We had this topic before, the Panther was definitely classified as a medium tank. Especially with the gun caliber the comparison between the Panther (75mm) and the Pershing (90mm) or the IS-2 (122mm) would be “unfair”
I can do a comparison of bananas, oranges, pineaples and dogs if I want. Aniway the topic is more about an overall comparison between several designs without special category of medium or heavy, and also to talk about the several variant of the Pz v.
Actually it’s look quite amazing.The hited Panther has blazed up so quick.
Never have seen such a combat scene.
Its was not just about caliber.
it weights 45 tonns was very close to the IS-2 ( 46 tonns)!!
And Panther was MORE heavy then the M-26 Pershing ( 43 tonns).
Besides the thickness of armor was almost simular to both those tanks.
According soviet tank’s classification - the Panther was definitely heavy tank.
The caliber of the main gun was just one example and criterion.
According soviet tank’s classification - the Panther was definitely heavy tank.
Well, bad work of soviet intelligence then. 
Actualy it was German intelligence bad work that in 1941 when they saw the T-34 for the first time they though that 32 tonns Soviet T-34-76 was a “Heavy tank”
Just becouse it was more heavy than any german tank in 1941:)
Mmmh, score for you.
BTW, found this:
Intercepted russian radio message from first contact with Panthers in 1943:
“Enemy has introduced a new tank! Outward appearence is similar to the Tridsatshedverka (T-34). The tank is heavy armoured and has a possible weight of 40-50 tons. Probably armed with 88mm gun (fault!;)). We suffer heavy losses on distances of more than 2000 meters.”
Whew, after reading through this entire post I still think imho that the Panther was the best tank of WW 2…Followed by the Tiger.
The Sherman doesn’t even rank for me, the T 34 being a much better tank than it.
oh please do a comparison between dogs and pineapples!:mrgreen:
oh please do a comparison between dogs and pineapples!
Dogs are faster…happy now ?
Enough correct characterisic of Panther, doesn’t it?From distance of 2000:)
Keep in mind also that SOviet tankers faced Panther in summer during the Kursk Battle ( as i remember)
It did have deadly effective AA gun , but many of thechnical lacks adsolutly newly designed tank and defects made Panther role not as much as it was planned.
I’d like to get back to the Cologne Sherman vs. Panther vs. Pershing tank battle of early afternoon of March 6 in the Komödienstrasse (“Comedy Street”).
From its location at the Dome square the Panther knocks out the Sherman on the right side of the road. The crew -except for the tank’s commander- is killed instantly. The commander makes it out of the tank but he lost a leg and in spite of the immediate aid of the medics he bleeds to death.
As we can see on the next photograph there is another Sherman standing on the left side of the road. When the first Sherman was hit, the crew of the left tank bails out without even being shot at yet (not just my impression but that’s what the books say). Certainly a most humane reaction but what I keep asking myself is: How would/did the US Army appraise this reaction of one of its crews, leaving a valuable tank in a situation like this?
How would/did the US Army appraise this reaction of one of its crews, leaving a valuable tank in a situation like this?
Probably those were not the most corageous men in the US armored forces, however to see the tank next to blew to pieces…you have to be in that time and situation to really understand the scene. :rolleyes:
Pantherturm
It was near the end of the war and they quite rightly wanted to be there to join in the celebrations.
Paul
That could be another good explanation.
I call it sensible, since: it was the end of the war, they had a Pershing around, and there were about 55,000 other Shermans…
P.S.: incidentally, the US Army had an acute shortage to tank crews by the end of 1944, due to the incessant losses of Shermans throughout the Normandy campaign. This to the extent that they were drafting infantrymen replacements into the armor corp. Many would often run away after engaging panzers since they had no real training for this - and I believe it was not held against them nor were they thought of as cowards.
I have read an account of troops being forced to out fit an entire tank platoon of Shermans with artillerymen that only had half a day worth the training in tanks. Subsequently the entire platoon was wiped out the next day. While the Sherman was no match for a Panther or Tiger head to head even with a trained crew I am sure crewing the Shermans with makeshift crews inflated their loses and made the Sherman to appear even more outclassed than it actually was. Many people overlook the fact that when it was designed the Sherman could out run, out gun, and was more heavily armored than any other tank baring the T34. When the Germans ran up against the Shermans in North Africa it had about the same effect that the Tigers had on the Allies later in the war. It was not until the Germans introduced the Panthers and Tigers along with the up gunned and up armored Panzer IV in quantities that the Germans had anything to match the Shermans. And the Sherman wasn’t designed to meet other tanks in battle in the first place.
Funny, 3 scapes for the left cilinders row and just one for the right row of the Maybach V-12.
Indeed!