Actually, it was shit
>>30384751
Actually, semen is healthy for you in reasonable doses.
>>30384771
does "gallons" seem like a reasonable dose?
>>30385053
It's a "cool" tank certainly, but it wasn't an efficient design if you take logistics into account. And people who don't take logistics into account when judging the quality of a weapon are children.
>>30384638
A great medium tank.
However, it broke down a lot at Kursk. When a wheel needed replacing you needed to remove three wheels instead of one. Miserable ratio against American Shermans at Arracourt. Would get blasted on if it fought against M-18s.
Should have just flooded the place with cheaper StugIIIs if you wanted to kill armor.
But naziboos love the Panther so forget everything I just said.
>>30385081
>inefficient design
>only slightly more expensive to produce then a Panzer IV
Panther had some serious teething problems, no doubt, but she was rushed into combat prematurely and forced to undergo many reoutfittings as a result and was built by shoddy slave labour to boot.
She wasn't useless, she just needed tender loving care.... and better siding... and a better transmission.
>>30385053
No the sodium content would be fatal I think
But a couple doses a day... that's a good average
>>30385133
It was closer to a Heavy tank, but named a Medium because that's what the Germans dealt with it as.
The logistics were bad, but the later models slowly got better. At the end of the war, the Panther was starting to work through a number of teething problems. Kinda like the M26, but that would have teething problems for a lot longer.
>>30384638
>>30385144
The expense wasn't all that much of an issue for Germany at the time as they simply kept printing more money throughout WWII (it would have created an economic disaster had the Nazi's survived), but the bigger issue is fuel consumption, field repairs, offroad capability, weight, etc.. It's not an efficient design.
German superweapons as a whole were a giant blackhole for the Nazi's and did nothing to help them win the war. It was juvenile, and reflected the juvenile mindset of the regime.
>>30385161
>Right-Wing
>a National SOCIALIST
>>30385133
The Panther really should have been the heaviest the Panzer arm should have went. Panzer III, Tiger and the future Tiger II production should have ceased immediately and instead followed Guderian's recomendation that the Panzer III's and IV's should be converted into into STuG's and all the light tanks into Jagpanzers like the Hetzer with Panther's being the heavy hitting breakthrough Tank.
>>30385196
>Guderian's recomendation that the Panzer III's and IV's should be converted into into STuG'
I'm gonna need sauce on this dumb fuckery. Tanks and self-propelled guns have radically different roles. Guderian couldn't have been so retarded as to recommend that tanks are replaced with SPGs.
>>30385171
>The expense wasn't all that much of an issue for Germany at the time as they simply kept printing more money throughout WWII
You are an idiot. Printing money doesn't magically create resources, yet you think it does.
>>30385236
Sorry, my bad, I read it wrong. He wanted heavy tank production and design canceled in favor of upgunned Panzer IV's and Panthers.
>>30384771
Chris Chan, is that you?
>>30385196
Panther was awful on the attack, it had poor all-around visibility, no better side armor than M4 and worse than T-34.
It also had short operational range and was a huge target out of cover.
Every time Panthers went on the attack they botched it. The Germans used them right in defensive positions.
But when you are doing that with them, better off just building more Stugs and Jagdpanzers.
>>30385171
Its expense also went down in terms of man hours
I'm not triggered often, but the near universal revulsion of the panther hurts. Not even a Wehraboo, just a pantherboo I suppose. I love this odd overgrown medium tank.
>>30385417
People judge things like the Panther and Tiger at their worst, but then ignore the issues with things like T-34. Which also suffered breakdowns, had their own problems associated with maintenance/ repair, and had quirks that could be detrimental to the crew. Every tank had their upsides and downsides. But to only judge one by its cons while ignoring the faults of other designs, or to use only use hindsight, is dishonest.
>>30385053
Probably for OP
>>30385133
I'm very conflicted about that image. I haven't had a boner this hard in years.
>>30385470
C O M F Y
O
M
F
Y
>>30384638
Are you fukn gay tho op?
>>30384638
Why is the dude with the binos on the back of the tank, looking into the cupola?
>>30385349
citations?
Best tank of the war coming through
>>30386884
I'll bite. Best in what way?
>>30386982
Read the Wikipedia article
>>30386993
>Guderian said it was superior to German armor
>In 1941
Being better than the Panzer II, III, IV, 38t is not much of an accomplishment.
>>30386982
>>30386884
Jeez, it looks like both of you posted the wrong pic.
>>30387038
I'm hesitant to say the M26 was the best. Very good tank once it evolved in the M46 and on, but I would not say it was better than the Shermans when speaking about WW2.
Arrived very late in the war and really didn't get a chance to prove itself. Then in Korea they had a lot of problems and the Americans went right back to using the M4s no problem.
>>30387017
"Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential tankdesign of theSecond world war"
>>30387076
Which means absolutely nothing.
There was nothing unique about the T-34 aside from number produced and that was its saving grace. They were decent tanks but they did nothing better than any of its peers.
Just because a majority of people are uniformed does not make their thoughts a fact.
>>30387090
What tank do you think is best
>>30387118
Dribbly benis machinegun
>>30387124
Ye that's a sexy tank
>>30387118
Keep in mind that these choices are in their more refined and advanced forms.
As an overall fighting system (Logistics, transport, manufacturing, ability to repair, tanks I would want to have to use as a general) the M4.
As the best tank (Regardless of all other factors besides armor, mobility, gun performance, crew layout, the tank I would want to be in if I was a tanker) the Tiger I or II. Probably leaning more towards the I.
>>30387124
Bob semple is the best tank
>>30386884
>gets blown up before the transmission and engine breakdown
>reliable
>>30387174
OI ya fuckin stooge that's a garden shed bolted to a tractor
>>30387124
>muh dick
>>30387223
Don't insult my national heritage , we showed the world you don't need blueprints to make a masterpiece
>>30387228
calling the shit took a masterpiece doesn't make it so
>>30387236
If getting a bunch of tractors and slapping some corrugated iron on them and calling them tanks until the government realises that new Zealand has more use for a tractor then a tank and orders for all of them to be turned back into tractors isn't a masterpiece then I don't know what is
>>30387255
The Russians did it. How bad can that be?
>>30387038
related reading, though it's from Korea
>>30387258
We made our tractors into tanks because we thought that the japs were gonna invade , we then released that no one could be bothered invading us
>>30387196
>>30387174
>>30387258
When is /k/ going to make their own scrap metal tank?
>>30387281
why bother?
Syria keeps churning those fucking things out every week
>>30387281
I find the term "scrap metal" offensive to my history, the metal used was premium nz iron folded 0.5 timed
>>30387284
Needs more dakka.
>>30387290
10/10
Your prize is a fleshlight stuffed into an undersized ugg boot.
Should I post more trash tanks?
>>30387360
Yes
>>30387325
I hope the fleshlight is sheep shaped
>>30387407
McBain.tar.gz
>>30385133
It was also rushed into Kursk without a lot of teething problems resolved and few trained crews
>>30385144
And a low zoom gunner optic and a main gun that could support infantry effectively.
>>30386993
Best at getting slaughtered?
>>30387038
M26 climbs slowly, Katyusha said so
>>30387118
M18 Hellcat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat
>>30385470
>ignore the issues with things like T-34. Which also suffered breakdowns, had their own problems associated with maintenance/ repair, and had quirks that could be detrimental to the crew.
Because nearly all of the T-34's mechanical issues were being resolved between 1942-43 (transmission, engine filter). Radios became more abundant, and the 3 man turret was introduced. The T-34 of 1943 was a very different beast from the T-34 of 1941, while still being easy and quick to produce and providing good mix of armor, mobility, firepower, and reliability.
>>30385144
Can someone explain the teething
>>30388491
Technically the M-18 is a tank destroyer, not a tank.
That being said I love the M-18 very much, but my favorite irregular has to be the Churchill AVRE
>We have a great uparmored utility tank platform! What can we do with it?
>I know! Slap a 290mm "mortar" on it!
>Canada yuo are of genius!
>>30385349
>It also had short operational range and was a huge target out of cover.
>Every time Panthers went on the attack they botched it. The Germans used them right in defensive positions.
Is that due to shitty design or due to the massive Allied air superiority? Hard to fault a decent design when it constantly gets fucked up by P-47s and Typhoons.
>>30389153
Teething is a natural thing that all new machines do when they're first produced.
No, really. It turns out that when you build something, there's always going to be something that goes wrong, and you need time to work out the bugs.
The Panther was literally rushed into production and subsequently rushed into service without that "iron-out-the-wrinkles" phase. So naturally, things like the lower-quality-metal parts in the transmission gave out, the automotive parts gave out because of reliability issues ("infant mortality" is literally the phrase used for this period in the reliability curve), and so the tank had to work out its glitches in the middle of shooting the enemy.
The Panther is a case study in the "field it before it's ready" mentality.
>>30389253
Those tanks saved a lot of lives by mortaring the fuck out of German emplacements in Normandy. Respect the AVRE.
>>30389253
>mobile fire support platform capable of tossing 28lbs of HE directly on the enemy
>literally twice the HE of a 155mm she'll while being closer to the enemy and faster to respond
Jesus christ, those poor Nazis.
>>30389296
>>30389313
A common tactic was to approach a bunker or building, have an AVRE bomb it, and then have Churchill Crocodile and torch whatever remained.
In many cases just seeing the Crocodile made the Germans run. I can't say I disagree with that course of action.
>>30389256
Not really. Some instances, yes, but even in situations like early phase Battle of the Bulge, where poor weather prevented Allied planes from destroying German armor, they performed poorly, being picked off by tank destroyers long before they were able to effectively engage the enemy.
>>30389296
Nothing but. The AVRE was the most British and utilitarian thing to come from the Royal Engineers, and my God did they deliver, they even had an attachment called the Canadian Indestructible Roller Device. Jesus, they called it indestructible. The madmen, they actually did it
>>30389337
Well you couldn't punch through the armor on that thing, and if I were a Nazi conscript that barely survived my bunker getting mortared by 28lbs! of HE and some angry Brit was coming to werf some flammen at me, I'd run like a little bitch. This is truly the only course of action.
>>30387118
The Sherman, no question about it. Able to take out any of its peers, easy to operate and repair, reliable, versatile, and it had shared parts with most of the vehicles it would have served beside.
Russia liked the ones they got, the Brits and Canadians seemed to like theirs, and even the Germans went out of their way to capture them for their own use.
>>30385161
>SS NCO cap
>Heer officer uniform, mirrored
this image is triggering mein autism
The Panther was a great design but suffered from wartime conditions that made it necessary to rush it right from the production lines into the front line. Any tank would suffer terribly in that type of situation.
>>30385184
good meme
>>30385133
>When a wheel needed replacing you needed to remove three wheels instead of one
The interlocking wheels was REALLY dumb
>>30385248
>(it would have created an economic disaster had the Nazi's survived)
How about reading the whole post before you comment, dipshit
>>30386884
>commander also is gunner
ok
>>30387178
>tank designed in 1942 is better than a tank designed in 1940, wow
fucking wehraboos
>What they should have done
Keep up the production of the Pz IV + variants, StuG III. Never even come up with the idea of the Tiger I, Tiger II, Elefant, Jagdtiger. Use those resources saved to develop a "new" Panther.
>"New" Panther
>Fix the fucking final drive gear
>Get rid of the retarded interweaved wheels
>Give the gunner a periscope, add more vision blocks for rest of crew
>More side armor
>Dual-purpose gun, like the 75mm M3, but better
Start sending them out with decently-trained crews, figure out any teething problems. Start developing a TD version. Wind down production of the Pz IV, have them start pumping out the "New" Panther Ausf B (or whatever you want to call it).
Lose the war anyway.
>>30392369
I thought the problem was that the gunner ONLY had the periscope?
>>30392963
The gunner onky had his higher magnification gunsight. He did not have a panoramic sight like the commander, which meant it could take much longer to get the gun on a target. Both Russian and US tanks had the gunsight and panoramic sight for the gunner in their mediums. Not sure about the Brits.
>>30391987
Sweden came to the same conclusion with the Sherman
There's a reason torsion bars became standard
>>30393099
>The gunner onky had his higher magnification gunsight
What people leave out is that the Panther gunner's sight had a low magnification setting with a twenty four degree field of view.
Compare that to, for instance, the M4 tank's gunner who had to make do with nine degrees FOV on his primary sight and you'll see why he needed two different sights for target acquisition and engagement.
>He did not have a panoramic sight like the commander
No one had panoramic sights in WW2.
What you mean is periscopic sights, in which case you are wrong about Russian medium tanks featuring them: T-34's were only fitted with a single telescopic sight, if any had unity sights, I haven't seen them.
>>30390477
It was a rather brilliant solution to their lack of rubber. It wasn't great, but it did get the job done.
>>30392369
So...basically you want a Sherman with sloped armor on the sides?
>>30393397
It was not "brilliant". The Soviets just put up with the steel on steel shrieking with the T34/42's.
It was a solution to a nonexistant issue, and typically german.
>>30393422
The Soviets also made tanks that broke down from engine wear before they could fight the enemy because they couldn't be bothered to properly harden anything, so they may not be the best people to lift ideas from in most cases.
>>30393445
Actually, the engines lasted longer than the average driving distance of the T-34 before being destroyed in combat, and they went from the pitiful 150-200km before overhaul in 1941 to 600-800km by 1943. That's pretty damn good for what they had to work with.
>>30385158
The Panther was maybe a heavy tank by Italian or Japanese standards, but by American/British/German/Russian standards it was a medium tank, just more modern and sophisticated than the Panzer IV.
>>30385184
The whole "socialism" bit was really just to market the NSDAP to the working class, Hitler actually hated socialism/communism (he thought it was a Jewish conspiracy and that it unfairly benefited the weak and lazy).
>>30385417
I personally like the Panther, but I don't have any delusions about it being some kind of magical super-tank. It definitely did have some reliability issues due to being rushed into service and later the declining state of the German war industry, however it may have been more influential on later tank designs if they actually had an opportunity to resolve all those issues.
>>30387090
Isn't the T-34 the tank that really popularized sloped armor? And isn't most later Soviet armor heavily influenced by it?
>>30387210
That's pretty much the definition of reliable. Tanks getting destroyed in combat is to be expected, if it happens excessively you might be able to say it has insufficient armor, but that's not a matter of reliability. An unreliable tank is one that breaks down before making it into battle.
>>30393378
Sorry, been a while since I read the French overview of Panthers in French service. I meant unity sight, not panoramic sight. And you are correct on the Russian mediums not having them, memory failure on my part.
That being said, using a lower magnification gunsight turned out to be less effective for target handoff than a unity sight. The French reported that this caused a handoff time of about 20-30 seconds for the gunner to find the target. Is also doesn't help that the gunner had no other optics for situational awareness. Only the gunsight.
>>30393956
Considering their expected combat duration for a while was half a tank of fuel, they expected them to be killed long before they engines could wear out, but that's not saying much.
>>30394137
The French report is largely worthless, they wanted to dump the foreign equipment to get domestic production running.
I would not take anything in there at face value.
>>30394123
>Isn't the T-34 the tank that really popularized sloped armor?
No.
Pic related.
>>30394137
>a handoff time of about 20-30 seconds
Did that include stopping the tank, gun laying, range-finding and engaging or just the time it took to point the gun at a target?
>>30389421
Seconded. If you have to chose one WW2 era "medium" tank, you could do far, far worse than a M4, and none better.
>>30385555
>put out for Putin
>>30394213
The renault FT did not popularize sloped armor. It had 22mm of frontal armor, pretty much any tank gun of the time could penetrate it due to overmatch. The T-34 popularized sloped armor because it actually made the tank somewhat harder to kill.
>>30394213
>Did that include stopping the tank, gun laying, range-finding and engaging or just the time it took to point the gun at a target?
Time from the commander spotting the target to the gunner being able to open fire. An M4 gunner and commander could perform this much quicker.
>>30394379
There were French tanks from the 30s with sloped armor (FCM36, H35, S35 although it was more curved). As well as the American M2. Even if some of these tanks did not feature the thickest armor of the time, the effects of the armor sloping were understood and used to increase protection (Or in some cases with the Americans, reflect the vehicle's own machine gun fire to fly down into trenches)
>>30394123
>Isn't the T-34 the tank that really popularized sloped armor? And isn't most later Soviet armor heavily influenced by it?
The French were the first to actually build tanks in production with well-sloped armor. The Soviets even acknowledged this in design documents for some of their early experiments with the BT-SV. Everyone was aware that you could improve the effective thickness of armor by angling it, but everyone was hesitant for one reason or another to actually adopt such designs. Usually came back to internal compartment space, accommodating the size of the engines- the US held back on heavy tank design, never committing to the M6, largely because they just couldn't get an engine with adequate performance that could fit in the space they wanted- and other internal equipment. The Germans opted to keep the radio suites they had with the Panzer 4 for this reason as well; they felt the radio was more important than sloped armor.
>>30393956
Soviets had QA issues stemming from the fact that they scooped up most of their industrial base and dumped it past the Urals. Initial testing of the T-34 demonstrated that when everything worked as intended and was built properly, it was a reliable vehicle.
It also helped nothing that T-34's were being distributed in piece meal, and generally had crews that weren't trained on them. You were often looking at someone who had been selected because he drove the tractor on the farm.
>>30394163
They had no reason to dislike the tanks, and 'durr they hated German steel!' doesn't explain legitimate criticisms of the design. Or why no one sought to mimic it. For all the resources that went into fielding a single panther, aged AT ordinance was still often effective. The fact that the Germans cooked it up first certainly didn't stop them from lifting the KwK 40 / Pak 40 design in near-whole cloth.
>>30385470
Because the tanks you have mentioned are fucking expensive.
>>30394123
>The Panther was maybe a heavy tank by Italian or Japanese standards, but by American/British/German/Russian standards it was a medium tank, just more modern and sophisticated than the Panzer IV.
Dude. It was two whole tons lighter than an IS-2. It was HEAVIER than the M26 Pershing.
>>30389256
Air attack killed a very small minortiy of tanks. And the Panthers regularily botched attacks without any planes present anyway - Arracourt saw them getting their shit pushed in by a numerically roughly equal force of Shermans, Wolverines and Hellcats, all while low-hanging clouds made any intervention by airpower impossible.
Being a gigantic target while having only a narrow-FOV, high-zoom optic for your gunner means that unless you sit in a prepared overwatch position, you will almost always give the enemy the first spot and first shot. And that is how the vast majority of armor-v-armor matches were decided at the time.
>>30399337
This. By actual weight, it was far closer to a "heavy" tank than a medium. It was about half again as heavy as the Sherman, T-34/85, and Comet, all of which were right around 30 tons.
>>30390320
It also suffered from being a poorly laid-out desing with an overcomplicated drivetrain meant for a vehicle ten tons lighter and a pants-on-head retarded sight arrangement for the gunner
>>30387118
The Easy 8.
As shown by its utter domination of the T-34 a few years later in Korea.
>>30394861
>Or in some cases with the Americans, reflect the vehicle's own machine gun fire to fly down into trenches
>Tell me great, bald bird, How do I kill trenches with tank?
>Just fucking shoot yourself
>And so we built a tank
>>30385144
>only slightly more expensive to produce then a Panzer IV
From "Armored Champion" by Zaloga;
Panzer IV = 103,462 - 125,000 RM
Panther = 176,100 RM
The Germans would have been far better served by simply improving the armor lay-out on the Panzer IV.
>>30399695
>>30399695
>>30399739
Needs torsion bar suspension, rear transmission and commander cupola.
Best tank of the war, coming through.
>>30394531
>An M4 gunner and commander could perform this much quicker.
How much quicker?
>>30399389
>a narrow-FOV, high-zoom optic for your gunner
Gee, it sure would have helped if the TFZ-12a sight had high and low magnification settings for target so its operator could both acquire and engage the enemy without having to use two different sights.
Oh wait, it did and you are just meming.
>>30399440
>pants-on-head retarded sight arrangement for the gunner
How is it meant to be any different from every other tank of the war that wasn't the M4 or the IS-2?
>>30399389
>Arracourt
there were around 40 allied tanks at that battle.
what is the battle of kursk
what is the battle of smolensk
what is the battle of kharakov
what is operation bagration.
jesus christ the allies did next to nothing in the european theater
>>30399851
Ach scheiße wie gehts!
>>30386884
best at having the highest death count?
it wasn't even the best russia tank used in ww2
>>30400272
The low magnification sight still provided much less FOV than a non magnified, utility sight would. 27 degrees is pitiful amounts of vision, and it showed in how poor Panthers were on attack. The gunner just could not see half as much as the commander could, he couldn't see 1/4th as much. Switching sights takes 2 seconds. Finding your target in a 360 degree area with 27 degrees of sighting can take a lot longer.
There's a reason modern tanks let the gunner have a utility sight as well as a magnified sight for target acquisition.
>>30401473
>Finding your target in a 360 degree area with 27 degrees of sighting can take a lot longer.
It would if that was expected of a gunner, but that's not his job, it's the commander's.
Generally, the commander will spot the target and then guide the gunner to it.
24 degrees is plenty for that.
>There's a reason modern tanks let the gunner have a utility sight as well as a magnified sight for target acquisition.
Try and find the unity sight in the image.
If gunners were expected to be scanning 360 degrees not only would we still fit tanks with unity sights, we'd give both gunner and commander panoramic sights.
>and it showed in how poor Panthers were on attack.
You do know that no German tanks were fitted with unity sights for the gunner, right?
Why did their absence apparently only effect the Panther?
>>30401618
There are two gunnery sights on an Abrams. The Gunner Auxiliary Sight and the Gunner's Primary Sight.
I have no idea what I'm looking at here, that picture is, uh, well fucking tiny and only showing off a tiny portion of the tank as well.
>>30401668
>The Gunner Auxiliary Sight and the Gunner's Primary Sight.
And both are more magnified than the low-power setting on a Panther, 3X and 10X for the GPS and 8X for the GAS.
No unity sight and no 1X sight.
>>30401724
I believe the commander has the ability to give direct target acquisition to the gunner, does he not?
>>30401754
IIRC every modern tank allows the commander to press a button and bring the gun in line with what he's looking at.
>>30401811
Yes, that basically replaces the need for a utility sight.
>>30399851
>Best tank of the war
pic related
>>30401754
>>30401829
Only the post '92 when the CITV started showed up.
Before then he had to override the gunner's controls, looking for the target through the GPS extension.
>>30401836
>engine problems
Nope it was pretty bad.
Basically the same size as a Sherman, but still was phased out by the Korean War because it was so immobile.
>>30401865
>Phased out
They slapped in a different engine and called it a Patton.
>>30401854
Or just look out through the cupola and see where the gun is in relation to where you're looking. You don't need to be exact, the gunner will be able to see just as well, if not better than, you once you get him in the right area.
>>30400272
>Gee, it sure would have helped if the TFZ-12a sight had high and low magnification settings for target so its operator could both acquire and engage the enemy without having to use two different sights. Oh wait, it did and you are just meming.
Gee, and it would have sure have helped if that wasn't still utter shit and completely inferior in all regards to "having to use" two sights. Oh wait, it was and you're just wehrabooing.
>>30400945
Nothing, that is, except keep a huge percentage of German production occupied so they could try and protect themselves against our bombers.
It's hardly our fault the Soviets were only good at getting killed.
>>30387124
>>30387151
>>30387224
>>30399695
The Panzer IV was dated even in 1941. By 1943 they had reached the limits of what that design could do, both in terms of armor and firepower. The additional armor they tried to add after the G model slowed the tank down and adversely affected its reliability. They would have been better off designing the Panther and its drive train to be a 45 ton tank from the beginning, not a 35 ton tank with 10 tons of extras.
>>30384638
>Americans have the greatest logistics of any army, ever
>Plenty of spare manpower and industrial power
>rear-line areas untouched by enemy
>gee their tanks are reliable
>Germany has been at war for years with a heavily degraded logistics system
>Under constant bombing, both strategic and tactical
>Fighting a two front war
>Rushing designs straight from the drawing board into combat
>Crewed by barely-trained late war scrubs
>Industrial base is wrecked
>gee, tanks are unreliable
Hmmm. If the Germans were operating the Sherman, it would have been "unreliable" due to the conditions. If the Americans were operating the Panther, we'd be talking about its amazing reliability.
Machines are only as good as the support systems backing them up.
>>30399337
Tanks are typically classified not by their actual weight, but rather by the size of their main gun, thus the IS-2 with its massive for the time 122mm gun was clearly a heavy, while the 75mm piece of the Panther puts it firmly in medium tank territory.
>>30402598
I'm remembering a comparison they illustrated quite well in Band of Brothers. The Americans were advancing in trucks, the Germans were moving to surrender either on foot or, if they were lucky, with horses to carry some of their gear. This was the level of disparity between the two sides, even at the height of German power in WWII.
>>30402430
Whatever nerd.
>>30399337
I just want to point out that the French Char B1 tank was a heavy tank but only weighed 22 tonnes and the Sherman weighed more then that by several tonnes.
>>30402598
The Sherman would still be reliable because it was made almost entirely of legacy systems.
That's why the Lee functioned just fine despite going from proposal to mass production in about 9 months. It was all a bunch of legacy systems stuck together in a new form.
>>30384638
A little anime girl disagrees with you. Somehow, I think I trust the judgement of a little anime girl over some guy on /k/. And if you disagree with that at all, you really don't know /k/.
>>30404578
I was better than the early versions of both of those, but then the T-34/85 and M3A3 Sherman came to be.
People knock the Panther for weak side armor but don't know tanks like the Sherman for the same thing.
>>30402480
>The Panzer IV was dated even in 1941.
Nonsense, the engine and transmission were proven and reliable and the armor could have been easily improved by [pic related] while the 75mmL/48 was more than enough gun, as the vast majority of shots were taken at under 1000 meters and the suspension was fine and served throughout the entire war but could have also been cheaply and easily up-graded to torsions bars with wider tracks.
And that cost differences don’t take in account the huge industrial investment in setting up a completely new line for manufacturing the Panther, especially considering the Germans already were making Tigers, which were more than enough to back-up the Panzer IVs.
Even if the Panther hadn’t been a piece of shit, (and it was) it was a poor strategic industrial and logistics decision to build it when existing tanks could do the job just as well or better.
>>30405148
They should have just taken the Tiger, angled the armor, moved to overlapping roadwheels, and if they really needed the punch slapped the 88mm L71 into the turret because apparently that wasn't just WoT making shit up again.
>>30392369
>Fix the fucking final drive gear
they couldn't, really. the high-strength steel was unavailable in the quantities needed, so a lower-quality steel was needed. likewise, enough gear cutting machinery needed to cut enough herringbone gears for the Panther's final drives were unavailable, so straight-cut gears were used instead. germany had neither the proper steel nor the proper machine tools to manufacture a viable final drive for the quantity of panthers produced
>>30405401
>moved to overlapping roadwheels
you mean like the ones on panther ?
THE hardest tracks to work on installed on any tank ever ?
>>30405530
But they made the most sense for German industry, dingus.
>>30405530
>you mean like the ones on panther ?
panther and tiger i (and the half-tracks) had interleaved road wheels. overlapping wheels like the tiger 2 are different.
>>30405557
or, or you know you could make them simple and not fuck over the crew even more
>>30405148
pz.kpfw.iv never had turret armor thicker than 5 fucking cm because it was overloaded with the long 7.5 cm and 8 cm hull armor as it was. the forward road wheels had to be replaced with steel-tired ones because they couldn't handle the weight
>>30404783
Because the M4 is 20 tons lighter, it's to be expected.
>>30405579
Overlapping roadwheels was the most efficient for Germany, dingus.
>>30405607
kek, how?
>>30401836
Looks like M46 to me (M26 had lower drive sprocket)
>>30401865
What WAS the M26s actual reliability? Did they break down often or were they just much slower?
(Also, weren't M46s almost as poor of hill climbers as M26 despite better engine due to auto transmission vs M4's manual?)
>>30405612
Improved performance, protection, durability, lifetime performance. The drawback was field maintenance.
>>30405612
Spreading weight over more wheels without making the vehicle excessively long. Engineer's dream, mechanic's nightmare.
>>30405635
>durability, lifetime performance
um, what?
>>30405638
i realize the benefits on MMP of schactellaufwerk. "efficient" as commonly defined is not a benefit, though.
>>30405656
You can read m8. It's inherently more advantageous, drawbacks are field repairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_track#Overlapping_road_wheels
>>30405668
>It's inherently more advantageous
advantageous for MMP. "efficient?" no.
>>30385133
I think PZ IV's with the long 75mm gun would have been the better choice to flood the place with.
>>30405635
>>30405638
>The drawback was field maintenance.
Definition of putting the cart before the horse.
>>30405686
As well as Stug III. There were one of the most common and reliable panzers available.
Fuck tanks.
>>30405690
I never said they were a good design! Just gave a reason for their existence.
>>30405690
You're a moron. "Field maintenance" shouldn't be some insane qualifing factor. If the US had the Panther, field maintenance wouldn't be an issue. It's just relative to logistics.
>>30385417
The Panther had the potential to be THE TANK of WW2 but it was rushed into the field with too many teething problems. That shit don't work in combat so it has to be taken into account when deciding how good a tank it actually was.
>>30384638
i really like the Panther
>>30405530
No, like the ones on the Tiger II which provided all the same flotation benefits without the headaches of interleaved roadwheels.
>THE hardest tracks to work on installed on any tank ever ?
He's never seen Mausketten.
>>30405719
the inner road wheels on the tiger i took up to 10 hours to replace. of course field maintenance should be a consideration.
>>30405600
You insist on missing the point; up-grading the Panzer IV (including a better turret design) was far more _cost effective_ then building the brand new Panther, which turned out to also be a piece of shit.
And the all-steel road wheels only came into use with the JagPanzer IV with the long and heavy 75mmL/70 gun.
>>30405733
And? 10 hours would be nothing in the US logistics system.
>>30387090
Until the Germans started fielding long barreled 75mm's and the few Tigers that saw the Eastern front, the T34's ate the Panzerwaffe.
>>30405749
wha...?
>>30405809
I wonder how many tries it took to get that right.
>>30405818
always wondered that myself
>>30405818
>I wonder how many lives* it took to get that right.
Fixed
>>30405847
I never denied the possibility
>>30405719
>>30405749
Field maintenance is absolutely important, and quite obviously more important than some fractionally better performance over uneven terrain.
>If the US had the Panther, field maintenance wouldn't be an issue.
>And? 10 hours would be nothing in the US logistics system.
The US would have never built the Panther because the Army Ordnance Board was obsessed with mass production and reliability.
The US built plenty of prototypes intended to replace the Sherman, with more complicated transmissions, torsion bar suspension, and none of them went to production precisely because they couldn't be made reliable. Somewhere along the way, someone had the good sense to point out that you can't fight an offensive war with a tank that can only drive 100km before breaking down.
"Logistics" isn't magic. You can't just handwave your problems away. Having reliable vehicles is part of good logistics, so that you're not squandering resources having to pull your shitty tank off the road to fix it constantly, or wasting literal days of exhausting man hours doing routine maintenance.
>>30405902
And that's why the M26 could not have arrived any sooner than it did. Don't want a Panthers-at-Kursk style debut.
>>30405902
You're acting like field maintenance is equal between the US and Germans. The Germans had a broken logistics system. The US ha dthe greatest logistics system ever.
There is no point in comparison between the two.
>>30405749
Cause an effect dumbass.
The US support system was efficient because of engineering for reliability and standardized parts.
If the US Army was equipped with Motor Pool decorations instead of actual working tanks, their equipment availability would suck too.
>>30405936
Yeah it's not like the US support system was efficient because it had the greatest industrual base in history and a completely unaffected logistical base.
>>30405956
this trolling is now tedious
>>30405956
>>30405932
Here's your (You)
>>30405956
It's not like every nut, bolt, round of ammunition, and can of spam the US army used had to be shipped to Boston/NY, loaded onto a boat, shipped 3000 miles across the Atlantic, offloaded in a jury rigged harbor, and transported to the front.
The US logistics system was under extreme strain during the European campaign. The Army did everything it could short of pillaging the French countryside to reduce the volume of supplies needed by ground forces.
Until more ports could be secured, the supply situation in France was pretty bad.
>>30405702
Yes but the StugIII was an assault gun and really shouldn't be used like it was a tank. Assault guns shine in static defense.
>>30405964
>>30405994
>>30406000
Triggered with facts.
The US had no issues with logistics other than tonnage.
>>30405920
>And that's why the M26 could not have arrived any sooner than it did. Don't want a Panthers-at-Kursk style debut.
Except the M26 Pershing could have arrived sooner but the Army Ground Forces said the Sherman was all that was needed and didn't want the Pershing, even going so far as to pull shenanigans like insisting it be rearmed with the 76mm gun in an attempt to keep it from going into production.
>>30406025
>Army Ground Forces said the Sherman was all that was needed and didn't want the Pershing
once there was a determined need for the 90 mm gun, AGF was no obstacle to its fielding. in fact, the ordnance dept itself contributed to keeping the 90 mm out of a tank since it had tests that claimed the 76 would be able to destroy a tiger from 2000 yards away. why use a 90 with the lower ammo loads, etc, when the 76 would do just fine? not even the tank destroyers wanted the 90 until after normandy
>>30405932
>why didn't America build maintenance nightmares like the winner of WW2, Germany?
>>30406018
yes nigger
there was a reason for that
same can be said for germans
who went out of their way to produce biggest clusterfuck of different platforms, engines and ammunition to completely fuck sideways their entire armed forces
>>30384638
French and Belgian reports and field manuals aren't very favourable of them, sure and they've exploited them for longer than Germans did.
>>30406063
I won't say their military was a massive clusterfuck of supply, but they did have one version of the FW-190 whose only purpose was to try and get all the factories on the same page...and then they started making their own improvements that completely screwed that over.
>>30406009
True, but it doesn't matter what the intended role is when it's often the most , and sometimes only, available thing.
>>30406044
>once there was a determined need for the 90 mm gun, AGF was no obstacle to its fielding.
Yeah, once the Battle of the Bulge happened…
But Ordnance had planned on fielding a 90mm gun from the moment they heard about the Germans using 88mm anti-aircraft guns in N.Africa against the British. It was Army Ground Forces who didn’t want anything new, as they felt the Sherman was sufficient (they even opposed the 76mm Shermans) are were continually concerned about resupply, which the introduction of a new tank and gun would have made more difficult.
And it’s not like they were necessarily wrong, it’s just that they became SO focused on logistics (combined with the Tank Destroyer concept) that they completely ignored the need for tanks with more firepower and heavier armor.
>>30405686
Panzer 4 was enormously expensive for what it packed and by 1942 it was outdated, long 75mm or not.
Ideally they should've adopt what was known as Panzer III/IV by 1942 or 1943 so they could give their Panzer III production lines a new purpose and replace Panzer IV's with something better.
However it would probably still be unreasonably expensive and over-designed as both Panzer III and IV were, but it was still better than trying to do what Hitler wanted(all medium tanks should be Panthers nao).
>>30405719
>If the US had the Panther, field maintenance wouldn't be an issue
You do realise that the US didn't destroy Iraqi's Republican Guard and didn't take Baghdad during 1st Gulf War because of, among others, maintenance problems?
>>30405809
>>30405818
>>30405827
Just one. Christie suspension, it always works.
>>30406155
No shit dummy. You're digging your own hole.
>>30405902
>The US built plenty of prototypes intended to replace the Sherman, with more complicated transmissions, torsion bar suspension
Not only, they've also experimented with auto-loading M1 AT gun and composite armour in turret.
>>30406134
>Yeah, once the Battle of the Bulge happened…
no, once normandy happened. the 90 mm t25/t26 tanks weren't broached until may 1943, a lot later than when the british were thrusting themselves on rommel's AT screens. it was proposed to arm the sherman with the 90 mm AA gun in 1942, but the gun and ammo would have had to have been modified to such an extent to fit in the sherman's turret that the performance would've dropped off to make the upgrade not worth it
>>30406105
I realize that, however rebuilding their tank corps with assault guns doesn't make sense to me, not when the pz 4 was doing as good a job or better than the sherman and t 34. I totally agree that all their pz 1-3 chassis could have been converted into assault guns or SPG's and that they should have pushed aside the panther and tigers because they took up too much resources, I just cant go along with the all assault gun corps even though Stugs could be build cheaper than upgunned pz 4's.
>>30406146
The German long 75mm was penetrating shermans at 900m IIRC. Yes a 45-50 ton tank built from the ground up to make the best use of what they had would have been a great idea. Unfortunately for them they had a boner for "wonder weapons".
>>30406018
>The US had no issues with logistics other than tonnage.
There was that point prior to the capture of Antwerp where supply lines were so long that shipping fuel to the front actually consumed more fuel than could be delivered.
>>30406248
True, but when you have the magic of tetraethyl lead gasoline and a metric fuckton of it, things can work out quite well for you.
>>30406155
You realize the actual reason was that Bush Sr. told them to stop because the political goals had been achieved and he wasn't sure he had the political backing to order a general invasion of Iraq.
>>30406262
could've killed a lot more republicans had not frad franks been a slow-ass pussy. pissed schwartzkopf the fuck off
>>30406235
>The German long 75mm was penetrating shermans at 900m IIRC.
And Shermans could penetrate Panzer 4's at similar ranges especially when armed with M1. While having lots of room for further modifications as evidenced by Israelis.
At the same time Panzer 4 suffered from transmission and suspension shitting itself, because unlike Panzer 3, it wasn't supposed to grow as much as it did, and more and more cycles of up-armouring and up-gunning it caused it weight to grow into ~30 tonnes range it had problems with handling.
As I've said, I would be in favour of Panzer III/IV - integrating the best of two worlds, keeping the weight relatively low and retaining at least parts of old production lines.
Still Panther was needed because it didn't took long since they've adopted it when Soviets upgunned T-34 and Americans started up-gunning Shermans. Remember that Germany's production ability and manpower was limited so they've needed something that could take a beating so after all there was some reason behind using Panther.
>>30406281
The equipment is perfect, it's skipper's fault!
Said ordnance when "handling" the torpedo crisis.
>>30406319
>let's stop at phase lines to synchronize movement like in ww1 instead of unleashing this highly-trained and lethal force onto a demoralized enemy
>>30387038
And it looks like you posted the wrong war, dumbass
>OP posts muh panther with a 1 liner for or against
>tank autists can't resist
>200+ replies
Flawless formula, works every time.
>>30389253
AVRE and in general special variants of Churchill are the only saving grace of this disaster of a tank.
>>30394123
>An unreliable tank is one that breaks down before making it into battle.
So if a tank breaks down in the middle of a battle, that's totally cool then? As long as we make them shitty enough that the enemy won't be able to do anything but shoot holes in them, it doesn't matter how many we lose to a bad transmission or dead engine or whatever?
>>30394163
>The French report is largely worthless, they wanted to dump the foreign equipment to get domestic production running.
Belgians reported the same problems and they weren't really in position to make a tank themselves.
>>30406018
I remember reading that a German officer finally had it rammed home to him that they were going to lose the war when he saw a captured US truck. In the back was some supplies, including mail for the troops. In the mail, there was a box with a birthday cake in it some mother made to send to her son. The German officer said he realized that his army couldn't get gasoline to their tanks, but the guys they were fighting could send birthday cakes across the atlantic ocean.
>>30406412
of course, fall 1944 the allies couldn't get gas to their tanks either
>>30406309
Half the reason their production was so limited was because they didn't catch on to the idea of total war until it was already too late, and even then they were still only doing a half-assed job of it.
Their tanks weren't make on assembly lines, they were made in huge workshops, same with their aircraft and other weapons. Compare that to the American's massive assembly lines, where Boeing was able to turn out a bomber an hour at their main plant, Ford, GM, and all the other major companies were rolling tanks and trucks out the door as fast as they could get the parts to assemble them shipped in from other factories, and we were rationing everything and getting the general population involved all just to get more wartime production going.
>>30406412
Didn't they mention that cake in the movie Battle of the Bulge? Noteworthy not because they shipped it across, but because they flew it across, as I recall.
>>30394861
>>30394379
>>30394213
>>30394123
Sloped armour was not a particularly new idea. Medieval armoursmiths and renaissance fortification designers knew about it.
The problem with sloped armour was that it was hard to make thick sloped plate at big angle and weld or cast it properly, which is one of the reasons why Germans opted not to use it for so long while the country that was a pioneer of welding techniques - Soviet Union - experimented with all sorts of bizarre geometry for their tanks which ultimately ended with pignose.
>>30406425
Thank Montgomery for that. He decided the best use for the best use of the fuel was to do a daytime airborne landing and then get his tanks shot up trying to push into Germany.
>>30406436
>pignose
not to nitpick, but I think you might be mixing up the Russian "Pike Nose" style of hull and the German "Pig's Head" style of gun mantlet.
>>30406434
>Half the reason their production was so limited was because they didn't catch on to the idea of total war until it was already too late, and even then they were still only doing a half-assed job of it.
The other half was that peacetime designs had lots of "extras" which Nazis paid extra for while maintaining no quality assurance, such is the reality of military-industrial complex. If it wasn't for Speer, German military would collapse by late 1943.
>>30406454
Sorry, pike nose.
>>30406434
The cake thing was probably in the memoirs of some German general after the war, and got included in the movie because the script writer thought it was cool, or something like that.
>>30405638
>literally quoting Inside the Chieftain's Hatch
God, at least put some effort into thinking for yourself you stupid fuck.
https://youtu.be/9xKYicir_i8?t=4m24s
>>30406505
maybe it is nick moran
>>30406508
Then stop recycling lines. You're better than that (and all of us), and we expect to see it.
>>30406436
>The problem with sloped armour was that it was hard to make thick sloped plate at big angle and weld or cast it properly
As a welder, that doesn't make any sense. An incline doesn't really change anything. Even the most basic processes can weld vertical up and horizontal.
I always figured there were three reasons-
>the size requirements are too small to incorporate both sloped armor and an escape hatch for the driver
Or otherwise any sort of ergonomic consideration restricted by the typically small size of the vehicle. Great examples might be the Crusader and Valentine, with the little armored vision box for the driver, but the principle is also shown in the transition from small hatch Sherman hulls to large hatch, which required a steeper, thicker glacis plate. The T-34 had to contend with this by having a giant frontal hatch for the driver.
>that it was both easier and/or cheaper to use direct vision ports than it was to use periscopes
Purely speculation, but it's a common factor that most (all?) these non-sloped designs have direct vision ports, even late into the war when people should know better (Comet).
>that the thinner plate of sloped armor had to be more carefully hardened to resist spalling.
This problem was encountered with WW1-era vehicles as well as most powers in WW2 at some period in time. A thicker, heavier plate would be easier to heat treat to resist spalling from light, fast projectiles like most interwar AT guns.
>>30406262
And you know, there was that highway. Where we rocked out too hard.
>>30406705
I don't think most of that was Republican Guard...in fact I don't think we ran into them at all outside of the 2 brigades at 73 Easting.
>>30406436
>The problem with sloped armour was that it was hard to make thick sloped plate at big angle and weld or cast it properly
>>30399695
>>30405148
>>30405686
>>30405702
Since the Stug was a modified Pz.III hull.. Couldn't they have just modified the Pz.III to modernize it greatly?
Slope the front armor, a bigger turret ring (thus being able to mount a larger volume turret, giving it the space to mount 75's), etcetera.
The last model Pz.III and Stugs were still fairly effective machines at wars end. If all that development time and resources were focused on Pz.III and Pz.IV only, I feel the german Army would have been better served.
>>30405724
>posts tiger
>>30407319
The reason the Pz.IV was modified extensively into the late war and not the Pz.III was because the IV had a much larger turret ring to accomodate a bigger gun. And even then, in its later models the Pz.IV was about about 25% heavier than in the original design. There's only so much you can take on to a tank (assuming the chassis has space for said tack-ons) before you begin overloading the engine and suspension and would be better served by a completely new design.
>>30408426
That creates another problem with Germany for focusing on their Big Cats: there was no suitable replacement for the PzKpfw IV. They had nothing that could match the PzKpfw IV's reliability, ease of maintenance and manufacture, and still be able to be decently armoured AND take a long 75m or bigger while still being turreted. Even if the Panther was able to work out it's mechanical troubles, it was still far more expensive and time consuming to produce.
The PzKpfw IV was still a good tank, but it was at the end of it's potential as a turreted tank, as it simply could not take any thicker armour or bigger gun. Compare to the M4, which the Israelis were able to cram massive 105mm AT guns into... In a war where tanks go from 37mm cannons to 88s, 90s, and 122s in just 5 years, you've done something wrong when your most available, most reliable, and most effective tanks are nearly twice that age.
>>30407319
Want to know WHY the StuGs were so effective? It wasn't any level of armour. It was the fact when you can pick your defensive positions, you will ALWAYS score massive amounts of kills and damage to enemy forces, even if you have ancient equipment.
That's why until the late 90s, Britain was still deploying 120mm towed anti-tank guns because you could stick them at the end of a road where you were guaranteed to get the first shot and get a initial shot because the enemy could respond.
