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

The Panther is a better tank than the T-34. Why do I say so? Well guys do not look at the fact that the Panther had a weak engine and thus make it out as sh*t. IF the Panther were build in the same numbers as the T-34 what do you think would have happend?

Combat and Experience Report on the Action near Wilkowischken from 9 to 11 August 1944 by Oberfeldwebel Heinz Bergmann of the 4. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment 26 (Extract from T. Jentz’s Panther book, courtesy of Rob White’s Panther page).

The East Prussian border was threatened. The enemy had succeeded in reaching Wilkowischken. Counter measures were initiated. During the night of 8/9 August, heavy Panzers, Artillerie, Fusiliers, Grenadiers and Flak came rolling together on the roads Ebenrode-Eydtkau-Wirballen and gathered in the assembly area. It is the best division in the East, “Grosssdeutchland” with its attached units. The fire fighters of the East as they are called. It had the objectives of pushing back this corner of the Front and to retake Wilkowischken.
The assembly area was lit by the dawn and quiet reigned. A gigantic portrait of military might and power had gathered here in a confined area. Punctually at the ordered time for the attack, the motors started and their droning ripped through the still of the morning. Like an avalanche, the impregnable spearhead rolled toward the enemy main battle line and bored through. Closely followed by the Fusiliers and Grenadiers enlivened by a spirit to attack against which every resistance must break. Also, the enemy is awakened and sent his artillery and motar shells against the juggernaut.
Enemy destroyer aircraft attack in waves attempting to force a halt. Fountains of earth climb skyward. Sheds in which the enemy take cover, go up in smoke and flames. Unstoppable, the spearhead advanced toward Wilkowischken, grinding guns and positions underneath. Often in man-to-man combat, the Fusiliers and Grenadiers engage the tough and stubborn enemy. At about 1200 hours, the city is in our hands. The battlefield shows the mark of heavy combat. The enemy has lost large quantities of both men and material. Positions were established to defend the city.
Toward the southeast, in the rear of the city, two Panthers pulled into their defensive area. Russian tanks were reported. Not a half hour had passed when four Russian tanks approached the city from from the southeast. They were spotted immediately, but the range was still too long. Then they disappeared into a depression. Will they come up again is the question. There, somewhat left, all four appeared in a line at a range of 1300 meters. Now their full size was seen and the defenders opened fire. Five shots quickly followed each other and three columns of smoke stand out against the sky. The fourth was lucky to turn right and disappeared into a patch of woods. Was it only an advanced spearhead? Will still more follow or were they recon vehicles? The eyes of the commanders search the terrain. But nothing stirs.

[CENTER]

Twilight slowly enveloped the terrain in darkness. What will the next day bring? Will the Russians try to counterattack and retake the city or not? The leader decided to change to another position to get a better field of fire. During the night running motors from moving tanks were heard. Toward morning, a Panther was called back for resupply and the other Panther had to take over the entire defense.
Daybreak has long since passed and an attack was no expected when out of the depression at full speed fourteen Russian tanks carrying infantry charged toward the defending Panther. The loader was outside well away from the Panther finishing his business when shelling forced him to take cover. This made the situation more difficult. The driver took his place and fire was opened at a range of 1000 meters. Shot after shot was sent toward the attacker. The enemy had charged to within 600 meters turned right and disappeared into a hole. Four enemy tanks remained as smoking wrecks on the track. An immediate call on the radio alerted the defenders positioned further to the north. They managed to destroy six of the ten remaining tanks. Driving wildly, the rest escaped. An attack behind our front had been repulsed and cost the enemy heavy losses.
Again the defending Panther changed his position. After an hour, the second Panther returned from being resupplied and took up his defensive position. The enemy hadn’t given up their attempt to enter the city. During the afternoon, the enemy with an infantry battalion supported by four SU assault guns, under cover of the tall corn fields, tried twice to break in from the southeast. But, both attacks were completely repulsed by the two defending Panthers. All four SU assault guns that took part in both of these attacks were shot up. Two Panthers defending the city from the south and southeast had broke up two tank and two infantry attacks. The enemy suffered the loss of eleven tanks and very heavy losses of men.
[/CENTER]

Now that just proves the Panther were superior, but just think if there were the same numbers of the German heavy tanks in the battle of Kursk then it would have turned out not the way it did.

Not quite - it demonstrates that as a tank the Panther is superior. When you start throwing in production numbers and realise that you can get maybe 20 T-34 derivatives for the cost of one Panther it becomes rather less clear.

Hi Chevan,

You are perfectly right!
Soviet industry and their decision makers concentrated, (as well as Americans), on one kind of chassis on which they build different versions.
Even Sherman had it’s predecessor - Grant.

Germans tried to build “wonder” each time they approached design board.
I will not even mention their crazy ideas like “Mouse”…
Our Panzerknacker friend is a real specialist in this field!
Just think how much energy Germans wasted designing and even producing prototypes of such useless monsters…

Cheers,

Lancer44

you can get maybe 20 T-34 derivatives for the cost of one Panther it becomes rather less clear
.

20 x T-34 = a single Panther ¡¡… :shock: :shock: …as far as I know the Panther weight 44 tons not 440 tons.

Ausf D.

One of the threads on the topic of the best tank of WW2 at The History Channel forums:

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300018732&tstart=75&mod=1162554307158

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300018732&start=15&tstart=75

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300018732&start=30&tstart=75

A few examples of the many posts:

Panzerknacker he meant the Russians could build 20 T-34 for the price of one Panther, but I just want to ad the Germans thought to big and produced these heavy machines that had a lot of power but just frankly took to long to build and were to expensive. They could stand there ground greatly but they could not produce enough of them to be fully usefull.

Panzerknacker there’re a lot of stories when Tiger or Panther being in ambush or use a tactical suddenness shoted a big number of medium allies tanks. Look for instance 27 jule of 1944 Ernst Barkman on the its Panther meeted the US tank column and hited 9 Shermans for the single battle.
Or like Michael Wittmann in the Villers-Bocage killed 21 british tanks (Cromwell, Sherman and Farefly) and other 28 armoured vechicles ONLY FOR 20 MINUTES(!!!)
But all this stories just prove the Panzer and Tiger (being the heavy tanks) could be very danger in defence or ambush. But in the attack they weren’t so good and allies tankers could effectively fight with germans. Becouse Germans “monsters” were often too slow and vulnerable. Look for instance to the battle 13 august 1944 in Poland when leutenant Oskin on the T-34-85 shooted 3 King Tigers and fired one.

Cheers.

Panzercnacker is right .
One Panther couldn’t be equal the 20 T-34 in production. Indeed the prime cost of the production of one Panther was no more then two Pz-IV (i.e. 3 or maybe 4 T-34-85) . Certainly not 20 T-34.
And i have to convince that German strategy of limited production of heavy tanks since 1943 ( which were very effective in defence) was very right and succesfull becouse after 1943 germany really wage a deffence war and only total war resources and material superiority (thanks for the god) helped us to win the war.
Even if Germans could prodused instead of 6 000 Panthers in 1943-45 — 12 000 of Pz-IV they could prepeared so much professionals tankers ( 60 000 mens of crew). Therefore German tank strategy was right and 1850 Tigers were much effective then 5000 or 7000 Pz-IV.

Cheers.

The T-34/85 hands down --more reliable and it was on the winning side…

That’s right Nickdfresh :smiley:

Even thou I voted for the T-34 myself I kinda surprised no one voted for the Sherman. Of course when you mention tank I guess more ppl think of the ETO than the PTO.

Panzerknacker he meant the Russians could build 20 T-34 for the price of one Panther, but I just want to ad the Germans thought to big and produced these heavy machines that had a lot of power but just frankly took to long to build and were to expensive. They could stand there ground greatly but they could not produce enough of them to be fully usefull

Dont be confused HG, as Chevan said the T-34 was not that cheap, the diference lay in the large availability of raw material and the fact that the russian cam manufacture their weapons undisturbed by long range bombers…the germans did not.

But all this stories just prove the Panzer and Tiger (being the heavy tanks) could be very danger in defence or ambush. But in the attack they weren’t so good and allies tankers could effectively fight with germans. Becouse Germans “monsters” were often too slow and vulnerable. Look for instance to the battle 13 august 1944 in Poland when leutenant Oskin on the T-34-85 shooted 3 King Tigers and fired one

You are right , if you can manage to get in the sides of a Panther the armor was helpless, the 40-45 side plate cannot withstand even a 75 american gun. Anyway if you give to the Panther a little space in fight, let say 1000 meters open field…well watch out of that 75 mm mm high speed cannon. It penetrate 10 % more steel that the 88 from tiger 1.

Kursk:

Despite Guderian’s warnings, Hitler’s desire to employ these tanks in the up-coming “Operation Zitadelle” (the assault on the Kursk salient) conducted to a disaster. Not fully developed Panther were simply too ready to mechanical faults and the engine easily over-heated: of the 200 Panthers the 4th Panzer Armee had on July 4th 1943 (most in the ad-hoc formed 10th Panzerbrigade with panzer abteilung 51 and 52 and the others assigned to several companies of privileged units such as the GD and the IInd SS Panzerkorps’s divisions) only 43 were still functional the following day (note that Panther’s problems were known as the large complement of tanks to the two battalions was seen as remedy to this). Grossdeautschland Panzerregiment reported to have lost six of its brand new Panthers while moving towards the attack positions because of technical failures. In the mid-day of July 4th the same unit had a quarter of its Panther broken-down and by July 5th it has lost the 80% of its Panthers! Gefreiter Werner Kriegel of Pz.Abt. 51 remembers:

“[…] By the evening of 5th, Pz.Abt. 51 had only 22 Panthers operationa. Some 28 were totally destroyed, the rest damaged. My comrades complained about the final final drives and of their engines overheating. The engine compartiment was very tight because of UK equipment (diving equipement) … On the 8th of July we again headed for Oboyan south of Kursk. Our tank received a hit form a tank gun at the commander’s cupola. We carried on the attack with an open hatch and a cracked cupola. My commander shill has the shell … We lost one tank to one of those heavy assault guns [SU-152], the mantlet was simply penetrated. We also met American tanks [M3A3 Lee-Grant] which were no match for us … We destroyed a number of T-34s at ranges well over 2,500 meters …”

Cost for the steel, etc. will be similar. The problem comes when you allow for the fact that the Panthers were a much more complicated beast, built to much closer tolerances and with more finely machined parts.
While it is still possible to built such machines without the use of highly skilled labour, it needs very advanced production engineering techniques, statistical process control and the like. The only nation on earth capable of doing this at the time (and for many years afterwards until Deming went to Japan) was the United States - hence the massive production of all sorts of weaponry in the US.
The Russians got around this problem by design - the overwhelming majority of their weapons were designed to be made from very roughly machined parts, with loose tolerances, and to work anyway. Hence, they’re crude but they work and can also be produced in huge numbers with an unskilled workforce such as they found themselves with when the factories were reestablished behind the Urals.
Germany tried to make complex, closely toleranced machines with an unskilled labour force (the skilled labour was largely off at the front, and they were using a mix of unskilled German, skilled foreign and slave labour instead) and without the genius the US were applying to production engineering. It didn’t work, hence the immense US and Soviet production totals in comparison to the German ones.

Incidentally, the UK had similar problems to Germany if less severely because they used their skilled labour better (keeping it in factories rather than sending it to the front). UK war production was ultimately limited by labour availablility however.

The Centurion tank would not measure up very well against the Panther when it came out in 45/46. A couple of reasons:

650 horsepower ( 13 hp/t ) to the 700 + for the panther ( 15hp /t). This translated to a lower top speed ( 34 km/h ) than the Panther ( 45km/h )

A crash gear box transmission which was extremely difficult to operate. Mobility was severely hampered until the British redesigned the transmission several years later.

The Centurion had less armour on the front where it was most needed than a Panther.

To suggest that a Sherman or T34 was the better tank based on the thousands manufactured is not really addressing the real issue of battlefield performance. All that does is identify the massive economic power of the US and Russia.

If I was a tanker in WWII, I would be most concerned about the ability to kill the enemy before they could kill me. That concern is remedied by having the gun to kill at long range and the armour to protect me.

Take the Tiger over the Panther.

As a gun platform the Tiger was extremely stable with interleaved roadwheels which provided for a very smooth ride even over rough ground.

The 88 while not having the highest velocity, had the mass of shell to punch through heavier armour at long range whereas the 75 of the Panther would shatter or bounce off. The ability to reach out and touch someone from long range ( 1500 yds out to 3000 yds on the Russian plain ) allowed the Tiger to dominate a battlefield by engaging the enemy first.

The optics and ranging equipment to use the 88 to its fullest. The Allies did not have range finding equipment built into their gun optics. They could not even hope to hit a German tank at long range let alone penetrate.

The armour was of the highest quality rolled homogenous steel plate, and was considered to of a higer quality than the Panther, which was somewhat brittle. Although not sloped like the Panther, it was thick enough to stop all Allied guns except for very late in the war with the apperance of 100mm + anti tank guns.

It was far more mobile than many think with a ground pressure that was almost identical to the Sherman. In fact with its wide tracks, it had better off road ability than the Sherman. Also, it had regenerative steering which allowed it to turn 360 sitting in one place. A Sherman’s turning circle was 32 feet. A Tiger could pivot in one spot always presenting it’s thick frontal armour to the enemy.

German army records indicate that Tigers averaged 9 - 12 kills for every Tiger.

I would rather be in a Tiger.

Guy, are you sure about the armor?

The figures I have are:

Pzkw V Ausf G
max. armor
turret front 110mm
upper hull front glacis plate 80mm

Pzkw V Ausf F
max. armor
turret mantlet 120mm
upper hull front glacis plate 80mm

Centurion Mark I (Prototype) never went into full production.
turret mantlet 152mm
upper hull front glacis plate 76mm

Centurion Mark II (A41A) prototype produced January 1945, first production model.
turret mantlet 152mm
upper hull front glacis plate 118mm

sources:

Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, Revised Edition, Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, Arms and Armour Press, 1993, pp 124-126.

British and American Tanks of World War II, Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, pp 52-53.

Centurion tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank

Sure Panzerknacker, first Panthers in the Kursk battle weren’t a good. Also we know the “sad” story about Elephant/Ferdinand self-propelled gun in Kursk.
About hundred Ferdinands were practically all destroed by the soviet infantry becouse this monsters (which was deadly for the soviet tanks) hadn’t machin gan and it was so slow.
By the way first SU-152 on chassi KV-1( developed in 1943) which took part in Kursk battle showed itself as effective mean to fight any german armored technics.

Cheers.

All this is true pdf.
In the soviet tanks plants there’re a lot of women and even 12-14 children workers becouse the enourmous lost of mens population in first period of war.
And certainly soveit tanks production line was less complicated then germans or allies.
But have you accurate figures of prime cost of the production (or total labor expense and the materials) for the one Panther. I think no, becouse in this way you figure 20 T-34 = 1 Panther will be another.
What i read that Germans made a great forces to to reduce the cost of production of Panther. We have the statistic figures : sine 1943-45 were made about 6 000 Panthers, 7 000 Pz IV and 1850 Tigers.(i.e. Panthers were the most mass the heavy tank) And i read that Panther’s production were the best (in comparision with other germans tank) in the relation effectiveness/price.

Cheers.

Something of interest.
What do reenactors use for their tanks?
Without seeming overly enthusiastic or or hawty in my questioning, it is simply a matter of curiosity for me—
Where, if one wanted an original Tiger or Panther, look?
And what would be the initial cost of obtaining one?
Demilled guns, of course.
I have seen individuals on the web who own originals, but I have never found any sales or ways or places they have obtained them.
I ssume the cost would be great?
I would be willing to go a certain amount, but I am guessing they would be out of range. Certainly more than say, a Corvette?
It would be interesting, historically speaking, and one could be used as learning aides for schools, and demonstrations.
Surely, it is out of range for me, I suppose.
But, curiosity is overwhelming.

Sure Panzerknacker, first Panthers in the Kursk battle weren’t a good. Also we know the “sad” story about Elephant/Ferdinand self-propelled gun in Kursk.
About hundred Ferdinands were practically all destroed by the soviet infantry becouse this monsters (which was deadly for the soviet tanks) hadn’t machin gan and it was so slow.
By the way first SU-152 on chassi KV-1( developed in 1943) which took part in Kursk battle showed itself as effective mean to fight any german armored technics.

A very interesting picture. A captured Panther ausf D in the bulge with the inscription “tiger” ( or at list in achtungpanzer said it so) in the glacis plate.

I wonder if this explain the large amount of “Tigers” claimed as destroyed for the Kursk defences, more than 200 when only there was 147 operative Tigers and less than 30 were actually knocked out.