See Inside Panther | Tank Chats Reloaded
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Chris Copson takes a detailed look inside and out, of arguably the most advanced German tank of WW2… the Panther.
Is the Panther the formidable opponent that is was made out to be? Would the allies use such a vehicle and was it over engineered? Find out in today’s video.
Are there any other tanks you think aren't all they were made out to be? Let us know in the comments.
Shop Panther-Fibel: tankmuseumshop.org/products/p...
Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
► Patreon: / tankmuseum
► UA-cam Membership: / @thetankmuseum
00:00 Intro
00:54 Overview - Our Panther
02:41 War time variants & armour
06:06 Design
08:30 Weaponry
10:18 Crew, equipment and flaws - a look inside
17:53 Performance & conclusion
This video features archive footage courtesy of British Pathé.
#tankmuseum
Hello tank-nuts! We hope you enjoyed this video. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Prefer M1 Abrams...
It cool to see inside such a legendary machine, as during visits to the museum few have veiws of the inside , to give a view of what life inside a tank was like
copsons presentation is brilliant. I thought he was a bit wooden in his first few videos, but he seems to have settled right in
Awsome vid on one of my favourite WW2 tanks and one can only imagine if they had a desiel engine and better torison bar set up and the final drives, fuel pumps and transmission fixed. The Panther tank would have been a lot more lethal tank. One thing to note also during its first combat at Kursk the D model notable without the bow machine gun had less bolts on the rims of the wheels and later more added to strengthen them. Also there are pictures I've seen with a mitch match of both types which are intersting to note the difference.
@@tasman006 yes, one can only imagine that. the conditions you have described for this tank being more lethal are, for the germans at the time, so ridiculously unachievable as to be inconcievable. you may as well have said "one can only imagine if it had a force field and a laser gun"
This Reloaded series is peerless. Far more attention-getting than any other tank series out there, and a good companion to The Chieftain’s. A+
The Panther would win first prize at a Tank beauty contest!
The Germans didn't "borrow" sloped armor from the T-34. They knew perfectly well about sloped armor all the way back to WW1. The Panther was simply large enough that sloped armor wouldn't interfere too much with crew compartment ergonomics.
i think otto skorzeny mentioned that hydraulic press to bend t-34 front was made by germans...
The "sloped amour" Fanboys should drive a T34for half an hour and work on the crew stations , and should repair a damaged fuel tank or a coilspring.then they would knew the reason for not using sloped armour.
Truly a moment when people don't realize sloping stuff has existed for ages.
Also I hate the fact that T-34 stans make the fact they enjoy their favorite tank all about it being good.
Its literally in my top ten just visually, your favorite doesn't have to be good it just has to be cool. If what you like most is superior or not literally doesn't matter unless you're stupid.
That's why no modern tanks employ sloped armour, Oh.@@michaelpielorz9283
Stop being a pedant.
We know the Germans were influenced by the design of the T34 when designing the Panther, we also know that sloped armour has been known about for at least 1000 years and probably a lot longer than that.
The point being made here is that the design of the Panther was influenced by the T34... which it was... not that the Russians invented sloped armour...which they did not, nor that sloped armour first appeared on a tank in the T34 design, which it didn't.. I seem to recall the Renault FT had a sloped.drivers hatch...
It's been a few years since I Volunteered at the museum but I remember many years ago we opened up the Panther to members of the public during a Bank Holiday, they entered by the hatch at the back of the turret and up through one of the front hatches. In the 3 days I was inside the turret supervising them we must have had over 200 people pass through.
What were you doing as a volunteer? I'm interested in having a go myself.
When I received the notification that a new Tank Museum video was available to view and that it was a Tank Chat Reloaded on the Panther, I have to say my afternoon was made. The fact that the video was presented by Chris Copson only improved matters further - first rate as always and an informative and entertaining 22 minute film.
I very much look forward to the next instalment of this excellent ‘reloaded’ series
It is still funny to me that the French operated the Panther longer than the Germans did.
The Israelis operated the Sherman longer than the Americans did.
Howabout the Syrians stylin' in the Pz IVs?
Makes me wonder how long the Panther could have served had it been upgraded through the years like the Centurion.
modern shells would've made it very outdated @@yallacrazy
@@Half_Finiscould have increased protection
May I have a free tank? Pretty please 🥺?
The Government don't want you to know this, but the tanks in the museum are free, you can just take them home.
Which one?
@@Smg1730studios Just one, of the tanks that is
@@All_Hail_ChaelI have tried this. Please do not misinform me again. Note I will have a tank soon to retaliate with
No free tanks in Australia! 😢
Given that Germany was largely on the defensive when the Panther was introduced, it could be just about accepted since they were fighting not far away from railheads and repair depots. For the Allies, largely on the offensive and at the end of a long supply chain, it would have been completely unacceptable.
We saw during the battle of the bulge how poorly they performed during offensives. Especially King Tigers were a nightmare needing an insane amount of fuel and struggled with local infrastructure
Given that you could be shot for Wehrkraftzersetzung when saying out loudly you didn't believe in the Endsieg right until the very end of the war, I don't think your comment would have been of big consideration back then. Nonetheless, I guess you are pretty much right.
Could have built a bigger Panzer 4.
@@julianshepherd2038 could have done many things, but didn't. Decisions are always easier looking back in time.
@suenin021-ll3us
And yet the Panthers of 2nd Panzer Division got the furthest of any German armour type in the Ardennes offensive, and did it quicker than the Shermans did the reverse advance in the January counter attack so.....?
Thank you for putting highlights on locations and objects. Its excellent!
Thanks very much Chris and team. Thanks especially for the details of the main armament.
In the 1980s, I worked on the UK research programme on electromagnetic railguns, which were seen as one way of defeating ever thicker tank armour.
We were told to based our studies on a maximum barrel length of 5 m and a working muzzle velocity of 2000 m/s. That programme ultimately set up a test firing range at Kirkcudbright, so I wonder if any interesting artefacts survive there?
Our first practical tests were done at RARDE Fort Halstead. From that part of the programme, a full scale wooden mockup of a 25mm bore railgun and breech was donated to the Royal Armouries and is now in their reserve collection at Fort Nelson.
The KwK 42 L70 has almost double the effectiveness the KwK 40 L48 has, the projectile travel lot faster with flatter trajectory, it has enough penetration to deatroy pretty much all WWII tanks in service
My Dad was Royal Scots Greys, he signed up at 17 in early 1946, initially with the 17/21st Lancers, and on completion of his training he was posted to the RSG who were flipping onto the Centurion. Something he did mention from his years in post war Germany, they had a Panther with no turret for use as a recovery tank. He ended up as the regiments Signals Sgt and shared his tank with the CO when they went on operations. C Squadron "Creeper". He had every confidence in the Centurion, and often said it could fight and defeat anything the Russians had at the time.
Luckily he never met IS2 or T55 with determent crew.
T55 that drove in Budapest embassy made Centurions absolete in one day.
@@sinisatrlin840 No. T-54/T-55 made Centurions obsolete as they went into mass production..not when one of those were driven into embassy...
@@AKUJIVALDO What was the alternative? To design new one it takes decade. Produce what you have and introduce upgrades untill newer design is mature. That was done by all. And train your crews with new info.
Also, all made films for education of military personell that where bit on propaganda side.
@@sinisatrlin840 create new gun...just as Brits did.
@@AKUJIVALDO It takes two years to design and implement new gun. From idea to prototype, recoil system, sights, proofing, testing, minor corrections, tooling for production.
In two years they could design and produce nice modern (for the time) diesel engine and bring Centurion more up to date. That would increase foreign sales and would make it more competitive on international market.
Leyland multifuel on Chieftain was crappiest tank engine since Maybach.
Really enjoyed all of your videos this year and look forward very much to next year! All the very best to you and the team from everyone here in London, cheers!
Great chat by Chris - really fascinating, erudite and insightful talk about this very interesting tank. More like this please! 👍
Your cinematography is getting bloody top notch!
When you mentioned the improvement of the Panther's armour, I have read that the quality of German armour declined as the war progressed and mineral additives, such as molybdenum, became near impossible to source. American and russian, accounts detail that in late war German tanks, the armour became more brittle and liable to "shatter" and crack when hit.
Entirely true. And not just a problem with the armour. The drive train (among many other parts) required good steel and the tools required to make it required even better steel. In the late war, the Allies were able to supply small amounts of tool-steel ammunition for taking on hard targets. The Axis could barely supply enough tool-steel to even build their tanks.
A lot of the Panter's famed mobility capabilities is hampered by how to drive train was much too small for the weight bloat the tank gained during development. It couldn't neutral steer in any rough terrain without risking shattering the final drive, and iirc was advised to avoid turning while in reverse entirely.
Thank you, always fun when The Tank Museum pops another video onto Patreon and YT
Love the internal vids for the panther and Tiger II. Loving the crew ergonomics of the vehicles for the gunner.
great video thanks to all the team
Fantastic video, beautiful images and precious information on this great machine! Thank you 👍
Happy New Year to everyone at the Tank Museum and all of the viewers!
Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
Keep those in-depth videos coming!
I greatly enjoy the inside videos. Thank you and happy new year!
Thanks for the tour really enjoying your channel👋🏽
Very nice job and a great way to round out the year. Happy new year.😎
This Tank Chats Releaded is a real Christmas treat!🎉
Definitely a good looking tank. Thanks for the awesome video @ The Tank Museum.
The explanation of the differences between face-hardened steel and homogeneous rolled steel (4:28) contradicts everything I have heard so far. At least it's an opportunity to look into it.
I find it a rather strange statement that the KWK 42/L70 was not significantly better than the KWK 40/L48 of the Panzer IV (9:49). It remains a mystery to me how, for example, a penetration of up to 111 mm compared to 55 mm at 1000 m can be considered an insignificant advantage.
The presenter isn't wrong about the differences between face-hardened and homogeneous steels.
British bias
I get what you're saying about the manufacturability of each armor type
@@kmoecub Of course he is. The only difference between RHA and FHA is that RHA wasn't faced hardened. They simply choose not to face harden the plates, thus saving time and money while also increasing protection because face hardening actually makese the armor worse when it's heavily sloped.
@@kmoecubFace-hardened steel is basically hardened rolled steel.
In fact, hardened steel is more difficult to produce and also more difficult to process, especially to weld.
How the presenter comes to say that surface-hardened steel is easier to process and, above all, that the homogeneous steel has been further developed, is really a mystery to me.
"Action near Kharkov in August 1944" I think this is wrong, since the front in December 1943 was already far away from Kharkov, I think he meant August 1943, when the Fourth Battle of Kharkov (Operation Rumyantsev) was taking place.
Anyway, 500 T-34s knocked out by Panthers just in the second half of 1943, while losing just 100 of their own (and the majority are not even combat related), this is impressive. I don't see how some view the T-34 as this wonderful weapon aside from his reliability and just sheer numbers, they were prey for Tigers, Panthers and StuGs.
There is a Panther at the American Heritage Museum in Hudson, MA. If you are in the Boston area, I highly recommend that you check it out. Out of everything on display, I was most impressed with the Panther.
Thanks so much for that amazing look and your sights! Interestingly, intimate operations of the panther showed up in the Sven Hassel novels. As I recall, they had to put the best crewman in the driver slot as their model had serious transmission problems that could result in overheating or engine fire that could be worked around only by a skilled driver. Also I think they mentioned one commander getting a shattered arm from absentmindedly reaching across the recoil path of that L70 75mm breech when he dropped a map. I dont recall seeing detail like that in other period accounts much and it seems to ring true.
I got the Panther Manual last year. Its a great little book.
nice! where from?
@cellardoor9882 He shoes it at the end of the video.
Brilliant video on one of my favorite tanks.
In 1982 I was a gunner on the Leopard 1, of the Dutch armed forces in Germany, Bergen Hohne. (Prins Willem Alexander) The Leopard has some simmularities with the Panther. Logical, because for the development of the Leopard, expereinced crews ware asked for advise.
(They were still alive then, as we experienced during a exercise. A man on a bicycle came by. Strawhat on, he watched our tank, and said, "Schones panzer, haben wir im Krieg auch gehabt!" Translated; "Fine tank, we had those also during the War! )
Anyway, simularities; for example the mantlet of the gun. And also the same turning system for the commanders coppola hatch as to be seen here. Also the radio for the crew. We all had throat microphones, and a small box on our chest. With two buttons. One for internal conversations, a second for external transmissions. Same as can be seen on old movies of the War.
Sometimes, crew made a mistake while using those buttons. Telling a dirty joke, and using the transmitter button, ment that the whole of the tank unit; 15 tanks, including our commander, could hear all of it... I made the same mistake as well, using my porteble cassette radio... Now Bananarama could be heard all trough the entire unit.... till our commander yelled to stop this noncence!
hahaha 😁
Thank you for this show.❤
Well done 👍🏼.great videos very informative.
I love these vids. Thank you for sharing.
Great Presentation. Thank you.
The sweet AMX-13 at the end was in the Swiss service, the photo was taken in Thun.
After a few weeks of service in the barracks, the mountains in the background are very well known.
Tank museum with the ambient tunes in the canon breakdown👌felt like I was in tron for a second.
I've always found kinda funny how, in popular culture, things that are considered fatal flaws in the Sherman (ammo storage in the side sponson with little armor protection, height, etc...) are usually overlooked in the Panther or, at worst, considered features.
If you think that's bad, try going on any WW2 naval forum and suggesting that the Bismark was sunk by anything other than it's own crew.
It's not that funny really. There's a natural tendency to make your opponent seem better than they actually were, as it makes your victory over or loss to them more significant by comparison. And the idea that the sherman is bad is a cold war tankie narrative made to reduce trust in the government.
I see something similar happen with people praising the Churchill and shitting on the tiger for features they both share, vice versa.
Excellent video. One of the best videos I’ve ever seen on this tank.
The one question that I have always wondered about was why the significant “Ausf” of the Panther ran beginning with D, then to A, and later to G, rather then starting with Ausf A? Anyone know why?
I can’t quite remember but I think it was explained in the Tank Museum’s Panther Tank Chat
It was an attempt by the Germans to confuse the allies regarding the number of Panther variants produced, the idea being that the allies estimates of numbers produced would be inflated. Note that there was an Ausf. F variant that did not make it into production. Another variant that did not make it into production was the so-called "schmalturm," an attempt to mount the KwK43 L/71 88mm gun on the Panther. And there were probably others.
@@TS-mo6pn Is this the same reason for the Tiger Ausf. H, E, B?
@@puff7145 I would assume so. I got the information about the Panther variants from "Germany's Panther Tank" by Thomas Jentz published by Schiffer Military.
Would the Tiger H not be Henschel?@@puff7145
lovely video, thanks
The very tight specifications {differences from 1 length vrs another length of a gun tube; a weight/horsepower of tank weight /speed vrs of various tanks/ fuel use per mph/distance of various vehicles vrs other tanks , etc - and so much more tell information that detail specification types like myself love sooo much. "The details are everything!"
Fantastic video thank you. The more I read, the more I'm finding that the T34 wasn't the mythical simple, reliable machine we've been led to believe. This is not to minimize the issues with the Panther or Tiger.
Chris Copson is my favourite person on all of UA-cam.
Thanks for this
I wonder how good the construction of these tanks was and how high the quality control was. The British hired a former foreman who in turn gathered up his fellow workers to build these tanks. If my country was defeated, I would not build anything properly for the people who just beat us.
British testing be damned...Actual combat records show the Panther was a great tank in combat and it's capabilities led directly to the introduction of heavier Allied tanks such as the Soviet IS-2 and the American M26 Pershing into the war. It had a very high kill ratio. All German tanks had good ergonomics for the crews. This was considered a "must have" when designing them and was intended to make the crews more efficient due to being more comfortable.
Post war tanks would be superior workmanship- the country was destroyed and workers would be desperate for a job to feed their families. Hell the senior engineers would be showing off hoping to get scooped up for their skills.
@@frostedbutts4340 ok...let's pretend your country just got wrecked on the losing end of a war. The opposing side wants you to build something so they can duplicate it or at least test a new example of it for themselves to find out why it was so good. Are you really going to put it together the best you can or are you going to throw a few wrenches into the works? I know what I would do.
The line foreman isn't the engineering team. He's just the guy in charge of the assembly line. He can be replaced easily.
@@frostedbutts4340 They were built after the factory had been overrun in early 1945, using available parts, and didn't even have blueprints to work from.
Did you say that Panther gun is not that much better than Panzer 4(long barrel 75 mm) gun?Are u sure about that
😂 sure he's not - the l70 slightly outclassed the "mighty" 8.8 from The Tiger 1 - in terms of penetration...
@@MrZirler Yeah at least at normal ranges,right
No they mention the short barrel gun then in service on the panzer 4 before the panther was introduced.
@@gherkinisgreat That's even worst comparison
The Panther's gun penetrated about 40-50% more armor than the Panzer IVs gun. And about 10% more than the Tiger's gun at normal distances. At long range the heavier round of the "88" caught up.
Always great to see the inside of a tank! Why is "do not traverse" painted at the front of the gunner's position? What's broken?
the traverse
Whenever people talk about the relative armour thickness of sloped armour (against flat plate) I always have to remind them about ballistics; except for light projectiles at close range the amount of "drop" (the orientation of the projectile when it strikes the target) means the thickness decreases in relation to the horizontal plane. Yes, sloped armour is better than vertical plate - but armour at an angle of 30 degrees is only offering a 25 degree angle against a projectile that is coming in with 5 degrees of inclination. When the difference between a shot being deflected and one penetrating could be between 5 and 10 mm of armour, this is a serious consideration. One of the factors behind the prevalence of HEAT munitions is that the lower velocity compared to kinetic round is that it is more likely to strike armour nearer to 90 degrees to the angle of the plate - meaning it has less thickness to defeat. Many modern missiles with HEAT warheads are designed to drop onto a tank from height, making armour angles of less than 60 degrees irrelevant.
Makes you wonder what might have come from it if the allies got the reliability issues sorted. But by then, they had centurion and Patton tanks if I'm not mistaken, so even a "perfected panther" would have been a step back
Thank you for this. I am curious about the interlocking of the hull plates at the welds. One presumes they were assembled on jigs in the factory so alignment was not a problem to be solved by this. It may be that the welding was deficient in being at risk of progressive failure*. A shortage of alloy metals could be the cause. The interlocking might be a fix, minimising crack length?
Have other nations built tanks in this way?
*See, for instance, the separation of the stern on the wreck of the Bismark along a transverse bulkhead. Also the reported ejection of the entire back plate of her turret B.
Armor slope predated ww1. American civil war iron clads and timber clad gunboats had upper hulls sloped at 45 degrees to help bounce cannon shells. The pervasive myth that no one knew about Armor slope until ww2 just never seems to go away. There were very practical reasons to slope armor or not to slope armor depending on the design of the vehicle
You nailed it 👍
No one is saying that and sloped armour predates the American Ironclads, the glacis of a dozen surving 12th C Castles, and the evidence from.Trajans Column indicates it was known about for a very long time indeed.
In the context of the Eastern Front wr know that the Germans looked at re engineering a T34 and several features of that tank made it through to the Panther... that doesn't mean that the Russians 'invented sloped armour' rather the design influenced the panther.
Again, Chris Copson is not saying that no one knew anything about sloped armour until the T34, I don’t understand why people are jumping to a conclusion over a point that’s isn’t even made in the film ? The Panther was influenced by the T34.
@willcullen3743 wrote: "Armor slope predated ww1. American civil war iron clads and timber clad gunboats had upper hulls sloped at 45 degrees to help bounce cannon shells. The pervasive myth that no one knew about Armor slope until ww2 just never seems to go away. There were very practical reasons to slope armor or not to slope armor depending on the design of the vehicle"
-- Ah, if only Nichlay Tsiganov could "Google" Leonardo da Vinci's tank... he would still have a dilemma of two fold:
1. How thick the armor plate have to be, nor its obvious that Effective Armor Thickness(or what Chris referring to as LOS(Line of Sight armor thickness)) doubles at 60 degrees, and so
2. At what angle it should be tilted/slopped,
-- Since by just looking at 45mm frontal armor, Germans did not "jump" and copied T-34's main feature for a few month, until they figure out that their even smallest 37mm PaK36 should go through T-34 armor like a "hot knife through the butter", same goes for 50mm PaK40, but it does not, and it took careful field study near Moscow(with a front lines just a couple kilometers away) in October of 1941, including F. Porsche, E. Aders and A. Krupp, to figure out what "secret" hides in front of them in plain site.
-- There is no practical or any other reason why Tiger I frontal armor was sloped to only 10 degrees, and not steeper angles like in next model Tiger II or Panther. If you or anyone think of at least one or more reasons please, do share! ;)
P.S. I'm aware of The Chieftain and H. Doyle pedaling idea about loss of volumetric efficiency... just take Tiger I frontal armor, and from above vision block and MG deck drop single plate to encompass transmission well, and connect lower frontal plate, also tilted/slopped under steeper angle then 20 degrees angle - Panther/King Tiger style, and you've got lighter and better protected frontal armor, that is a lot easier to manufacture.
It's "Captain Obvious", but only in "Hindsight"!
@@HarryFlashmanVC wrote: "In the context of the Eastern Front wr know that the Germans looked at re engineering a T34 and several features of that tank made it through to the Panther... that doesn't mean that the Russians 'invented sloped armour' rather the design influenced the panther."
-- Its a very "kindergarten" argument on who "invented sloped armor", lets put it this way - Soviet tank designers made much more experiments on the angle and thickness of the armor plate(starting with BT-SV tank aka Tortious project), in order to save tank weight, so especially to light tanks, so their maneuverability and speed would remained as of light tank, yet tank protection of the heavy tank, and with a long high velocity 3 inch gun, that was considered as armament of only heavy tanks - it became best tank of WWII when it comes of balancing all three essential "tank trinity" - firepower, armor protection and speed with maneuverability. BTW initially members of Panzer Committee(like F. Porsche, E. Aders and A. Krupp) who went to front lines near Moscow in November of 1941 though T-34 was a 44 tons tank, when in fact it was only 26 tons. So what N. Tsiganov "invented" is the "Effective Armor Thickness" or what Chris Copson in this video calls "Line Of Sight"(LOS), so if you insist that "the evidence from.Trajans Column indicates it was known about for a very long time indeed" given that Tiger I(so is all WWII era tanks like Pz-I, II, III and IV) tank had frontal armor sloped at only 10 degrees, with effective armor thickness of 101mm out of 100mm actual armor thickness, the knowledge use was "very poor" on this subject.
-- An carefully choosing of the words like "influenced", it would not work in a court of "copyright violation", since it was what you called "sloped armor" of secret of T-34 armor plate that ricochets 88mm round was measured, analyzed and plagiarism-aticly copied and implemented into every tank and armored vehicle Germans designed and then produced during and long after the WWII.
The fighting compartment sounds like an interesting arrangement
I need to get the Panther FIbel book! Nice!
Rather be in this than a Sherman , that’s for sure.
Every time these guys upload a video its a magnet for me. 25 mins feels like 5 with the best presentstion ive come across as far as regarding AFVs.
Are you guys hiring? I'm sick of W. NYS and I like tanks. I could use a change from dealing with cows all day.
Lfmao, let me know if they hire you mate !
when talking about the T34 its also worth noting the T34 85, because more of them were built, because it was capable of defeating the Panther with a single shot, it really became a who shoots first scenario, the T34 like the Sherman became a battle tank platform rather than endlessly building new tanks from the ground up, the Germans never really settled on anything that could be called that, the stug tank destroyers being as close as they came to something being cheap effective and somewhat reliable.
Fantastic!
This was excellent.
With re. to comparing the Maybach petrol engine to the T34's diesel, with hindsight I think the decision to go with a (not necessarily _this_ ) petrol engine was the correct one.
Remember, all the Panzer 3 and 4 (and that obviously includes all the "Sonderfahrzeuge" like Stugs, Panzerjäger, mechanized artillery and so on) were running on petrol.
Switching from one type of fuel to another would be a herculean job _in peacetime_ . During a war? Simply impossible.
That means that during said war, you will now have armored vehicles operating alongside each other, that use two different kinds of fuel.
A logistical nightmare in the best of circumstances and with an army with a many logistical problems as the Wehrmacht?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Now, I'm not saying that this played a role in the decision making process that lead to the Maybach engine being chosen, but as I said, with hindsight, I think it was the right one (at least as far as the fuel used goes)
The little cartoonish handbook made me smile and recall that I had heard somewhere the the US Army PS magazine was inspired by something the Germans did. I think they were inspired by what the Allied did but it is good to see somethings are universal for humans.
Great video
Thanks!
Excellent❤
Well done.
I'd be interested in a video on the Schmalturm turret.
Nice episode! Do you also plan to sell the Panther Fibel in German?
I'm 13 and i hope to be able to see the tank museum one day
Play GTA 5 online first kid. Get some practice 😜
@@mann_idonotreadrepliesDO NOT PLAY GTA ONLINE
Good stuff
A most enjoyable episode indeed. And in my opinion still the best looking tank of WW2!
Interesting!
Thank you, Chris for an interesting review. Couple of little points:
1. Tiger/Panther Maybach engine had four(x4) Solex carburetors, that was difficult to synthesize and adjusted at the front lines, so some cylinders ran too rich, some too lean, that effected engine power and engine longevity.
2. Besides spend brass ventilation, Panther tank was first that featured a gun bore gases evacuator as well, which was 3 tubes blowing compressed air immediately after bridge opened.
3. Not related to Panther, but in T-34, although it didn’t have a turret basket, it had seats attached to turret, so crew didn’t have to follow fast rotating turret on foot.
4. Panther turret was not balanced like for example on T-34, so if tank was sitting on a slight gradient of 15 degrees it was impossible to turn by hand, even though it featured two very large diameter cranks, oh and it was 1000 turns by cranks to turn turret 360 degrees.
Thank you!
Once again for a good solid content.
what is the music called around 16:00?
Good video
Muito bom ! Brasil 🇧🇷
Was there metallurgy problems in the final drive due to shortage of materials?
Great video! Fresh perspectives are always interesting. One serious shortcoming for the gunners was pointed out by Nick Moran in one of his videos; the lack of visibility. All the gunner had was his sighting telescope, so it was difficult for him to identify targets called out by the TC, unless he was laid right on the target bearing. Obviously crews worked around this, but it still a handicap in fast-paced, frantic combat.
It was not a pressing concern for the gunners because German commanders had superior cupolas and thus better all round vision compared to, say, the Sherman and it was the commander who looked for and selected targets, and he sat directly behind the gunner.
If it was a pressing concern, the gunner would have easily received a turret roof periscope. Initial Panthers (and Tigers) didnt have a loader's roof periscope but on subsequent production runs they got one. It would have been a simple matter to add a gunners roof periscope but it was not deemed necessary.
Panthers received improvements and made changes almost on a monthly basis (check out the Tom Jentz book on all the improvements made throughout the production runs) but a gunners periscope wasn't an important change to add.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Good points; the Panther was indeed a truly good killing machine. Thankfully for Allied tankers, it had those small handicaps.
Panzer V. Panther looks like modern 21.ct tank made for ww.2 battle era. it is just perfect machine..
In The Chieftain's 'Oh bugger the tank's on fire!' evaluation, he fond that commander's hatch problematic - too difficult to open and escape from, when the tank's burning up around you...
And yet clearly in the Cologne tank duel footage the Panther crew bail out no slower than the Sherman crew. And more of the Panther crew survived. Panthers usually kept the turret rear hatch ajar.
Because I'm kinda destitute right now ( actually, last 4 years ) .I do appreciate yuzzall , keeping my brain alive. Life is for learning. If you don't use it ? Gonna lose it. Thanks, in. Advance for the info. Should I buy a Lottery ticket ?
I have a airfix Panther model that I painted and built to look like this one
The most aesthetically pleasing tank of World War II.
I'd say the King Tiger takes that award, Panther a close second.
@@SuperMozzmannah, the M10
Jagdpanther, yes. Best looking AFV ever produced. But I've always thought the Panther itself had an ugly turret.
Have a Great 2024 TM🦁
❤I love you Pz.Kpfw V❤
I seem to remember with the Tiger 1 that post-war engineers determined that the interleaved road wheels actually had a higher ground pressure than standard road wheels would have had, on slightly wider (couple mm iirc) thicker tracks. I wonder if this would be the same for Panther and Tiger 2? Intuition points me towards yes, seeing how modern tanks no longer use interleaved road wheels, and the Abrams M1A2 has a ground pressure of only 15.4 PSI, while weighing in at 69.54 tons. Panther G appears to have a ground pressure of 12.66 PSI, at 45.5 tons.
While length and width of the tracks is different between the two, if we hypothetically increase Panther G's weight to 69.54 tons without changing the tracks, that brings it to a ground pressure of 19.35 PSI, assuming my math checks out. So that leads to significantly higher ground pressure, and with all else unchanged does seem to point towards the interleaved road wheels not having that much of an effect.
Of course, I know it's more complicated than that and it's an apples to oranges comparison, but I do find it interesting how a MUCH larger tank (seriously, the M1 dwarfs even the Königstiger/Tiger 2) has comparable ground pressure to the Panther.
Weight is not distributed evenly across the track. Tracks are flexible, obviously, and on the parts of the track where there isn't a wheel pushing it down there' s less ground pressure. With interlocking wheels the overall ground pressure isn't better but its more evenly distributed.
That's a very difficult comparison to make, because materials science has improved a lot in the intervening time - stronger/tougher materials, better quality control and improved production methods. Likely, the suspension of an Abrams would have been impossible to create back in the 40s.
It was also for crew comfort and a smoother ride, not just for ground pressure. The Germans thought about the crews. The Panther even got a crew compartment heater on the Ausf G.
believe it if you feel better doing so (:-)
Because you don't use interleaved wheels for overall ground pressure, it's for weight distribution. The pressure of a track will peak on the roadwheel that is closest to the center of gravity, areas on the track where no wheel is in contact will have the lowest pressure. This is why some tanks opt for more but smaller wheels which have even weight distribution but when they do sink in, they are not as efficient at overcoming the obstacle. Although the Comet and Panther both have large roadwheels and comparable ground pressure, the Panther has half the difference between the lowest and highest pressure points. This means that in soft terrain any individual wheel is less likely to sink, consistent pressure is maintained and when you do sink in, you maintain speed.
With all that said... Yes, the advantage is not great enough to double the manufacture costs, maintenance time and other factors. If you absolutely have to have the most consistent ride quality, interleaved roadwheels will always win. The engineering checks out, but on a strategic level, it is incredibly impractical hence why nobody has bothered with the concept since the 50s.
thanks for fueling my tank addection YEY
No plans to put an engine in it, and get it running? I used to like your workshop series, but you stopped doing them? Now get my workshop fix from Mr Hewes and the Australian Armour museum.
everytime a panther is repaired, the autopilot turns on and steers the vehicle towards Russia.
@@ChrisZukowski88 The workaround is to not fix it with the proprietary tensioning and calibration tools supplied by Alkett and Krupp, then the autopilot will refuse to drive for you. It is a good way to repair because the warranty period must have expired in January 1945, and the service history is patchy, so you aren't losing any value either
And the a34 comet !
Just another German / German tank bashing episode. ALL new weapon systems have teething problems which over time are ironed out. The Panther is no different than any other weapons system. The allies won by producing enormous numbers of their crap tanks so it took them literally decades to learn simple lessons like the addition of armor skirting on the outside of the tracks. Or to have swept back wings on their jet aircraft (The first American and British jet fighters had straight wings.) And what the StG 44? The most influential rifle design of all time? The allies said it was a bad design too. Twenty years later we got the crap M-16 that jammed up every 5 rounds. We would have been much, much better off copying the StG 44. Just because the victors get to write the history books doesn’t mean they are right.
funny how all tanks of the era like the t34 and sherman had big problems in terms of reliability but GERMAN tanks always gets framed for it and only them. i guess the low number make it seem to be a bigger problem.
Amazingly lots of ww2 footage exist that shows cloumns of Panthers sailing along fine.
Could be that after the initial teething troubles the German field Mechanics had them running fairly well.
HL230 has the power to run a 45 ton Panther a lot better than the heavier cats.
It's a complicated matter, suffice the say the often regurgigated pop-history nonsense of Panthers constantly breaking down is something that doesn't find much supprot in the records and comes with a metric ton of caveats.
@@Dreachon Hilary Doyle published a report from a Panther that said they went 3000km before service. For a heavy tank at the time thats great. HL230 usually needs a rebuild at 1500km
Anyone know the background music used from 15:27 to 17:40 in the video at all? Asking for a friend ;^;
Seems like most of the captured panthers have mismatched hulls and turrets for example the french „dauphine” had a ausf. G hull with a ausf. A turret same with the polish „pudel”apperently(the turret has to be a A turret cus the shot trap is still there)(keep in mind i only saw the dauphine in war thunder and i havent seen any historical photos so Please correct me if im wrong)
Nice
A quality over quantity approach made really good sense to the Germans
Although it was neither quality nor quantity after late 1943, with the rush and the strain of a multi front war the Germans couldn't afford to do either.
Does it have cruise control?
The vision outside for the commanders use is extremely important. Situational awareness is king on te battlefield and compared to any model of t-34 the panther was a vast improvement. See first shoot first
Actually the opposite is true. The vision from german panzers deteriorated during the war (easy to see on Pz. IV modifications), at the same time the quality of russian vision blocks vastly improved (i.e. MK-4 periscope on T-34-85). One can argue that vision from T-34-85 was better than that of the Panther, namely because commander, gunner and loader had it's own traversable MK-4
The REME was tasked with cobbling together Panthers, presumably from parts in a bombed out, abandoned factory? With respect, no wonder they found them ‘unreliable.’
Add to that that the British drivers weren't trained to drive the Panther, they literally drove the vehicles to destruction.
At the beginning, does he say "tanks for watching?"