the tank faster, which may save your life, especially in a tank like the Panther, which has almost all of its armor on the front and only marginal protection from the sides. It's something like aircraft in WWII, which I think I mentioned in another video. The average bomber of that era really almost took acrobatics and contortionism to enter or exit, or to move about the fuselage or enter your crew station. On the B-24 and 25, you had to crawl under the cockpit past the nose wheel to get into the nose compartment (literally right past the wheel in the B-24, and pulling yourself along on your back using hand rails through a little metal tunnel in the B-25). The ball turrets are legendary, and British tail turrets aren't that much better. An untrained, epecially an older person, would find it very difficult to do. To get from the front to the rear of the Lancaster or Halifax you had to crawl over 3ft think wing spars in the middle of the plane. In a Stirling or Hampden you actually had a little tunnel to crawl through. The only way over the bomb bay of a B-25 was through a small gap above the bomb bay (which is why the crew mostly just stayed in the part they took off in). On the B-17 and 24 and the He 111 you had to squeeze between bomb racks to get to the rear, over a little catwalk on the US planes (and the bay doors were designed to automatically open if any weight fell onto them, to prevent the bombs from staying in the plane if they forget to open bay doors first, and for emergency exits). The B-29 had a 30ft tunnel to crawl through to get from front to rear (with a little ladder to climb at each end, and I'm not actually sure HOW they did that!). To enter a German bomber you had to climb up through a little entry hatch under the plane. Getting into fighters often wasn't an easy task either. So all in all the tank crews didn't have all that much to complain about. The aircrews did this all wearing heavy layers of flight gear, boots, gloves, oxygen masks, and portable O2 tanks in many cases. This is one reason why the oldest bomber crew were rarely over 25.
In most cases your right about "getting used to"; but how do you get over the recoil coming back at your crotch...that one thing just would bother me, always. Very bad design. Ideas like: an incoming round hits the bore perfectly, or a piece of shrapnel ends up in my crotch when the breech is opened....nah, very bad for me.
I came upon a 303, Forces of Valor, Panzer IV Ausf G, RC 1/24 scale model at a Thrift store 2 weeks ago. It has the skirting around the turret version. It has one plastic track missing and maybe side skirts. Can't find link to parts. 700 of these were made and sent to the Russian front. I listened to 6 hours of an audio diary of a retreating Panzer tank from Russia at end of war. Respect to all tank crews. Tappen BC Canada
I read that German field engineers were the best of the best against all its rivals, they often has to pull the rabbit out the hat to field for the many late model machines, where as us and Russians would afford to sent a lot of their damaged units back to large depot factories for repair.
Surely the second part is true, and I wouldn't for a second move an eyebrow if he said ''could afford to have another 10 new arriving as substitutes''.
@The_Chieftain In my opinion the Gearbox is not synchronized. The AK in AK 7-200 stands for Allklauengetriebe, wich is not synchronised. The Allklauengetriebe has skrew gears, so it can be shifted a bit better than a gearbox with regular sprockets. The 7 in the Modelname of the gearbox stands for 7 gear gearbox. The 200 means, it can handle 2000nm torque.
Interesting commentary. Hard to argue with a guy who is actually sitting in the tank while he is talking about it. One can presume that an original tank crew was probably pretty good at getting the most out of their tank but once exhaustion set in (which was going to happen to any soldier in perpetual combat stress) and attrition (losing some individuals in a tank crew for different reasons--death, injury, promotion, illness, transfer) the teamwork coefficient would lower considerably. The Panther would seem to be a tank that would be better new and not as efficient when significantly used and I don't think that the German infrastructure for maintenance and repair was anything to write home about considering the conditions it had to operate....the Germans were fighting a long way from home over an extreme area, literally three fronts, and really could not benefit from interior lines. The Panther seems like a tank that would work well when being operated "by the numbers" but not so much by the "seat of your pants".
Before he passed away, Jacques Littlefield (the late owner and restorer of that particular Panther tank) was interviewed on a HistoryNet podcast talking about the Panther. He shared your overall opinion on the tank, Chieftain. If anything, he was more negative. He made a point to say that the tank wasn't so much over-engineered as it was badly-engineered. He said that it had a great gun and good frontal armor, but that's about where its positive qualities ended. He said that the Panther was “almost unusable in the field”, and the serviceability rates for the Panther in WWII seem to bear that out.
well...early model service rates were bad...but there's a lot of reasons for it. IF they kept using it for the next 2 years there is a reason. It COULD NOT possibly be "unusable" on the field. Otherwise they wouldn't have used it that much. Look at the famous Cologne tank duel. The panther mistook an M26 with a Tiger. This confirms the lack of visibility but it also shows that panthers were an effective and dangerous weapon.
Lt_Joker Which is why we Brits endured that the only really competent Nazi Leader was wacked, and Hitler wasn't. Keeping him in charge shortened the war immeasurably.
Hitler was, is and always will be the single most incompetent military strategist in the history of modern warfare. Or as historians have so ably put it - no one individual did more to aid the allies in winning WWII than Adolph Hitler.
@@user6008 Don't forget Goering though, good ol' Hitler-Goering duo fucked up an entire army branch's assured and extremely well fought victory (Luftwaffe winning the Battle of England, despite the infinite and massive disadvantages and advantages on UK side).
Steering the Panther in reverse has the same quirk as steering a US tank with a CD-850 (M46 through M60s) transmission or the X1100 of the M1. The driver has to steer opposite as he does when going forward. Not unlike backing up your boat trailer.
Great tour of the Panther. I think that the Panther was over engineered. Can't imagine what it was like to (for instance) to change a inner road wheel on either a Panther, Tiger I or a Royal Tiger!
Kind of makes you realize that being a tank driver was actually a pretty skilled job. I think they were mostly responsible for maintenance and keeping the engine running. But i guess that sort of applies to "driver" as a whole profession in that era. They were still the direct descendants of the guys who drove teams and wagons, and it took some special knowledge to do that job, unlike in the movies where random people can just jump on carriages with six horses and drive them off like a car. We are used to it being a job where pretty much anyone can get in and turn the steering wheel, and the hardest part is backing up and parking. But you had to be a semi -mechanic just to drive back then.
did they not make one of the king tiger? they jumped from panther to maus ? tried searching, but cant find anything about inside the chieftain's hatch köningstiger/king tiger/tiger 2/ausf b....did WG run out of money ?
I have not done any Tiger variants. My EU counterpart, Challenger, has done a fairly detailed four-part "Inside the Tanks" of the Bovington Tiger, and another 360-enabled tour of the Saumur King Tiger. Look on the EU WoT channel.
That Panther final Drive issue couldve been fixed/avoided entirely by using a epicyclic/planetary/sun gear layout-(Like the Tiger 1's FD)- instead of a standard cut spur gear, which couldnt handle the strain of the tanks final weight gain. Hard turns could break gear teeth. A Scarcity of improper/not enough steel alloying agents from northern Finland/Sweden/Norway getting harder to source in later war years didnt help the situation whatsoever.... Planetary gears spread the load out evenly between multiple gears VS output shaft gear>reduction spur>sprocket gear/wheel>tracks. SPEED of production/conservative use of TungstenCarbide/Wolfram cutting bits & tooling was favored over time consuming helical/herringbone cut gears like the Sherman used on its FD, let alone having the numbers of tooling available to ensure much needed/mandated overall production numbers... The fact tiny Germany/Austria/Czechosloakia's SkodaWerks/Ect was even able to produce new tanks designs/EVERY single part therein-every screw & components under the stresses of wartime is almost super-human-esque in its scale & scope? Inexperienced, quickly trained, drivers during the later war phase didnt help the Final Drive issues much either... I have a book in the library that has a photo of an early Bergepanther Recovery Vehicle that had somewhere around 6,700-(Or more)-kilometer's on the ORIGINAL transmission/Final Drives/Maybach HL230 motor with out a catastrophic >SINGLE FAILURE< of those components!? Take into mind that this was achieved with some SERIOUS high tonnage towing/tugging/stress & abuse involved on the entire drivetrain & vehicle. ~Impeccable Routine drive train component inspection & MAN-tenance, plus knowing how to drive such & its capabilities is the KEY FACTOR in such a vehicles longevity....Thats why the most important crew member in any AFV is the DRIVER...;)
Sure. Also would have helped to add a hatch/bolt system like the Sherman and Panzer 4 where you could access the final drive and transmission in the field instead of tearing the whole tank apart in a depot.
@@uni4rm GREAT point SLUGGO! Funny, Ive actually worked up a sketch, then a prototype on an old 1/35th scale Panther glacis plate hull model of mine laying around in the parts box... ~It COULD have been done with additional labor/interlocking & interior supporting plates, together with BIG-ass recessed bolts -OR- spot welded plates/plugs over the bolts themselves-(Cutting the welds to affect removal)- ~Sure it would have decreased interior space a bit, may have provided a scant ballistic disadvantage to frontal hits VS a full welded & interlocked plate glacis-BUT- the down time considering the numerous tranny re-builds would have more than made up for it, considering having more vehicles in the field NOT disabled due to repair schedules & available WerkstatCompany assets in the field... -Considering the initial "Thought">To paper>to prototype>to final working example of the design is nothing short of miraculous under the forced conditions & shortages of war time.... They did such exceedingly>>>FAST>> ~Be Well....
The Panther was the first German tank with sloped hull armour. Before that, all German tank hulls were box shaped. Sloped hull armour reduces the space available for the driver and radio operator. The turret would have had more space for the commander, gunner and loader with the original design spec of a 7.5 cm L/48 gun. But with the longer 7.5 cm L/70 gun, and its longer rounds and bigger breech, not so much. Same problem as with the Sherman Firefly turret. Big gun in a relatively small turret.
Very, very additive videos! And with the book by Zaloga about Arracourt, really blows up the myths put out by Cooper about the "5 Shermans to kill a Panther or Tiger" that's infected armored warfare history. I guess something that was ignored is only the French used Panthers after the war for a brief time while the Sherman was continually upgraded and serves, even to this day in armies around the world. Imagine how different the war would've been if McNair didn't hamstring the M-26 or allowed Shermans to be built with the 90 mm turret?
@ Paul Parsons I too had heard of this five Shermans to kill a Cat. But actually this was a miss apprehension rather than a downright lie. Shermans were used in groups of five (troops WHY) yet the Cats used to operate alone so when a Sherman -Cat battle erupted there were five Shermans to each Cat .
I read what I considered a good and interesting book that other may also find interesting. I am going to read this again on my ebook reader. An excellent electronic item IMO. I have no financial or promotional interests in the book. I just thought it was an excellent read. _The Last Panther - Slaughter of the Reich_ .. by _Wolfgang Faust_ The author and his crew were on the Eastern Front and one could feel somewhat sympathetic to their _situation._ It is described as the author's memoir so I believe it to be a factual telling of the events covered to a reasonable degree.
A main reason for transmission failure on the Panther was lack of driver training. If Panther crews had the training of 1941 crews, we'd all be talking about how amazing the Panther transmission was. Training matters.
i think that the worst job was actually a final drive swap, because in order to change them first you had to remove a couple of road wheels AND the transmission, and on panthers these were know to fail between 120 and 150 km of march
Personal opinion, the Panther may have been the best Tank Destroyer of the war. As a Tank trying to do the other jobs a Tank is supposed to do it has a fair number of issues. When buttoned up this tank is even more blind than most, only the commander really has much int the way of vision. Main Gun is a great anti-tank gun but the load speed will make it have issues in the anti-personnel roll The self defense grenade system is interesting and could i guess also launch smoke so its an improvement in some ways, of course any infantry supporting the Panther may not like it as much. The maintenance is nightmare even worse the T34 with the bolted on armor over the power pack.
Am I correct to presume that different tanker positions were manned by specifically sized men? Kinda like the ball turret gunners in B17s, were smaller men chosen to be radio operators in the Panther?
Regarding the loading, there’s a difference between a 20 yo and a 60 yo doing physical things no matter how experienced ppl slow down and get clumsier. Not an attack, just how it is.
Helmets in a tank strike me a as a good thing. I don't recall how many times i bonked my head on fixtures in the turret in the Mk75 Mod 0 doing maintenance, and that is not a manned turret. Will Wargaming do an about the ships for the OHP class with the last of the OHP retired from US service?
Keep in mind, Nicholas is extremely tall and even well exceeds the US Army height restriction of 6'1 (185mm) for the M1A1. So, to put it into perspective, the German instruction manual (Panzertruppenschule, Merkblatt) for the Panther, recommended a maximum acceptable height of 5'7 or 170mm for the loader's position. It also requires quite a bit of training that every hand movement be spot on. However, while I generally agree with most of the viewpoints, some are too straight forward and harsh.
Panther II would have used regular Panther turret, at the time there was no Panther II turret designed to go with a Panther II hull. A possible outcome would have been the Schmalturm at best.
Yes definitely. If it was the bad tank the majority on the internet claims why would allied tank crews report so many times that it was a dangerous enemy tank and caused so many losses on their side. Makes no sense.
The Loader sits in his hatch, because his seat was deleted to stream line production in late war models, like a lot of features which offers crew comfort.
+TheChieftainWoT Just a thought about the 2 pedals system, might the Clutch also act as the brake when depressed further - i.e; the clutch is activated & controlled within say the 1st 3rd of travel, and is then kept fully depressed, while the brake is then additionally controlled on from the start of 3rd third of travel. So the initial pressure activates the clutch to the drivers discression, after a certain point the clutch is fully open. Additional linkages on that pedals control rod then start after a 'bump gap'/deadzone to keep the clutch disengaged, and start to act with further pedal movement, to activate the foot brake to drivers pressure. If you understand what I mean, that would be one way to have a main/foot brake with 2 pedals and not using the steering brakes as 'main' brakes'.
Possible. I obviously haven't tried it, and found the omission of any mention of braking systems in the documentation to be quite surprising. Perhaps just those pages were missing.
TheChieftainWoT Thanks for replying, It does sound that those pages could well be missing, indeed it sounds quite likely so. I only thought of the likelihood of the pedal being dual role-d after noticing the swinging link ('delaying linkage' for the brake?) coming off what appears to be the clutch activation rod just by the drivers right knee, that and that the '30s/'40s German liking for 'Kommandogerät' systems, particularly related to reducing overloaded human operators/pilots & in this case, tight spaces.
I don't really understand how can this thing be so cramped when it's such a huge tank. I mean i know that the torsion bar suspension takes some room on the floor as well as the drive shaft because the drive sprocket is on the front but still... It's easily one of the largest medium tank - if not the largest - of the war.
Wow, and here I thought that the Russians had the monopoly on terrible ergonomics inside a tank. The inside of the Panther really screams typical German overengineering to me and how they seem to always make things much more complicated than they really need be. I'd love to see a video that compares the Panther to the Sherman and T-34 side by side and how they compare in terms of comfort, ergonomics, and ease of repair.
Take into account, Russians tended to design tanks for a maximum of 160cm, so their may even end up _more_ comfortable relative to what the Germans built for. Especially if their tankers were tiny little infantry leftovers. Of course, Shermans are still palaces on tracks.
Well I saw he's videos about the t-34, Comet, IS-4, AC-1 Sentinel, Object 268 and ISU-152. This is not as terrible as you think. Well it's cramped but this is a tank, not an limusin. It has desing flaws. Yes but ewery tank has desing flaws. See the t-34 from the loaders vision or the drivers hatch. Or take a look at the M10 Achilles driver hatch what is not awaiable to open when the turret is aimed ahead, and it has mayor desind flaws at the gunners position. (Turret elevation)
I'd have to review the Chieftain's comments on the Sherman and T-34 to be able to catch more of it but from what I remember... the Sherman takes it all for ease of maintenance bar none. Getting in and out of the Sherman's front hull was also easy so long as the gun wasn't positioned over the hatch. The T-34 driver's position was not protected from the turret while traversing and he had to lean forward to avoid being caught up by it. The Panther as we saw in this series. I'd like to see how they did on modern vehicles sometime as well. The British Chieftain, and what is the new one, Challenger? The American M60 series, and M1, the French, German, and of course, the Russian T34, T62, T72, etc. Again looking from the ergonomic, maintenance, crew comfort terms.
the Panthers bad but the t-34-85's turret is still worse. no turret basket, can't stand up properly and an even smaller amount of space due to a larger gun breach and bigger heavier rounds. "I'd love to see a video that compares the Panther to the Sherman and T-34 side by side and how they compare in terms of comfort, ergonomics, and ease of repair" so would I, and the Sherman would DESTROY them both in those catergories.
interesting, appreciate your series on the Panther, but the whole series overall as well. From the vehicles that you've given us insight into in this series which was best overall? In other words which one(s) would you feel comfortable in going to war in? What aspects of tank fundamentals would you look for for a well designed tank?
They did an absolutely beautiful job restoring that tank!
yes...
they even added an aftermarket autopilot. Once you turn the tank on, it turns and starts driving towards Poland.
@@ChrisZukowski88*breaks down after 150km*
@@Nolant. XD
''Theres probably an easier way of doing it, but thats how they did it'' sums up the entire german armaments industry of WW2
@@user-ef4gf7rr9r Still, a behavioural custom that led to Germany to its prime that no one really sought to talk about why they achieve much at such tremendous speed. Here's a thumbs up for ya.
@@terragaia7092 I mean, sure they kicked ass early war but to be fair that was more dude to doctrinal advancements, mechanized divisions, using radio..and hesitance by the allies during the phoney war.
They steamrolled into france with relatively crap tanks mainly because Guderian and pals ignored commands and kept pushing, and at any point could have had their traffic jam bombed to hell or cut off if they didn't luck out. And their supply lines being mainly hoese driven was never going to work, and they ignored all the logistical guys saying they couldn't sustain a drawn out war l
The writing was on the wall already by 42
And once they actually faced equal forces they got curbstomped, their manpower, logistics, fuel, were all screwed
And yet in a war of attrition facing the soviets who were mass producing only a few models.. They kept making a shit ton of different models in small amounts that were difficult to maintain repair or even drive
I mean basically all the ferdinands catching fire from being underpowered so they just added more armor showed their poor planning
@@KaladinVegapunk And why did the Soviets alone lose more than 80,000 tanks to the Germans?
@@matthias3257 Shh, don't aggravate historical ignoramus...
@@matthias3257 because germany's slow and inefficient arms industry never managed to produce nearly enough tanks to even lose that much... where as the 'inferior' Russian tanks were everywhere on the eastern front? Panther may be superior to t-34 on paper, but the russian infantry had a hell of a lot more tank support than the Germans could have ever hoped for... a big reason why they were consistently outmanuver and outgunned from 1943 onwards
Honestly, for all the mythology of the Panzer divisions, the german army in 1939 was poorly mechanized by world standards, in terms of tank/infantry ratios. The only thing truly superior was the way Germany concentrated it's armor during the battle of france. Once they lost the ability to do that, they were utterly unable to mount an effective offensive again (or defensive, given how decisively they lost on the eastern front...)
Why did the Russians lose more tanks? 'cuz Germany could only dream of actually being able to produce 80,000 tanks... hell, they couldn't manage to make 8000 panthers and tigers combined... so yeah, that sounded cool in your head, i'm sure, but it doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny, now does it?
“Let’s go into the hull, maybe things will be better there” that end smirk was amazing!
I was reading some of the battlefield accounts from some of the various SS Panzer divisions from WWII the other day. The one thing I noted that these accounts always gave praise to what ever tanks they were driving or commanding. But the Panther tankers seemed to have a real love for it in particular. Even when noting some of the short comings that you noted as well. Take for instance the loading process that you tried to simulate. I remember one account of SS panther TC noting how fast his loader was "once they removed the recoil guard." Seem given the tone of the interview it was common place when being refitted with a new tank for what ever reason. It was also noted that the Transmission had to be replaced every 1,200 KM. They also noted the process was to Remove the turret, remove the top plate over the driver/radio man positions, pull the old transmission, place new transmission or a rebuild one back in. Start to rolling again I think was 6 hours, 4 hours if the field crew was really good.
excellent comment. one can commonly see turrets removed for major repairs.
wouldnt it juet be enough to spin the turret 180 Degrees?
You would think so huh but Russians tank killing squads often climbed onto the back of the hull and top of the turret in efforts to disable the closed up tanks. So much so that the germans eventually made a small self defense weapon for the top of the turret. The German elephant tank destroyer suffered immensely at Kursk because it had no capability for close in self defense at the time.
Toasty Roasty Man what does this have to do with removing the tirret for changing the gearbox?
It's obviously a separate topic/video I was replying to but mistakenly put here.
Great restoration! The interior looks beautiful; nice and clean, and painted well.
Good tank or not that's the most beautiful tank I've ever scene. The restoration is awe inspiring. This baby looks like it rolled off the assembly line this morning. RIP gentleman that did he restoration. You can tell this was a labor of love.
Inside the Chieftain's Hatch drinking game: take a shot every time the Chieftain says "I suspect"
Should I call you an ambulance or a heres?
@@johnmccrossan9376 lol
Even better, pound a beer every time he describes something as 'dominating' a certain area of the vehicle.
it does make me wonder, would it be possible to get testimonials or interviews from former Panther crews with regards to living and fighting in the Panther?
The book series Panzer Aces I - III by Franz Kurowski contains first hand accounts of Panther commanders, and many others.
There's one history channel Pz. IV documentary where they had a former late war post Seelow Heights defeat Pz. IV commander doing some talking...
The late war guys are probably in short supply these days, and the earlier Pz. IV guys are probably all at the pearly gates right now
Solders often have what I can only describe as Stockholm Syndrome at times. The equipment looks terrible, probably is, but the men using it praise it nonetheless. There's also the fact this tank has a lot of expectations loaded on it, being the best tank of the war, supposedly. So even it's not the worst thing ever, and there is a lot worse, it doesn't live up to all the hype, especially when you look at tanks like the Panzer III.
@@CallanElliottIn what ways did the Panzer III not live up to expectations ? As far as I can tell, it did what it was intended to do and did so to its highest potential.
@@nicholasabe5551 I meant the Panther. As far as I know, the Panzer III and Panzer VI are fairly excellent tanks. If you want to see why, Nick has an ITCH on it, and Potantial History did a vid as well.
Yeah, I was impressed just how much the ergonomics seemed to suck, one would think if you're going to make such a huge tank that the crew should at the very least be comfortable.
true but I'm old enough to remember some of the comics from the 1960's and the artists had obviously never been in a tank ... they had the things outfitted with cots, all sorts of room and such. As we've seen the insides were rather cramped, and while I think they're better today, I think that they're still pretty cramped for space as everything is bigger (gun, ammo, etc)
ret7army Well, by the looks of it you could probably have strung a hammock from one side of the hull to another under the breech and had a pretty nice sleeping place.
The Panther seems to have a lot of waste of space that doesn't do the crew any good.
heh, you may be right, I know that one of the crew usually slept under the breach on the M60 series we had back then the rest had to sleep outside or just be miserable
If you reduce the volume, you reduce the surface area you need to armor, which reduces weight, which increases speed and fuel economy, and all that saves money. Or you can increase armor for the same weight. Smaller tanks are smaller targets, too. And easier to transport. Anything more than what's necessary for the crew to function is inefficient and maybe dangerous for the crew. But it's a balance - the crew has to function, supplies have to be loaded into it, etc..
I'm always surprised at what appears to be the poor ergonomics in tanks, especially early ones. Maybe it sounds like a 21st century first world problem, but a little ergonomic design would have been cheap, added no weight, and maybe gone a long way toward improving ww2 armor.
...Which is my roundabout way of saying I agree.
it's not a huge tank. it's a medium tank.
Tanks have always been a marvel of engineering but also has been the kind of man that would take to fighting in a steel tomb. Maybe those tankers were rebirthed mine workers from the anicent mines of yore. Frankly the infantry offers better survival rate, at least the individual soldier if not in a static position has the freedom to choose his cover & concealment.
And is a slave only to his weapon's maintenence or additional equipment assigned to him. Experienced duty on tracked vehicle and as a ground pounder...give me the ground any day....great narrative. The restoration is superb! Looks brand new!!
Beautiful restoration job, just amazing!
Basically, My favorite tank is a heavily armored sniper that is farsighted.
10 years a TC of an M1A1, I never used the turret controls to shoot the M2. I always used the CWS controls.
Well, if it worked for you, more power to you. I picked up the trick in my first gunnery, and in fairness, I was always found it easier to fine-tune with the turret and not the CWS thumb control. Never caused an issue, as you'd engage the PC with the .50 when turret down for a zero engagement time. Only then would you worry about the main gun.
That said, in Iraq, I was invariably used the CWS control to move independently of the turret.
Neither. Tank Commander
Challenger II?
He was an Abrams TC.
What does CWS stand for?
Now if we could get a Tiger 2 review that'd be awesome. You mentioned to me on a stream that there were difficulties in getting the people who have the US's Tiger 2 to let you look at it, but I imagine Bovington wouldn't have an issue, right?
So long as it ain't as gutted as the Maus, anything's better than nothing.
Kugelpanzer when?
The interior is correct. not the best ( some parts missing) but they can make a video, Another option is waiting for the final parts of the restoration on the thun kingtiger (Swiss) And yeah they are the Kingtigers what awaiable to make a video for the interior. The others are empty.
***** It was over a year ago, the World of Tanks Facebook page posted that the Chieftain was streaming WoT, and I asked about a King Tiger Inside the Hatch.
yes, tiger 2 review plss
It appears that the German over-reliance on fixed, rigid crew roles (to the extent where the ONLY person who was permitted to see a damn thing was the TC) badly handicapped the tank's overall ability, particularly in the critical area of short-range situational awareness. A master TC with a highly trained and perfectly obedient crew was a lord of war (particularly at long range, like Nick said), but put a novice or inattentive TC in a Panther filled with veterans and they'll all still die very quickly from simple infantry weapons and common AT guns engaging their flanks.
I'm not sure I'd want to go to war in a tank where my sole job is to service the warfighting skills of my TC according to his verbal instructions and nothing else.
That's why the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht put so much emphasis on training.
I've gotten in a few arguments with people who insist this is perfectly acceptable doctrine. In particular the driver and especially the gunner need to have a degree of awareness almost comparable to that of the commander so they can act with any degree of autonomy.
@@Duckiputz which is ok if you train two years in peacetime before going to war. Not so good if you're scrambling to replaced crews lost in Russia to stop red army offensive.
@@Duckiputz and what was the training regime for tankers in 44/45 when the bulk of the panthers combat took place and the teething issues were addressed, if not fully resolved?
What rigid roles, all crew members were on the lookout, the gunner had a two stage aiming sight with twice the angle of view than the Shermans sights, the reason the Sherman got sights both coax and on the roof is because neither were of good quality, not because of some great insight.
Initially the Shermans in Africa 42 started with just the roof periscope and no magnification, yes you red it right NO MAGNIFICATION, thats already a big problem because the gunner has to be able to observe and with 1x you wont see crap above 300 meters especially where the shell drops. Second issue was the link between the roof scope sight and the gun, it was notoriously unreliable and couldnt hold zero.
It was so bad that in the report after the end of fighting in Africa the request for new sights was literally summed as "give us the same sights as the Germans" so they got the coax ones, but the coax one also had issues, it had a horrible narrow picture, half of it compared to German ones with same/similar magnification, o both types of sights remained.
Its funny how ppl rate the Sherman so high for visibility when the CO didnt have a damn 360 view cupola until late 43, something the Germans were fast to install even on captured Soviet T34s and KVs in 41, and after initial experiences in Poland that was one big push to give every tank, even stuff like panzer 2.
Great shot at the end showing how thin the cover was over the driver/hull gunner for that "bounce it off the lower mantlet" trick.
Now that was educational, I've always had high regard for the Panther it's a cool looking machine it performed well etc my favourite tank of the war but my god how the hell were you supposed to operate one!
what a great show. So detailed.
+TheChieftainWoT and all.
Excellently beautiful restoration, simply immaculate par excellence.
Here's to it standing the test of time for another 71+ years !!
Thanks again Mr. Moran (et al), The Littlefield Collection & their staff, restorers, volunteers & families etc, and to WG & the camera minion(s).
Looking at how cramped it can be in places, it does show some of the rushed development is evident along with the idea of armour being master to servicing critical problems. And highlights indirectly the possible factor of its initial 'tank shock' when against fresh enemies to it, that was almost a psychological weapon itself assisting the Panther crews in using its claws.
If some of the reports of some of the 'Youth' crews doing well in this are true, that could confer the extra room likely available to them to work more efficiently at times perhaps.
The auto generated subtitles are almost as hilarious as Mr. M's wit and humour is alone in dealing with this tanks details, facts and its 'ergonomics'.
Being a little guy did make these tanks much more comfortable. In my halftrack manual it tells you to adjust the track tension by having “an average size man (175 lb)”stand on the top of the tracks so you can measure the sag. I haven’t been 175 pounds sense 1987
The standard German panzerwaffe ersatz field "test" for firmness of ground to roll a tank over, if in ever in doubt, was to piggy back another crew member on your shoulders, or have him hang off your body-both feet off of the ground, then the carrier to hop in place on one leg, bearing his weight & your own!...IF you didnt sink/impress more than 2 inches, you were go to go to proceed....HA!
this man always complain about tanks and space. Yes there are some horrible tanks but from him sherman is the best tank. No point talking on that point.
I watched Tank Overhaul years ago .......Thanks Chief for the detailed summery....God Bless YOU TANKERS !
when he said he would like for the turret to be a little taller.... that really blew my mind. the things almost comparable to a KV-2 the silhouette is huge.
they really screwed up on crew interface.
Panther should have been built with a larger turret ring but the height is not that bad. The Chieftain is 6ft 5 in. The average German loader in WW2 was 5ft 9in.
Then there is the issue of The Chieftan pulling a round from the sponson. Why? Panther has a quick access rack in each corner of the fighting compartment. rear racks are 6 to 7 rounds, the front are 3 to 5 rounds.
The floor is so high to clear the dual torsion bar suspension which gave the Panther its off road speed.
After a life reading about the Panther, I have learn a lot with this video. Even reading webpages as old "AFV interiors" didn't get an idea about how cramped the vehicle is.
Reports indicated that only around 30 percent of available panthers were ready for action at any given time. They were prone to breakdowns and one example is that in the early models, final drives were expected to last only around 150 miles and engines and transmissions were only good for around 800 miles.
Are you sure it was miles and not kilometres? It's just a question and not a criticism because I read a book and the TC who was the author commented that at 1,000kms they were well passed the engine replacement. I need to read the book again to see if the transmission was mentioned and I do remember it being said it took an appropriately fully equipped and manned field maintenance crew a whole day to replace the engine (or was it the transmission).
Thank you so much, watching your videos, teaches us so much. An ATF is so much than what the numbers in a book tell us about it, or so much less. Thanks again.
Outstanding video and presentation.
100 KPH? Maybe if it drove off a cliff...
no it actually goes fast even on flat ground
Top speed for the first models of the Panther was 55 kph.
Knowing your free fall speed was considered important I guess...
Not that fast...
isu-152 has a similar speedometer
Awesome, thank you for these fantastic videos, and insights into these vehicles. I really like the insight you provided at the end about the strange choices the German engineers made, and also how difficult it was to service the transmission on this tank. I would assume that the German Army probably abandoned a lot of tanks as the war dragged on? I can only imagine the nightmare logistics that would have to be involved to recover this vehicle, and then service/repair it.
Pretty much with the gradual withdrawal post Battle of Kursk they usually abandoned the tank with the intent of scuttling it with presupplied explosive charges
Such charges were used on this specific Panther when it fell through the frozen surface of a Polish river and basically blew out half of the original turret IIRC
For The Chieftain the final word is all about being comfy.
When you live inside of those machines, it's a very important factor for long term crew efficiency.
Teddy Julock I know, I spent a lot of time in MRAPs and humvees. Comfy matters.
Mr. Moran, I love these videos. It is fascinating to hear the opinion of a real tanker who has lived and fought in a tank. So many "tank nuts" get so hysterical over the statistics of some tanks that they fail to remember that the tank is a weapons system and needs to be evaluated as a system, which includes crew. Admittedly you are probably much bigger than the average German tanker of 1943 to 45, but I hadn't realized that Panthers were so cramped. They look so big from the outside that one would expect reasonable room inside. Having heard the comments of the crew of a rstored Hetzer at Ft. Knox and your comments, it seems that the Germans put engineering ahead of any human concerns. Both Panther and Hetzer look suitably dangerous on paper (and certainly were in many conditions), but the ergonomics are very poorly thought out. Either loader would have been exhausted after an engagement. Plus, as you mention, the rate of fire suffers from poor ergonomics and large rounds. One can only imagine the Panthers sitting around a battlefield or repair depot immobilized while M4s or Churchills rolled past on their way to Germany.
Factor in that by late war the majority of Nazi weapons being assembled in large part by slave labor who risked their lives to sabotage equipment thus contributing to the dismal ready rate of Panther in particular
People underestimate his eight. If he is 190cm+ he is 15-20 cm higher than the average tanker probably. Its a HUGE difference. Panther wasn't cramped at all, its sights are indeed somewhat lacking, but you cnanot possibly call that "cramped".
I won't even address the "german tanks were sabotaged by slaves" thing because its loudicrous. Its a popular myth. POW workers only did simple repetitive jobs, they did not touch any complex element of German weaponry. Germans weren't stupid.
Also you are all overexagerrating the problems with panthers. Who told you that most panthers were always in repair? THis is probably another myth. At Kursk? Yeha, when they were still not fully developed and in a frotnal attack most panthers suffered alot of operational losses...but what is your proof that "Panthers sitting around a battlefield or repair depot immobilized" ?
Panther A, one of my favorite models :)
Really loved this video. I thought there were more panning shots than most videos you folks have done in the past. I was able to better see the two forward positions (radio and driver) much better and imagine what they were like to sit in. Really hope you continue to do more sweeping shots, even if you're not able to be in the shot yourself, just so we can clearly see.
Thanks for your wellcome, i really like your argoments 👍🙋🏻♂️Greetings from Sanremo ( Italy )
I always like these videos before watching, because I know I will enjoy it
The work that must have gone into that restoration , it is a really great job.
As for the tank it looks cool from the outside, but damn I would not want to go to war in that tank indeed, I am taller than you are and it would be torture hence.
They did a documentury on it a few years back.
Matt Bartholomew It was a brilliant piece of work.
UA-cam search 'Tank Overhaul Panther' and you can see it for yourself.
Is this the one they took 2 Panthers and split them in half and put the good halves together?
Dale Platt
Been a while since I've watched it but I'm sure they used just a single hull that was dragged out of a bog/lake/swamp in Poland.
Interesting take on the Panther.
Thank you Chieftain, your videos are very informative and well done. Greetings from Clearwater, Florida.
God, those tanks are a mechanical work of art
Pretty IMPRESSIVE such a tank-(Along with the Tiger 1 & 2 & other assault guns)- was able to go from pure thought>design phase>wood mock-ups>prototype>series production>manufacturer testing w/re-designs>then the real test under combat conditions in a short 2 years time frame eh?!
-All being done under a war-time economy, allied bombing raids, espionage, sabotage, dealing with railroad interruptions-re-routing, shuffling &/or losing vendors, manufacturers & access to raw materials!
-Contrary to our globalized manufacturing process, considering most EVERY single component present in the tank, every screw & fastener, all the wire, etc>etc>etc> was primarily refined, constructed & produced from raw materials in Germany itself?!-(Roughly the size of WA & OR combined)- CZ's SkodaWerks, or scavenged/"requisitioned" from occupied territories, REALLY puts things in perspective doesnt it?....Its kinda hard to believe really....;)
I like this review. It just goes to show how limited the on-paper statistics are when it comes to sizing up the combat effectiveness of a vehicle. On paper, this thing should have utterly annihilated the Sherman. Yet in reality, the Sherman performed surprisingly well against not only this vehicle, but all the other German tanks. It all just goes to show how much produceability, maintainability, and ergonomics matters. For all its limitations, the Sherman was produceable in huge numbers; it was easily maintained in the field, which meant any given US tank division had a large percentage of its on-paper strength ACTUALLY available for combat operations, and finally, the Sherman was a reasonably ergonomic, well laid out vehicle that maximized the crew's ability to fight effectively in the tank. All this worked to make the nominally inferior Sherman more effective than one would ever imagine from the statistics alone.
It seems like with some simple modifications, this could've been a better tank:
1) put a turret traverse motor on it
2) poke a hole in the roof for a unity sight for the gunner
3) make the loader's periscope rotatable
4) Ditch the back hatch, put a loader's hatch on top instead
5) Tiger I cupola with flip up hatch with spring
6) counterweight on the back of the turret to ease it's rotation
7) I know they started to do this, but Tiger II's road wheel design
I don't know how they could fix the final drive in the front without radically changing the front-- maybe make the entire front compartment a module that could be lifted out as a unit?
I'm entirely fine with Nicholas' verdict. The model A that he was climbing around in is "work in progress".
I'd very much love to see what he thinks of the late model G. Supposedly, according to mr Zaloga, that one had most of the kinks ironed out.
Most designs of the era - not unlike modern ones - were "flawed" in some manner. Products of war conditions and available technology. Panther was last "not overly overdone" German tank that thanks to this 75mm gun could turn inside out any opossing tank.
Amazing video considering that the speedometer shows you are traveling at 21 kph.
seeing how unpleasant the interior was makes me see why it was that experience crews where so important to making the vehicle capable of using it to the fullest. can you imaging having only one experienced crew member or two you would be at a severe disadvantage until you got more experience in it
As I said in part two, I really think the German Tankers were better served by the Pz IV despite it's age and flaws.
It is really valuable to have the impressions of a modern tanker looking at the single most pristine example of this design though. Even with it's very real desperately deep flaws, it looms large in post WWII tank design. I wonder how much the fear of it and the JS series are why American tanks stagnated in the Patton series for nearly 40 years till the M1 finally was born from the disaster of the MBT-70.
The Kampfwagen/MBT-70 itself was not failed. The budget and Shillelaghs were the key failures of the project.
I used to really like the Panther. Now, I am pretty non-pulsed, possibly even disappointed. it looks good on the outside and had a deadly reputation, but isn't something I would want.
It's official. The Panther was decidedly mortal. As a teenager I recall the designer notes from the Avalon Hill war game Panzerblitz stating that the Panther influenced tank design well into the 1950s. Now these three fine reviews have poked a few holes into that theory. Still...once its bugs had been worked out this had to be a lethal machine. Thanks for the commentary Chieftain. Cheers!
Many of its bugs were still left
And this is why shorter people were generally put in tanks . Great video . Add more bloopers please !
He says it’s cramped and difficult for the crew to get the best out of, but if you watch the video he did about the Comet, that tank appears to be even more confined than the Panther for the crew to operate.
I’m just curious if he thinks later allied tanks were better or worse in some respects than the Panther, since he’s had a chance to look inside and get a feeling for what they’re like.
Ive read more than a few accounts in my WW2 German Armor reference books, concerning the more adventurous Panzerwaffe crewmen completely deleting/removing the KWK 7.5cm cannons protective L & R recoil cage parts, on left hand side of KWK, cut-off just behind the recoil 'BraunArk Fluid' cannon recoil length of throw metering instrument device found on the inside of safety plate on the Commanders side of the gun. And on the right=hand loaders side, the safety bar tube completely removed @ its forward mounting point location....
-Such REALLY opens up the turret space (Aside from the spent case collection box, which could also be removed to free up valuable/UNcluttered turret floor space. Just needing to modify the small air compressor & its protective/commanders footrest mounting position right next to the spent shell box)
-Which the UNsung heroes of the PanzerWaffe could prob easily take care of for a few bottles of booze in trade? -Such men being the PanzerWerkStattCo's best, brightest, creative & clever bunch of improvisational mechaniac masters due to unique war circumstances & the present/looming issues concerning overall German tank design & over-complicated engiNERding....
-Sure, that cannon recoil cage is there for crew safety, but considering theyd always tended to fire from a stand-still position, I'd consider that takes winning position above in-built safety elements during a critical projectile vehicle penetration, or worse yet: fire/ammo cook off situation where the crew needs to exit as quickly as possible...
-With the recoil guard gone, the gunner could prob relax a bit n' breath a bit easier, the loader would just have to mimic what Abrams loaders do after loading, squish themselves up flat as poss against the turret war & grasp two purpose made hand holds...
-Now as tthe a Panther tank commander, his right arm comes pretty near to the left side of the cannon & its recoil throw, but Im sure a few tankers modified an acceptable work around feature for the commanders safety after removing that recoil guard? (Ive yet to see photos of such ersatz mods, but have seen photos were the crews had removed the cannon recoil cage completely)
As a Panther T.C.O I DEF wouldnt want my right arm even slightly bit by that 7.5cm during recoil!
I think that is a good analysis Chieftan. Panther is an excellent design in terms of weapons and armor, but crew functionality seems to have been an afterthought. Add to the design philosophy, the generally poor state of crew training in the late war, and you can easily see why battlefield performance of Panther is hardly spectacular. I finished reading 'Armored Thunderbolt' recently, and Steven Zaloga makes a good case as to crew training and battle experience counting for far more than equipment quality. It's like the 'Red Baron' once said, "All the fancy maneuvers won't save you if you cannot put rounds onto your target." If an inexperienced gunner can't hit his target, an inexperienced loader can't reload quickly, an inexperienced driver ruins the transmission, an inexperienced radio operator can't communicate effectively, and an inexperienced commander can't maintain situational awareness, it doesn't matter one bit how well designed the tank is...
***** VK 30.02 didn't really exist, except as a blueprint or prototype... You're right about SS Units, they absorbed far too much of the best equipment, and wasted it on the battlefield. Generally speaking, the Sturmartillerie battalions had the best combat records for german armor. StuG's formed the backbone of the German's armored forces. That has to do more with the fact that the crews were recruited from artillery units, rather than the infantry. Thus, they were already experienced with firing large caliber guns. However, during the mid to late war period, the Eastern Front had first call on men and resources, so most of the best, and most experienced tank crews fought there. There were good tank units in France, but after the Falaise Gap the German Panzerwaffe never really recovered. There were a few big engagements, but the Germans got their butts kicked in them. Even the celebrated 'Battle of the Bulge' was a total disaster for the Germans, losing something like 90% of all armor that fought in it.
***** Replacement troops outnumbering veterans, and casualty rates in the triple digits was a common occurance in all armies on all sides in World War Two. The 82nd Airborne had over 200% casualties, and don't even mention the U-Boat crews! The Sherman's absolute mechanical reliability was a huge factor in maintaining armored strength, but it is true the US fielded better crews than the Germans during 44 and 45, because we had the luxury of fully training our replacement crewmembers using the latest battlefield lessons, while the German's were forced to steadily decrease their training regimen to provide sufficient numbers of replacements. By the end of the war, what replacement tankers the Germans could provide had as little as 14 days of training in some cases. During the battle of Arracourt, those two Panzer Corps had as little as a week to familiarize themselves with their Panthers, and went into battle totally unprepared. They lost over 200 Tanks and Armored Vehicles, while the US 4th Armored Division lost just 48 Tanks and TDs.
***** Yes, the Germans never even got close to matching Allied tank production. In fact, all by itself, the Detroit Tank Arsenal outproduced the ENTIRE German tank production industry! What tanks the Germans did produce, at least 80% of all production from '43 to '45 went to the Eastern front. To make matters worse, instead of focusing their production efforts on one or two tanks that could do the job, the Germans produced a bewildering array of specialized vehicles, tank destroyers, and assault guns. To be honest, the Germans were utterly shit at using the production capacity of the places they captured. Good thing, that.
Sorry, didn't see your other comment, I'm on my shitty tablet until Wednesday.
***** No offense, but pretty much everyone is questioning Belton Cooper these days. Historians, veterans, vehicle restorers, modelers, archivists, etc. He's pretty much lost his credibility as far as I'm concerned. The basic premise behind his book "Death Traps" has been thoroughly debunked. I would suggest you check out the huge Sherman book by Hunicutt, or even give "Armored Thunderbolt" a read, it's very good, if a bit short. If you want some video, check out the 'Operation Think Tank', or the 'Myths of American Armor' videos, which are available right here on the Chieftan's own channel. "Operation Think Tank" is especially good, even though the editing is a bit screwy.
Watching through all the analysis points on this series, it seems to me that the Panther was a tank that would have been absolutely devastating in the hands of a master crew, but also one where an average crew would spend more time fighting the tank than fighting the enemy.
It was a rushed design by a company that didn't have experience in tank design, put in production without testing. The plan was to have something on the ground until the Panther II was ready. But the never had the resources to develop the Panther II, so they were stuck with what they had. Later versions came with some improvements.
You also have to consider that tank crews were mainly guys below 1.70m tall, not 1.90m+ like the Chieftain is :)
Very good, you got the critics under the last video and you took them to create a better video.
15:23
Ugh, I hate inverted controls. Can you turn that off in the options menu?
Yesssss, much better internal views. Thx!!
Looks so clean inside compared to the Leopard 2. The tan color looks sharp.
on wearing helmets in the tank, Wehrmacht tankers had a thing called the "Panzerhaube" which is basically a very large padded beret. Lighter than a helmet, served the same purpose and kept your head safe (and warm) and did not impede your movement or vision (German helmets being a bit more expansive and protective than, say, an M1). Also worked great with a headset. On a general note, a German Panther tanker (Gunner) I spoke to was rather in favour of the tank. Yes, acquiring and laying on a target required the cooperation of TC and gunner, which was exactly what they were trained to do. And yes, the TC scarcely ever buttoned up, vision being all important and the protection being decent.
Weren't those large berets phased out early in the war? The only photos I've seen of panzer crewmen wearing them were in the 1939-41 period.
Tim Smith Can’t really find evidence.The “Schutzmütze” (Germ. protective headgear) seems to have been on the books for most of it but from 1942 there was a greater drive to more standard gear.The woollen Schutzmütze could have been too expensive, so it might have been on the books but you had to know someone to “organize” one.
Before closing the feed on the 34 (and 42) always make sure the feed pawl is in the correct position (to the right, if memory serves).
Maybe it was training. perhaps the Panther crews were trained in a way where the tank performed very well. Same with Tiger tanks. They weren't perfect but he crews were trained really well with what they had. Early war anyway.
By 1944, most units weren't trained any better than the US or British tankers.
Well yeah, that would be true, but the problem is that they WEREN'T well trained, at least not by the time the Panther came around, which is why it didn't actually fare that well when you look at hard numbers.
But training doesn't change bad design ;)
Indeed.
@D - that was because Hitler felt betrayed by his elite SS troops and stripped them off of their valuable equipment, like panthers and the like. At this point, Hitler was already a drug mess with irrational behavior.
I have this feeling that most of these things that seem so difficult and awkward to some dude who''s messing around in a Panther (or whatever tank) for the first time get to be a lot easier when you've done them hundreds of times. After you've crawled in and out of the loader's hatch twelve times a day for a year, you probably get a knack for it and don't think much of it any more. Same goes for crawling out underneath the gun (things like opening the commander's hatch can't be helped too much though), loading the cannon, etc. The human body can train itself to do pretty amazing things. And these were all pretty much boys, barely in their 20s, which makes it all much easier. And they were smaller. Of course it's always BETTER if it's easier; no matter how fast you train yourself to load a shell into a Panther's gun, the same person could do it even faster in a tank with a better layout. Of course that doesn't take into account the tangible benefits of the smaller turret: you're less likely to die because it's harder to hit, and the less tangible: smaller turret is lighter, so you can move the tank faster, which may save your life, especially in a tank like the Panther, which has almost all of its armor on the front and only marginal protection from the sides.
It's something like aircraft in WWII, which I think I mentioned in another video. The average bomber of that era really almost took acrobatics and contortionism to enter or exit, or to move about the fuselage or enter your crew station. On the B-24 and 25, you had to crawl under the cockpit past the nose wheel to get into the nose compartment (literally right past the wheel in the B-24, and pulling yourself along on your back using hand rails through a little metal tunnel in the B-25). The ball turrets are legendary, and British tail turrets aren't that much better. An untrained, epecially an older person, would find it very difficult to do. To get from the front to the rear of the Lancaster or Halifax you had to crawl over 3ft think wing spars in the middle of the plane. In a Stirling or Hampden you actually had a little tunnel to crawl through. The only way over the bomb bay of a B-25 was through a small gap above the bomb bay (which is why the crew mostly just stayed in the part they took off in). On the B-17 and 24 and the He 111 you had to squeeze between bomb racks to get to the rear, over a little catwalk on the US planes (and the bay doors were designed to automatically open if any weight fell onto them, to prevent the bombs from staying in the plane if they forget to open bay doors first, and for emergency exits). The B-29 had a 30ft tunnel to crawl through to get from front to rear (with a little ladder to climb at each end, and I'm not actually sure HOW they did that!). To enter a German bomber you had to climb up through a little entry hatch under the plane. Getting into fighters often wasn't an easy task either. So all in all the tank crews didn't have all that much to complain about. The aircrews did this all wearing heavy layers of flight gear, boots, gloves, oxygen masks, and portable O2 tanks in many cases. This is one reason why the oldest bomber crew were rarely over 25.
In most cases your right about "getting used to"; but how do you get over the recoil coming back at your crotch...that one thing just would bother me, always. Very bad design. Ideas like: an incoming round hits the bore perfectly, or a piece of shrapnel ends up in my crotch when the breech is opened....nah, very bad for me.
I came upon a 303, Forces of Valor, Panzer IV Ausf G, RC 1/24 scale model at a Thrift store 2 weeks ago.
It has the skirting around the turret version.
It has one plastic track missing and maybe side skirts.
Can't find link to parts.
700 of these were made and sent to the Russian front.
I listened to 6 hours of an audio diary of a retreating Panzer tank from Russia at end of war.
Respect to all tank crews.
Tappen BC Canada
I read that German field engineers were the best of the best against all its rivals, they often has to pull the rabbit out the hat to field for the many late model machines, where as us and Russians would afford to sent a lot of their damaged units back to large depot factories for repair.
Well for the most part not necessarily true.
Surely the second part is true, and I wouldn't for a second move an eyebrow if he said ''could afford to have another 10 new arriving as substitutes''.
Very clean looking.
@The_Chieftain In my opinion the Gearbox is not synchronized. The AK in AK 7-200 stands for Allklauengetriebe, wich is not synchronised. The Allklauengetriebe has skrew gears, so it can be shifted a bit better than a gearbox with regular sprockets. The 7 in the Modelname of the gearbox stands for 7 gear gearbox. The 200 means, it can handle 2000nm torque.
Having watched this and many other videos of a similar ilk, all I can say is if you dream of fighting inside a tank, best of bloody luck!
Beautiful 👍
Interesting commentary. Hard to argue with a guy who is actually sitting in the tank while he is talking about it. One can presume that an original tank crew was probably pretty good at getting the most out of their tank but once exhaustion set in (which was going to happen to any soldier in perpetual combat stress) and attrition (losing some individuals in a tank crew for different reasons--death, injury, promotion, illness, transfer) the teamwork coefficient would lower considerably. The Panther would seem to be a tank that would be better new and not as efficient when significantly used and I don't think that the German infrastructure for maintenance and repair was anything to write home about considering the conditions it had to operate....the Germans were fighting a long way from home over an extreme area, literally three fronts, and really could not benefit from interior lines. The Panther seems like a tank that would work well when being operated "by the numbers" but not so much by the "seat of your pants".
Before he passed away, Jacques Littlefield (the late owner and restorer of that particular Panther tank) was interviewed on a HistoryNet podcast talking about the Panther. He shared your overall opinion on the tank, Chieftain. If anything, he was more negative. He made a point to say that the tank wasn't so much over-engineered as it was badly-engineered. He said that it had a great gun and good frontal armor, but that's about where its positive qualities ended. He said that the Panther was “almost unusable in the field”, and the serviceability rates for the Panther in WWII seem to bear that out.
well...early model service rates were bad...but there's a lot of reasons for it. IF they kept using it for the next 2 years there is a reason. It COULD NOT possibly be "unusable" on the field. Otherwise they wouldn't have used it that much.
Look at the famous Cologne tank duel. The panther mistook an M26 with a Tiger. This confirms the lack of visibility but it also shows that panthers were an effective and dangerous weapon.
Lt_Joker Which is why we Brits endured that the only really competent Nazi Leader was wacked, and Hitler wasn't. Keeping him in charge shortened the war immeasurably.
Hitler was, is and always will be the single most incompetent military strategist in the history of modern warfare. Or as historians have so ably put it - no one individual did more to aid the allies in winning WWII than Adolph Hitler.
@@user6008 Don't forget Goering though, good ol' Hitler-Goering duo fucked up an entire army branch's assured and extremely well fought victory (Luftwaffe winning the Battle of England, despite the infinite and massive disadvantages and advantages on UK side).
@@freedomordeath89 How so?
Steering the Panther in reverse has the same quirk as steering a US tank with a CD-850 (M46 through M60s) transmission or the X1100 of the M1. The driver has to steer opposite as he does when going forward. Not unlike backing up your boat trailer.
Great restoration 👍👍 cool video thank you
Great tour of the Panther. I think that the Panther was over engineered. Can't imagine what it was like to (for instance) to change a inner road wheel on either a Panther, Tiger I or a Royal Tiger!
Kind of makes you realize that being a tank driver was actually a pretty skilled job. I think they were mostly responsible for maintenance and keeping the engine running. But i guess that sort of applies to "driver" as a whole profession in that era. They were still the direct descendants of the guys who drove teams and wagons, and it took some special knowledge to do that job, unlike in the movies where random people can just jump on carriages with six horses and drive them off like a car. We are used to it being a job where pretty much anyone can get in and turn the steering wheel, and the hardest part is backing up and parking. But you had to be a semi -mechanic just to drive back then.
did they not make one of the king tiger? they jumped from panther to maus ? tried searching, but cant find anything about inside the chieftain's hatch köningstiger/king tiger/tiger 2/ausf b....did WG run out of money ?
I have not done any Tiger variants. My EU counterpart, Challenger, has done a fairly detailed four-part "Inside the Tanks" of the Bovington Tiger, and another 360-enabled tour of the Saumur King Tiger. Look on the EU WoT channel.
In fact, sitting in front (radio and driver) is pretty comfy compared to the turret while the tank is moving through terrain.
That Panther final Drive issue couldve been fixed/avoided entirely by using a epicyclic/planetary/sun gear layout-(Like the Tiger 1's FD)- instead of a standard cut spur gear, which couldnt handle the strain of the tanks final weight gain. Hard turns could break gear teeth.
A Scarcity of improper/not enough steel alloying agents from northern Finland/Sweden/Norway getting harder to source in later war years didnt help the situation whatsoever....
Planetary gears spread the load out evenly between multiple gears VS output shaft gear>reduction spur>sprocket gear/wheel>tracks.
SPEED of production/conservative use of TungstenCarbide/Wolfram cutting bits & tooling was favored over time consuming helical/herringbone cut gears like the Sherman used on its FD, let alone having the numbers of tooling available to ensure much needed/mandated overall production numbers...
The fact tiny Germany/Austria/Czechosloakia's SkodaWerks/Ect was even able to produce new tanks designs/EVERY single part therein-every screw & components under the stresses of wartime is almost super-human-esque in its scale & scope?
Inexperienced, quickly trained, drivers during the later war phase didnt help the Final Drive issues much either...
I have a book in the library that has a photo of an early Bergepanther Recovery Vehicle that had somewhere around 6,700-(Or more)-kilometer's on the ORIGINAL transmission/Final Drives/Maybach HL230 motor with out a catastrophic >SINGLE FAILURE< of those components!?
Take into mind that this was achieved with some SERIOUS high tonnage towing/tugging/stress & abuse involved on the entire drivetrain & vehicle.
~Impeccable Routine drive train component inspection & MAN-tenance, plus knowing how to drive such & its capabilities is the KEY FACTOR in such a vehicles longevity....Thats why the most important crew member in any AFV is the DRIVER...;)
Sure. Also would have helped to add a hatch/bolt system like the Sherman and Panzer 4 where you could access the final drive and transmission in the field instead of tearing the whole tank apart in a depot.
@@uni4rm
GREAT point SLUGGO!
Funny, Ive actually worked up a sketch, then a prototype on an old 1/35th scale Panther glacis plate hull model of mine laying around in the parts box...
~It COULD have been done with additional labor/interlocking & interior supporting plates, together with BIG-ass recessed bolts -OR- spot welded plates/plugs over the bolts themselves-(Cutting the welds to affect removal)-
~Sure it would have decreased interior space a bit, may have provided a scant ballistic disadvantage to frontal hits VS a full welded & interlocked plate glacis-BUT- the down time considering the numerous tranny re-builds would have more than made up for it, considering having more vehicles in the field NOT disabled due to repair schedules & available WerkstatCompany assets in the field...
-Considering the initial "Thought">To paper>to prototype>to final working example of the design is nothing short of miraculous under the forced conditions & shortages of war time....
They did such exceedingly>>>FAST>>
~Be Well....
The Panther was the first German tank with sloped hull armour. Before that, all German tank hulls were box shaped. Sloped hull armour reduces the space available for the driver and radio operator.
The turret would have had more space for the commander, gunner and loader with the original design spec of a 7.5 cm L/48 gun. But with the longer 7.5 cm L/70 gun, and its longer rounds and bigger breech, not so much. Same problem as with the Sherman Firefly turret. Big gun in a relatively small turret.
Very, very additive videos! And with the book by Zaloga about Arracourt, really blows up the myths put out by Cooper about the "5 Shermans to kill a Panther or Tiger" that's infected armored warfare history. I guess something that was ignored is only the French used Panthers after the war for a brief time while the Sherman was continually upgraded and serves, even to this day in armies around the world. Imagine how different the war would've been if McNair didn't hamstring the M-26 or allowed Shermans to be built with the 90 mm turret?
@ Paul Parsons
I too had heard of this five Shermans to kill a Cat. But actually this was a miss apprehension rather than a downright lie. Shermans were used in groups of five (troops WHY) yet the Cats used to operate alone so when a Sherman -Cat battle erupted there were five Shermans to each Cat .
Interesting thoughts on the end.
I read what I considered a good and interesting book that other may also find interesting. I am going to read this again on my ebook reader. An excellent electronic item IMO. I have no financial or promotional interests in the book. I just thought it was an excellent read.
_The Last Panther - Slaughter of the Reich_ .. by _Wolfgang Faust_
The author and his crew were on the Eastern Front and one could feel somewhat sympathetic to their _situation._ It is described as the author's memoir so I believe it to be a factual telling of the events covered to a reasonable degree.
It seems to me that tank COULD be an absolute beast, assuming it had a really well coordinated, kickass crew. If it didn't... good luck with that.
so like ...any other tank
Please do a review on the Tiger and JAGD types. Thanks.
A main reason for transmission failure on the Panther was lack of driver training. If Panther crews had the training of 1941 crews, we'd all be talking about how amazing the Panther transmission was.
Training matters.
i think that the worst job was actually a final drive swap, because in order to change them first you had to remove a couple of road wheels AND the transmission, and on panthers these were know to fail between 120 and 150 km of march
Great video!
Personal opinion, the Panther may have been the best Tank Destroyer of the war. As a Tank trying to do the other jobs a Tank is supposed to do it has a fair number of issues.
When buttoned up this tank is even more blind than most, only the commander really has much int the way of vision.
Main Gun is a great anti-tank gun but the load speed will make it have issues in the anti-personnel roll
The self defense grenade system is interesting and could i guess also launch smoke so its an improvement in some ways, of course any infantry supporting the Panther may not like it as much.
The maintenance is nightmare even worse the T34 with the bolted on armor over the power pack.
Am I correct to presume that different tanker positions were manned by specifically sized men? Kinda like the ball turret gunners in B17s, were smaller men chosen to be radio operators in the Panther?
Regarding the loading, there’s a difference between a 20 yo and a 60 yo doing physical things no matter how experienced ppl slow down and get clumsier.
Not an attack, just how it is.
Helmets in a tank strike me a as a good thing. I don't recall how many times i bonked my head on fixtures in the turret in the Mk75 Mod 0 doing maintenance, and that is not a manned turret.
Will Wargaming do an about the ships for the OHP class with the last of the OHP retired from US service?
Hello Chieftain,
I may have missed it, but is there a small lamp in the turret for the loader to use like there is in some Soviet SPGs?
Makes sense they removed the recoil bar...
Keep in mind, Nicholas is extremely tall and even well exceeds the US Army height restriction of 6'1 (185mm) for the M1A1. So, to put it into perspective, the German instruction manual (Panzertruppenschule, Merkblatt) for the Panther, recommended a maximum acceptable height of 5'7 or 170mm for the loader's position. It also requires quite a bit of training that every hand movement be spot on. However, while I generally agree with most of the viewpoints, some are too straight forward and harsh.
Yeah. 28 CM above maximum height is ALOT.
I wonder how the Panther 2 turret would have been.
yay i can fit in ww 2 tanks
Panther II would have used regular Panther turret, at the time there was no Panther II turret designed to go with a Panther II hull. A possible outcome would have been the Schmalturm at best.
Probably the best looking tank of WW2, much feared and respected by Allied tank crews.
Yes definitely. If it was the bad tank the majority on the internet claims why would allied tank crews report so many times that it was a dangerous enemy tank and caused so many losses on their side. Makes no sense.
I have been inside this Panther a couple of times and I am 5' 6". Even at my height it is a tight fit inside the turret.
The Loader sits in his hatch, because his seat was deleted to stream line production in late war models, like a lot of features which offers crew comfort.
Well.. didn't expect to have a part three but its fine
I Already knew from the Comments of the previous it would arrive in not too long of a time
+TheChieftainWoT Just a thought about the 2 pedals system, might the Clutch also act as the brake when depressed further - i.e; the clutch is activated & controlled within say the 1st 3rd of travel, and is then kept fully depressed, while the brake is then additionally controlled on from the start of 3rd third of travel. So the initial pressure activates the clutch to the drivers discression, after a certain point the clutch is fully open. Additional linkages on that pedals control rod then start after a 'bump gap'/deadzone to keep the clutch disengaged, and start to act with further pedal movement, to activate the foot brake to drivers pressure. If you understand what I mean, that would be one way to have a main/foot brake with 2 pedals and not using the steering brakes as 'main' brakes'.
Possible. I obviously haven't tried it, and found the omission of any mention of braking systems in the documentation to be quite surprising. Perhaps just those pages were missing.
TheChieftainWoT Thanks for replying, It does sound that those pages could well be missing, indeed it sounds quite likely so.
I only thought of the likelihood of the pedal being dual role-d after noticing the swinging link ('delaying linkage' for the brake?) coming off what appears to be the clutch activation rod just by the drivers right knee, that and that the '30s/'40s German liking for 'Kommandogerät' systems, particularly related to reducing overloaded human operators/pilots & in this case, tight spaces.
I don't really understand how can this thing be so cramped when it's such a huge tank. I mean i know that the torsion bar suspension takes some room on the floor as well as the drive shaft because the drive sprocket is on the front but still... It's easily one of the largest medium tank - if not the largest - of the war.
The turret ring itself is actually pretty small, and there's a looooooot of stuff cramped in there and there's a gigantic shell to handle.
Wow, and here I thought that the Russians had the monopoly on terrible ergonomics inside a tank. The inside of the Panther really screams typical German overengineering to me and how they seem to always make things much more complicated than they really need be. I'd love to see a video that compares the Panther to the Sherman and T-34 side by side and how they compare in terms of comfort, ergonomics, and ease of repair.
pretty sure the sherman would win on all 3 accounts, the T34 was so famously hard to repair that it was easier to just get a entirely new one.
Take into account, Russians tended to design tanks for a maximum of 160cm, so their may even end up _more_ comfortable relative to what the Germans built for. Especially if their tankers were tiny little infantry leftovers.
Of course, Shermans are still palaces on tracks.
Well I saw he's videos about the t-34, Comet, IS-4, AC-1 Sentinel, Object 268 and ISU-152. This is not as terrible as you think. Well it's cramped but this is a tank, not an limusin. It has desing flaws. Yes but ewery tank has desing flaws. See the t-34 from the loaders vision or the drivers hatch. Or take a look at the M10 Achilles driver hatch what is not awaiable to open when the turret is aimed ahead, and it has mayor desind flaws at the gunners position. (Turret elevation)
I'd have to review the Chieftain's comments on the Sherman and T-34 to be able to catch more of it but from what I remember... the Sherman takes it all for ease of maintenance bar none. Getting in and out of the Sherman's front hull was also easy so long as the gun wasn't positioned over the hatch.
The T-34 driver's position was not protected from the turret while traversing and he had to lean forward to avoid being caught up by it.
The Panther as we saw in this series.
I'd like to see how they did on modern vehicles sometime as well. The British Chieftain, and what is the new one, Challenger? The American M60 series, and M1, the French, German, and of course, the Russian T34, T62, T72, etc. Again looking from the ergonomic, maintenance, crew comfort terms.
the Panthers bad but the t-34-85's turret is still worse.
no turret basket, can't stand up properly and an even smaller amount of space due to a larger gun breach and bigger heavier rounds.
"I'd love to see a video that compares the Panther to the Sherman and T-34 side by side and how they compare in terms of comfort, ergonomics, and ease of repair"
so would I, and the Sherman would DESTROY them both in those catergories.
So did the drive extensions have to be removed before the driver could drive buttoned up? If so, how long would that take?
interesting, appreciate your series on the Panther, but the whole series overall as well.
From the vehicles that you've given us insight into in this series which was best overall? In other words which one(s) would you feel comfortable in going to war in?
What aspects of tank fundamentals would you look for for a well designed tank?
I wonder how happy the loader would have been with the 8.8 KwK 43 in the almost same sized schmalturm..