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

World War II German Military
#381

Hello gentlemen.

Some Volkssturm militants using a Panther Ausf. G to practice with the Hafthohlladung. - Note that the Panther had no camouflage pattern applied to it [yet?]. January 1945

Note the interessting camouflage pattern of that Panther Ausf. G crossing a Westwall defense gate.

And now to finish the post a nice profile painting showing off a very late Ausf. G - note the very provisional FlA-MG mounting.
Another interessting fact is, that the Rohrwischgerät-Tube was set upon the engines compartement, as it had been on some early Ausf. A and late Ausf.D.

Greetings :wink:

#382

I am scratch building a Panther G in 1/6 scale out of styrene. The pics are a great help with some of the small detal areas. Have some good close ups from Aberdeen and the Patton Museum.

#383

I’m building one out of mashed potatos. just kidding I couldn’t help myself

#384

I find this poll a bit of a set up. It wants the M4a1 to look worse then the T34. If this was honest it would have compared the M4a1 to the T34/76 and not the T34/85. So I will use the T34/76.

Tiger
Panther
M4a1
T34/76
Having the tank commander just be the commander makes for a much better tank. Having radio makes groups of tanks many times more effective.

If I had to go 200K and go into battle I would like the M4a1.

If the we use the the M4a1-76 and the T34/85 then I would change to the following.

Tiger
Panther
M4a1-76, T34/85
With the late model M4’s and T34/85 bith have plus and minus points compared to each other and are about equal. I would still stay in the M4a1-76 for 200K and then battle.

My last point is that in almost every forum if Russian tanks or planes win against US equipment it is better design. If US tanks or plans wins it is always because of better crews. The Russian gear is never worse.

#385

Another interessting fact is, that the Rohrwischgerät-Tube was set upon the engines compartement

Is that a silencer or what ?

#386

Barrel cleaning rod tube.Fancy name for tube where they kept the cleaning rod segments and spare antenna masts. If the tube was on the engine deck it was usually a field modification.

There are some inaccuracies in the above painting, the louvres over the engine grills should only be on the right side,this illustration is from aj press panther volume 1 they are up to volume 8 and have corrected that on their current renderings and scale drawings

#387

I’m unabashed in support for the Panther, especially a G series.
Yes, it had it’s drawbacks, as does any armoured vehicle of any nation in WW2 or since. (Better yet, the Panther F, or Panther 2, either of which was a world-beater had they been fielded operationally : :wink: yes yes, discounting the enemy numbers argument for the sake of simplicity).

However; while I look with enthusiasm upon the Tiger1, it has lack of speed both across the ground and in time to re-align the turret against it. Witmann is recorded as having stated he simply aligned the tank with his targets in preference to traversing the turret: and at 720 turns of the traverse wheel for a full 360 degrees I can see why Witmann shifted the vehicle instead. Add the slow maximum speed of driving that the Tiger1 suffered from, and it becomes, as alluded to elsewhere in this thread, a tank best employed in defence rather than offence.

While there is much in favour of the T34 , My view is that in general they were poorly employed, and that endless waves of them would eventually overwhelm whatever they were sent against. Thus, the numbers issue actually detracts from the T34’s allure, in my view.

Which brings us to the unfortunate cousin in the bunch, the dear old Ronson, aka M4 Sherman. I have somewhere in my many books a reference that the German’s referred to the Shermans as “Ronsons” in contemptuous tones because like that well-known American lighter, the Sherman “Lights First Time, Every Time”. (The Ronson lighters Advertising slogan). Certainly argument can be made that the later Shermans were less prone to becoming mobile crematoria (which is how the British viewed them, along with their own tanks, the late model Churchills being the exception), however, they remained a comparatively easy “kill” for any German tank from the Pz4-H onwards. In my view, that discounts the Sherman, for what amounts to the flipside of the T34 coin : the huge numbers count as “against” rather than in favour.

Taking all the above into account, and freely acknowledging it as personal opinion, which is what the thread sought from each contributor : “Best tank in combat”.
Definitely Panther.
The Panther is the Tank in which I’d prefer to go into offensive combat were it necessary, and rely on My fellow soldiers in the Tiger 1 for defence.
As such I’d take the Panther, or its’ big brother, the KingTiger.

Regards, Uyraell.

#388

I agree the Panther was probably the best overall tank design of the War. If the Germans had had more time to perfect the model with its problematic gearbox, and perhaps simplified production, it would have been the best overall. And I’ve never been overly enthusiastic about the Tiger.

But the Sherman’s main “Ronson” designation came from the lack of wet stowage early on, once this problem was fixed, they were much less likely to “light on the first strike.” I’d also remind you that the Panther was also gas/petrol powered, making it susceptible to brewing up if a Sherman or T-34 were able to hit it from behind…

The Sherman was a very good, flexible design that served effectively in wars into the 1970s as it was very simple and adaptable. The problem was the lack of enthusiasm for US Army Ground Forces Command to seek improvements and the later variants such as the M4A3E8 “Easy 8” before D-Day. This is coupled with the lack of proper tungsten core ammo for their 76mm gun that came too late to remove this stigma which I think is overstated and somewhat undeserved. Even the argument that the 75mm gun was better against nonarmored targets and infantry might be a little overstated as the 76mm guns were prized for their penetration against bunkers. Tigers were actually rare in Normandy, with like maybe 80 to 100 total, so they were still fairly rare. More than half of the panzers were improved Panzer Mark IVs augmented by Stugs or Jagdpanzers, for which is a better comparison for the upgraded Shermans. Furthermore, USAGFC were still believers in the “Tank Destroyers Doctrine” even after US field commanders knew that it was inherently flawed - especially on the offensive, began requesting fewer and fewer TD units, and were finding alternative uses for the tank destroyers the sometimes highlighted their weaknesses. And we can even get into the fact that the M-26 Pershing could have been available much sooner for the later stages of the Breakout…

#389

Hello Nickdfresh,
Yes, what you say regarding the Sherman is correct, and I don’t as such dispute it.

Where I should perhaps have drawn more distinction is this : while the Sherman was, in design terms, a reasonably successful vehicle (its’ survival into the modern era having sufficiently proven that point), it was nonetheless a relatively easy kill in combat.

Granted, the Army doctrine regarding tanks was fundamentally flawed (you have my agreement, there), in My eyes the design parameters of the Sherman, good though they were, did not endow it with the survival traits it needed in combat, which, added to the reputation of the early “dry stowage” models, tends to reduce it’s significance as a combat vehicle, once the numbers argument is set aside.

Yes, it was a viable and flexible design, yes, it did valuable work, in combat terms.
However, my personal view is that despite all that, the Sherman remains a relatively poor combat vehicle.

Regarding the M26: I agree it would have matched the Panther, being essentially a tank
armed as a TD. ((Slightly off topic, but I’ve always found it personally replusive that the M26 was so delayed, essentially by REMFs who were busy career-building while combat troops lost their lives for lack of decent equipment/vehicles with which to go into combat. And yes, every military force suffers the same problem.))

As a further aside, some of the Sherman’s near-relatives, such as the M10, the Achilles, would have been far better, had they had enclosed instead of open turrets, and existed in the numbers the Sherman itself did. Had the thread mentioned those variants in it’s original question, I’d have had to pause over the Panther, because the later Models of US Tank Destroyers such as the Achilles or it’s 90-mm M3 gun equipped cousin (M36 “Jackson”?) would have been a fine match against the Panther.

Regards, Uyraell.

#390

I think it might be the M36 “Slugger”. If it isn’t, darn you Blitzkrieg!!!

#391

It’s both. Officially named the “Jackson,” tank destroyer crews also referred to them as Sluggers unofficially…

#392

Interestingly Uyraell,

Two advancing Panther tanks were knocked out by a single M-10 Wolverine TD as they were probing the outer defenses of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge using a 76mm M3 and HVAP ammo. The Germans then thought they were up against stronger forces than they really were and delayed an assault into the town…

#393

Thank you Churchill, :slight_smile:
I knew the “Slugger” name, but had thought that to be a “field name” used by in-theater troops as opposed to the “official” name “Jackson”, about which, to be honest, memory is a little doubtful. Reason for that is, it has been a few years since I last looked at M36 data.

Regards, Uyraell.

#394

Thank you, Nickdfresh :D,
On both the M36 info and the Wolverine event.
Had not recalled that tale, or had not known it, uncertain which, though to be honest, since I have few references to American TDs and fewer still to those in British employ.
Oddly, while a reasonably large amount of info seems to exist on the Sherman in it’s guise as a tank, the TD variants seem to “go missing” info-wise. I have found researching Valentine tank info to be as difficult, regarding the later models of its’ TD variant, Archer.
Regards, Uyraell.

#395

There is no reason why a Wolverine with 76mm HVAP or APDS ammo couldn’t kill a Panther. HVAP could penetrate 120-30mm at 500m or 125 at 1000m. Bearing in mind a Panthers armour was approx

Hull Front : 80mm
Hull Side Upper : 50mm
Hull Side Lower : 40mm
Turret Front : 100mm
Sides : 45mm
Mantle : 100mm

it’s eminently possible.

#396

True, and I didn’t wish to give impression I thought otherwise, only that that recorded incident hadn’t remained in my memory.
Thank you for the data.
Regards, Uyraell.

#397

just adding my 2 cents…
The panther was the best one.
Ok, you can claim that the Sherman/ t-34 were built in greater numbers, but, neither the Ural factories nor the American factories were being bomber on a daily basis. That makes all the difference.
If the German factories managed to keep the production quality to “German standards” even during heavy bombing, imagine how things would be should they enjoyed the peace of the Soviet and American factories ? Maybe all those “mechanical” issues blamed of the panther would simply not exist…I don’t fancy the idea of working with bombs falling around me…do you ?
And who can blame the Germans for wanting better protection for the crews ?
Same thing happening today in the Merkava philosophy. Crews are the most important asset, nothing can replace combat expertise. ( btw, the Israelite choose the panther gun to upgrade the Sherman´s, and they still did quite a job cleaning the arab tanks)
In a 5 on 5 tank battle, without air support, or massive artillery shelling, the panther would lick away any of the contenders, while the t-34 commander would be waving flags to send orders to the other tanks, and tapping the gunner on the shoulder to give order, the panther would simply radio the orders. That is not just “props”, its a valuable battle field advantage.
Barkman´s corner ring´s a bell ?
Other important detail is the attention payed to escape hatches, Panther had 4 for 5 crew members, t-34 had 3 for 5 guys.

If I could choose in which tank to ride to war, the panther would be my steed.

#398

There is no reason why a Wolverine with 76mm HVAP or APDS ammo couldn’t kill a Panther. HVAP could penetrate 120-30mm at 500m or 125 at 1000m. Bearing in mind a Panthers armour was approx

That is correct , however the HVAP ammunition supply was severely restricted up to July 1944.

#399

One photo for the freak, maniac, obsessed modeller. Panther ausf A after long front service.

Note the polished innner roadwheel rims, evidently the rubber was completely worn out by the track teeth.

#400

Other nice ones, this is for a good diorama ( I never had patiente to build that ) the Panther “221” belonging to 4th panzerregiment based in North Italy. This is an ausf D with ausf A turret.