PzKpfw V Panther....the best tank in WW2 ?

[mkenny]

@flamethrowerguy

Actually the tank looks far from being in full working order or better “running order” as the link says. Just watch the hits on the gun mantlet and around the driver’s MG. So -spoken in your sense- the whole of the story rests on the unsubstantiated claims by british soldiers (or just yours?).

Some of the photos from the linked forum are stills from a film taken of the Tiger being driven by the British soldiers who captured it. It moves quite freely and the main gun worked perfectly. There are a number of hits on the front but non penetrated.
As for the unsubstantiated claims well I refer you to:

A) Stuart Hill’s book ‘By Tank Into Normandy’ (published 2002) Pages 107/108 have a detailed description of the action and crew running away from the tank. I personaly contacted Stuart when I found the film of the Tiger and he helped me get in touch with surviving veterans who took part in the action.

B) Imperial War Museum Film Archive. There you will find 2 rolls of film dated 27/6/44 taken by a cameraman called Handford that show the Tiger parked up and abandoned. He also filmed it being driven by British Soldiers.

C) Imperial; War Musem Photo Archive. This contains a photo of the Tiger parked beside a knocked out Panther. You can see it on page 107 of Restayns ‘Tiger On The Western Front’.

D) The Regimental Association for the Nottinghamshire Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry. They kindly provided me with names for the troopers who were filmed driving around on Tiger ‘114’. One of the men was actualy the Commanding Officer of the Regiment.

E) The REME Museum who were good enough to provide me with photos of Tiger ‘114’ being used as a test vehicle in the UK as well as a detailed 1945 report on the Tiger.

F)
[i]Appendix ‘E’ to
21stArmy Group RAC
Liaison Letter No.2

Extract from a Report to HQ Second Army from Col.A.G.Cole, DD of A
(No. 20 WTSFF)

The extract is of tank actions near RUARAY between 27 Jun. and 1 Jul.

SHERMAN - 75 MM GUNS.

4. Lt. Fearn angaged a PANTHER side on with his 75mm and APC
   It was moving about 12mph at 80 yds range and he brewed it up with
   one hit through the vertical plate above the back bogie

He saw his Squadron Commander engage a Tiger ( previously
examined by us) on the road. At 120 yds the Tiger was head on.
The 75mm put 3 shots on it and the crew bailed out without firing.
He put in 3 more. The tank brewed up. Four shots had scooped on
front plates.One had taken a piece out of the lower edge of the mantlet
and gone into the tank through the roof,and one had ricocheted off the
track and up into the sponson.

At another Panther he fired 5 shots with HE. The enemy
made off without retaliation.

5. Sgt Dring started out south from FONTENOY LE PESNIL with
   his 75mm and fell in with a MK IV which he shot through the drivors
   visor. It brewed up and the crew baled out.

Next he fell in with a Tiger at 1000 yds. The Tiger fired whilst Dring
was traversing but missed. Dtring then pumped 5 shots in without further
retaliation. The last one hit the drivers periscope and the crew baled out.
[u](this tank is believed to have been recovered for shipment to the UK.)[/u]

Next he came on a Panther at the cross roads, This he got with one shot
with APC in front of sprocket and the crew baled out. Hit at normal and at
about 500yds range. It brewed up

Next he took on a Tiger at 1400 yds just outside Rauray. He fired 6
shots of which 4 hit and the last one brewed it up. Tp. Cmdr. thought he had
missed it and only hit the wall behind. Sjt. Dring’s next shot brought the
sparks and the remark “You don’t see a brick wall spark like that”.
This tank has been seen and is much shot up. It now has one scoop in front
vertical plate, five penetrations in rear, four strikes with no penetrations in rear,
plus a scoop and one plate of engine hatch smashed

Finaly to the east of RAURAY he took on a MK IV at 1200 yds, fired two
HE ranging round and then one AP through the tracks, which went in and
finished it.[/i]

I read about this a couple of months ago. Maybe an inconvenient attempt to correct history…

You should have read more of it. It seems the ‘investigative’ reporter watched a film that had been edited. The whole of the action was done in one continious take but the reporter viewed a version that had several other scenes cut into it. Very bad work!

[RicemanCDN]

ok every tank has its problems but the tiger is notorious for manufacturer error

@Ivaylo

The panther was rarely in matenance shop ? It runned smoothly all the time ? the tracks rarely got broken ? the armor was superior to the russian and US ?

[Ivaylo]

@RicemanCDN

ok every tank has its problems but the tiger is notorious for manufacturer error

And not only for that - Tigers were capable of destroying the American Sherman or British Churchill IV at ranges exceeding 1,600 m. In contrast, the Soviet T-34 equipped with the 76.2 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, but could achieve a side penetration at approximately 500 m firing the BR-350P APCR ammunition. The T34-85’s 85 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger from the side at over 1,000 m. The IS-2’s 122 mm gun could destroy the Tiger at ranges exceeding 1,000 m from any aspect.From a 30 degree angle of attack the M4 Sherman’s 75 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80mm upper hull superstructure. The British 17-pounder as used on the Sherman Firefly, firing its normal APCBC ammunition, could penetrate frontally out to over 2,000 m. The US 76 mm gun, if firing the APCBC M62 ammunition, could penetrate the Tiger frontally out to just over 500 m, and could be at ranges in excess of 1,000 m to achieve penetration against the upper hull superstructure. Using HVAP ammunition, which was in constant short supply and primarily issued to tank destroyers, frontal penetrations were possible out to just over 1,500 m. It is worth mentioning that many of the penetration capabilities at longer ranges had little relevance compared to combat engagements of the real war, especially that which was fought in Western Europe, where engagements rarely happened outside of one kilometer due to dispersion and chance for human error, which is amplified greatly as range increases regardless of the ability of any cannon. For example, while a 17pdr could penetrate the front armor of a Tiger I at two kilometers in tests, during real combat, a 17pdr gunner would probably never find himself in a position to actually attempt such a feat.

As range decreases in combat, all guns can penetrate more armour (with the exception of HEAT ammunition, which was rare in World War II). The great penetrating power of the Tiger’s gun meant that it could destroy many of its opponents at ranges at which they could not respond. In open terrain, this was a major tactical advantage. Opposing tanks were often forced to make a flanking attack in order to knock out a Tiger. ( from wikipedia )

[Panzerknacker]

maybe but tell me in what the panther was so good ?

I already explained it in the earlier 24 pages of this topic.

As for the arguments well the Allies and the Soviets won the war which means that the german dream of the technical superiority was later lost in the war with tanks like Elephant , Panther and so on they wasn’t simply so good to stop the T-34 and IS-2 for example , unlike in the early years 40-42 .

A weak argument, with your line of thinking I could say that the Crusader tank was better than the Panzer IV because it was on the wining side or the F4F wilcat was better than the FW 190 because…the same reason.

Sometimes that kind of oversimplification let you far from the truth.

[RicemanCDN]

wait to prove your point threw wiki haha

@Ivaylo

And not only for that - Tigers were capable of destroying the American Sherman or British Churchill IV at ranges exceeding 1,600 m. In contrast, the Soviet T-34 equipped with the 76.2 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, but could achieve a side penetration at approximately 500 m firing the BR-350P APCR ammunition. The T34-85’s 85 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger from the side at over 1,000 m. The IS-2’s 122 mm gun could destroy the Tiger at ranges exceeding 1,000 m from any aspect.From a 30 degree angle of attack the M4 Sherman’s 75 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80mm upper hull superstructure. The British 17-pounder as used on the Sherman Firefly, firing its normal APCBC ammunition, could penetrate frontally out to over 2,000 m. The US 76 mm gun, if firing the APCBC M62 ammunition, could penetrate the Tiger frontally out to just over 500 m, and could be at ranges in excess of 1,000 m to achieve penetration against the upper hull superstructure. Using HVAP ammunition, which was in constant short supply and primarily issued to tank destroyers, frontal penetrations were possible out to just over 1,500 m. It is worth mentioning that many of the penetration capabilities at longer ranges had little relevance compared to combat engagements of the real war, especially that which was fought in Western Europe, where engagements rarely happened outside of one kilometer due to dispersion and chance for human error, which is amplified greatly as range increases regardless of the ability of any cannon. For example, while a 17pdr could penetrate the front armor of a Tiger I at two kilometers in tests, during real combat, a 17pdr gunner would probably never find himself in a position to actually attempt such a feat.

As range decreases in combat, all guns can penetrate more armour (with the exception of HEAT ammunition, which was rare in World War II). The great penetrating power of the Tiger’s gun meant that it could destroy many of its opponents at ranges at which they could not respond. In open terrain, this was a major tactical advantage. Opposing tanks were often forced to make a flanking attack in order to knock out a Tiger. ( from wikipedia )

[Ivaylo]

@RicemanCDN

wait to prove your point threw wiki haha

Anyway i don’t see anything funny wiki was not written by me , if you have something that you don’t agree write them to fix it .

[Ivaylo]

@Panzerknacker

I already explained it in the earlier 24 pages of this topic.

A weak argument, with your line of thinking I could say that the Crusader tank was better than the Panzer IV because it was on the wining side or the F4F wilcat was better than the FW 190 because…the same reason.

Sometimes that kind of oversimplification let you far from the truth.

Then why the Panther tanks didn’t won the Kursk battle ? The battle in Bastogne ? Because of the numbers of the enemy ? well aren’t they the best tank in that era as you say ?

[RicemanCDN]

yes but ur beiloved tiger didnt win the battle of kursk or bastogne…

@Ivaylo

Then why the Panther tanks didn’t won the Kursk battle ? The battle in Bastogne ? Because of the numbers of the enemy ? well aren’t they the best tank in that era as you say ?

[Ivaylo]

@RicemanCDN

yes but ur beiloved tiger didnt win the battle of kursk or bastogne…

Neither did the panther …

[Panzerknacker]

Then why the Panther tanks didn’t won the Kursk battle ? The battle in Bastogne ? Because of the numbers of the enemy ? well aren’t they the best tank in that era as you say ?

I have the feeling that I am talking with a deaf wall here, the problems of the Panther in Kursk had been already posted and discussed in this topic, bother to browse the first pages and you ll see.

The german failure of the battle of the Bulge could be resumed in 2 things, lack of fuel and lack of air support.

[Ivaylo]

@Panzerknacker

I have the feeling that I am talking with a deaf wall here, the problems of the Panther in Kursk had been already posted and discussed in this topic, bother to browse the first pages and you ll see.

The german failure of the battle of the Bulge could be resumed in 2 things, lack of fuel and lack of air support.

Well if you think that i am deaf wall then thanks a lot

[Panzerknacker]

Probably you are not a deaf wall…is just I had that feeling.:mrgreen:

False Panther

[fritzie101]

1st of all the photo above is a Kingtiger (but I’m sure eveyone reading this knows that, but it just shows you how much the"so called" experts know).
Second of all there is no question that the Panther was the best all around tank of the war. If the Germans had built 100,000(combined total of Shermans and T34s built) Panthers and if the Luftwaffe had air superioty or even parity with the US army air force this argument would be non existent. The reason that the Germans lost Kursk was that the Soviets could replace their losses and the Germans couldn’t (the Germans actually won if you go by pure number of losses). The reason the Panther did so poorly At Kursk is that it was rushed into action before it was ready.Guderian didn’t even declare the Panther combat ready until summer 1944. The reason the Germans didn’t win at Bastogne was that that the US had overwhelming Air superioty once the weather cleared.the other factor was the German’s lack of fuel.The best tank in the world becomes an anti tank artillery piece without fuel. The allied soldier’s bravery, persistence and ingenuity was also a huge factor in both victorys despite their equipment.

The T34 and Sherman were both good Tanks(especially the Sherman firefly , 76mm Sherman with wet stowage and the T34/85) but if you asked a T34 or Sherman Commander which tank they would want in a one on one  battle with crews with similar training and experience I am willing to bet most would choose the Panther or the Tiger. The only reason the Tiger looses is simply because it was way too complicated to mass produce. (Although the Panther's 75 mm high velocity gun actually performed better than the Tiger I's shorter 88mm gun against enemy tanks)

In closing how many times have you heard a Panther or Tiger crew say they fired at a T34 or Sherman and it bounced off? never, but you can’t say the same about the T34 or Sherman. Even an M1A2 Abrams,Leopard 2 or Challenger2 is going to lose if they are out numbered 1000 to 1 without fuel and overwhelming enemy air superiority.

I also want to say that the allied tanker’s ingenuity and bravery was the most important factor in their victory.The American/commonwealth tank crews especially, fought on in tanks they knew were outgunned and out armored.

[Ivaylo]

@Panzerknacker

Probably you are not a deaf wall…is just I had that feeling.:mrgreen:

False Panther

thanks a lot that sound much better , as for the panther i just wanted to make some dispute not anything personal , just i wanted to put my thoughts and questions and you to put yours . Yesterday i watched a film over youtube about the battle of Kursk definately saying that Panther was the "best tank in the world at that time " well i think i have to take my words back
Here is the link if anyone is interested : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpFyQje6Lo&feature=related

[Splinter54]

Hello gentlemen.

Would be way easier if the old tactical numeral codex would be like nowadays codes, when searching for the unit - i got no information about those pictures.
It’s an Ausf. D, probably Kursk?

The Panther tanks tactical number is I14 - probably a command vehicle?
Note the Brummbär and the StuG’s III Ausf G with Saukopfblende in the background

Target practice?

Note the PzFst 60m the girl got over the shoulder on that Bergepanther.
It’s said, that that picture was taken near Malovidy in Mittelböhmen.

Pretty much stuff they got loaded onto the engines compartement - note that some Schürzen plates got Zimmerit on them.

Something to play with - France 1946

A Panther in the Netherlands - not the Iron Cross being painted on the frontal plate

Another picture of one of those Fahrschul Panthers [note the gas tanks]

A picture from a Wochenschau footage '45 - note the attachments for camouflage on the Schürzenplates

Tank riders - note the Erdziellafette for the groups lMg

Killed the Panther - with his bajonet [note the Garand with the sideweapon attached to it] - PzLehr

PzLehr - a picture for the homefront.

Definately a fake - but as good as that six-barreled Msta-S 152 mm self-propelled howitzer

[flamethrowerguy]

-Looking at the commandant’s cuppola I’d go for a D-version on “633” as well. Kursk could be a possibility given the landscape.

• “I14” should be a regular tank of the “Abteilungsstab” (battalion staff) of the 1st Abteilung (battalion) of the respective tank regiment. However “14” is an unusually high number for a staff unit.

[Churchill]

I like the two-barrelled one.

[Uyraell]

@galex

I see…but for the 3 victorious leaders, the tank was much more important than it’s crew…remember the Allied saying during the Normandy campaign? : ammunition, not people.

It is sad, I recognize, but for the good to triumph, it has always been necesarly the sacrifice of it’s defenders…as one historian said (I don’t exactly remember his name) , the tree of liberty must constantly be wet with the heroes’ blood … otherwise it dries up and dies.

Your Quote cites Thomas Jefferson, one of the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence.
As Best I recall it, Jefferson wrote:

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.”

[system]

i voted sherman all the way

[PANZERCOMMANDER]

Canada’s Panther: