German PzKpfw V Panther tank

Let's compare it with the M4 then
>Heavy as fuck
Not a problem if you have the logistics to deal with it

>Underpowered engine
690hp / 45 tons / 15hp per ton
400hp / 30 tons / 13hp per ton

>Catches fire
Modifications were made to fix this issue

>Very poor frontal armor
Hull:
P: 80mm @ 55 degrees
S: 63mm @ 47 degrees
Turret:
P: 100mm mantlet, cilynder shaped
S: 76.2mm @ 30 degrees for 88mm effective

>Gun mantlet could bounce incoming shells
Fixed on later models with thicker lower armor and a vertical armor piece at the bottom

>Very expensive to produce and maintain
"One source has cited the cost of a Panther tank as 117,100 Reichmarks (RM). This compared with 82,500 RM for the StuG III, 96,163 RM for the Panzer III, 103,462 RM for the Panzer IV, and 250,800 RM for the Tiger I. These figures did not include the cost of the armament and radio."

>Terrible suspension system which made it a nightmare
Difficult to maintain, but extremely effective at weight dispersion over the track due to more contact surfaces, see >Average lifespan of final drives was around 150km
The engine became more reliable over time. A French assessment of their stock of captured Normandy Panther A's in 1947 concluded that the engine had an average life of 1,000 km (620 mi) and maximum life of 1,500 km (930 mi).

>Because of the previous statement, for replacing the damaged drives you had to completely dismount the drive wheels along with the tracks.
True

>Awful kill/loss rateo, probably one of the worst during the entire war
How many of those were in tank to tank, and not due to massive air superiority from the allies during later parts of the war?

>Considered by most fucktards as "the best tanks of the ww2"
There is no best tank of WW2, it simply excels at the task it was designed for: Long range antitank combat on large open battlefields

>hill climbing.
nope
Churchill has it beat

>air superiority
yeah... except aircraft rarely succeded in destroying a tank.
sure, they knocked out factories, disrupted logistics and sometimes maybe blown a track off one, but air-to-tank kills are a very marginal number.

>Fixed on later models.
Yeah. Panther was not a good tank from the start. It was going to be a good tank.
But before they could finalize the project and focus on one mass-produced design, war ended.

>>Catches fire
>Modifications were made to fix this issue
Well not really, it was improved but still was a pretty common issue.

>Gun mantlet could bounce incoming shells
>Fixed on later models with thicker lower armor and a vertical armor piece at the bottom
True, but when they noticed the war was nearly ended.

>Terrible suspension system which made it a nightmare
>Difficult to maintain, but extremely effective at weight dispersion over the track due to more contact surfaces
Only because of its wide tracks. You could do the same on the M4 Sherman by mounting "Duckbills" track extensions (or even 37 inch ones), which greatly improved the weight distribution especially on muddy terrain.

>Average lifespan of final drives was around 150km
The engine became more reliable over time. A French assessment of their stock of captured Normandy Panther A's in 1947 concluded that the engine had an average life of 1,000 km (620 mi) and maximum life of 1,500 km (930 mi).
I'm talking about transmission, not the engine. And believe me the French didnt have said much nice things about that either...

>Awful kill/loss rateo, probably one of the worst during the entire war
>How many of those were in tank to tank, and not due to massive air superiority from the allies during later parts of the war?
I had a brief talk with Nicholas Moran who provided me some stats, but the most were against american Sherman tanks. The kill/loss rateo had a maximum peak of 7 Panthers destroyed for 1 Sherman destroyed (no planes involved).

>Considered by most fucktards as "the best tanks of the ww2"
>There is no best tank of WW2, it simply excels at the task it was designed for: Long range antitank combat on large open battlefields
I agree with that, but I was mostry referring to those idiots who at everything they see with a Wermacht logo on it they immediatly say that it was the best thing ever.

>Yeah. Panther was not a good tank from the start. It was going to be a good tank.
>But before they could finalize the project and focus on one mass-produced design, war ended.

Here's the Panzer IV K prototype which could have been developed instead of the Panther. Sadly they decided to discard this project for unknown reasons.

Attached: 4e773329-d189-4e86-aa13-aba9914dcb47.jpg (1280x657, 62K)

>I agree with that, but I was mostry referring to those idiots who at everything they see with a Wermacht logo on it they immediatly say that it was the best thing ever.
the hip new thing to do is to go "acshually everysthing german was shit"

LOL, then why nearly every book and documentary talks about how german inventions were "beyond their time" when actually everything they made from 1941 to the end of the was was an useless waste of money and resources?
Not everything made by germans was shit, but the vast majority of it was.

I think the reason is that the Panzer IV couldn't carry all the additional weight

Attached: GER_Panzer_IV_K.jpg (800x600, 155K)

Because it’s true.

Who says Sherman was the worst?
The T-34/41 was easily the worst medium tank of the war, with its issues not being fully resolved until the T-34/85 series.
Or if we're considering all “Medium” tanks, then the BT-7.

>Who says Sherman was the worst?
Wehraboos, aka those people who don't know shit about weapons and tanks. Ez

>everything they made from 1941 to the end of the was was an useless waste of money and resources
never post here agian

Actually the armor skirts weren't very useful, but the wire mesh was more lightweight and also most effective

Because people is afraid of the truth? Alright then...

The Pz.IV K wasn't heavier than the H or J.

Your statement is stupid enough to not only show that you have next to no idea what you are talking about but also the fact that you are to stubborn to change your mind even when confronted with facts that state otherwise. I will refuse to argue with you based on that alone

I have a friend / coworker who is a Wehraboo, who quite often cracks the “Shermans burned easily because they were gasoline powered, huyk huyk huyk” bullshit.
So I asked him what powered the German tanks.
“Diesel”
... YOU STUPID FUCKING WANKER!

>Considered by most fucktards as "the best tanks of the ww2"

Not surprising, most wehraboos are the kind of people who say they're interested in "history" but all they can really do it is list off statistics for equipment and spout off a few memes.

It's a classic...

It's what happens when retarded American ''nationalists'' pick out scraps of information without proper context, basically Dunning-Kruger effect.
For example reason why Panther did worse than expected wasn't some inherent design faults, it was because it was often crewed by highly inexperienced crews. Like, almost-kids who didn't even know how to drive a car, let alone a tank. They got some short training and were sent to the front. Meanwhile, more experienced units were given Panzer IVs. Kinda shitty policy which was pointed out by Speer among others.

This new trend of idiocy is also how T-34 becomes ''worst tank of the war'', and Soviets basically did shit and Lend-Lease shipments beat the Germans in the East.

And when you call them out on this bullshit you become a ''vatnik'', ''wehraboo'', ''tankie''.

Basically, everything Americans ever did was smart and brilliant while everyone else was a total idiot.

>Not surprising, most wehraboos are the kind of people who say they're interested in "history" but all they can really do it is list off statistics for equipment and spout off a few memes.
so do the "counter wehraboos", its all the same. To truly appreciate military history you gotta be a C E N T R I S T

Why do you have to lie?

You forgot to call me X-shill and use some cool names of the concepts you don't actually understand but they make you feel smarter. Also you didn't use ''logistics'', and we all know from that quote that this vague phenomenon called ''logistics'' is cool and hip.
Faggot. Everything I wrote is true and there's an alarming number of American retards here who in practical terms replaced wehraboos and vatniks as the dominant cancer of several boards.

>its all the same.

Eh, the wehraboos have been around longer and use the practically fraudulent claims of some of the documentaries and authors that have been trying to sell war stories than anything else, that and I think some of the counter-wehrbs are at least better informed. Even Nicolas Moran's lectures are backed by his research.

>everything Americans ever did was smart and brilliant
There's a reason why they used M4 Sherman and many other american built stuff even DECADES after the war, right?
Beside that, the majority of Wehraboos talks shit and doesn't proof nothing about their theory, and when you give them the proof they are wrong they go like here.

And fyi I'm from Austria you idiot...

First, I never commented on M4 Sherman. It was a good design and Americans indeed made nice things.
But there's a fine line here.
By the way, M4 was used because it was built in such huge numbers so it was readily available. Same goes for T-34.

I think I've "lightly" misunderstood your comment, sry about that... But still, the post is much likely against Wehraboos, not normal tank people who likes to share and to confrontate their opinions

Hell op I would bet on Windows XP anywhere anytime seeing as it never failed me in the years I used it.

Attached: 1549609870780.jpg (350x6521, 230K)

Yes and my point is that in the process of ''fighting'' vatniks and wehraboos an increasing number of people here went in the opposite direction and now WW2 Germans and Soviets in general were absolute retards who never made anything that worked and failed at everything while Americans never made a mistake in the last several decades, about anything.

that coming from the guy claiming everything german after 41 is shit

>And fyi I'm from Austria you idiot...
he thinks that it somehow means something
oh nononononono

>everything they made from 1941 to the end of the was was an useless waste of money and resources
the mg42 was a simpler design that offered better performance at a cheaper price

The skirts were very useful as their purpose was to stop anti-tank rifles from killing the crew through side shots.

All of this faggy whining is the result of you pussies being far too emotionally invested in your own opinions. Sack up and quit being insecure faggots.

150km.... Believing frogs.... Hell according to them france was never occupied and liberated itself.

Gasoline and diesel dont ignite the same way. Throw a match in a cup of diesel, it will put the match out like throwing it into water. Diesel is closer to motor oil than gasoline in consistency, lubricity, and flammability.

Unless im missing something here about german tanks not using diesel, it's a solid argument to say x tank was less a fire hazard due to diesel than gas.

wire mesh were a hazard.

ww2 shaped charges didnt use piezo electric fuzes so they detonated too slow, and close to the armor making them less effective.
spacing the armor with mesh/sandbags and other shit actually allowed the shaped charges to work better in some cases.

iirc us army did some tests and found out putting shit on the tanks offered no protection and could sometimes make it worse.
patton forbid putting concrete/sandbags/bedframes on his tanks

>Unless im missing something here about
german tanks not using diesel

They didn't.

>iirc us army did some tests and found out putting shit on the tanks offered no protection and could sometimes make it worse.
>patton forbid putting concrete/sandbags/bedframes on his tanks
I didn't knew about that

As far as I know, the germans tried to equip some King Tiger with a diesel engine (King Diesel) for improving the engine performance, but it didn't particularly affected that.

>somehow fuck up simplifying a tank
how hard is it to get the idea of straightforward manufacturing processes into a kraut's head?
The top and sides should each be one piece, no funky bends or kinks
KISS

Attached: pzkpfwiii-iv-einheitsfahrgestell.png (1811x2653, 379K)

Yeah lend lease was a joke. Russian tanks and trucks ran on communist determination. All that fuel they got was just to make Molotov cocktails in Berlin.

And don’t get me started on food!
>or steel, trains, trucks and jeeps, metals, chemicals, ships, aircraft...etc...etc

stand up to your words fgt

Hindsight's 20/20 user.

>how hard is it to get the idea of straightforward manufacturing processes into a kraut's head?

It's impossible, german's can't (couldn't) produce anything unless it's a 100% perfect work of mechanical art and overengineered to hell and back compared to their rivals

Pic related: Panther that was captured after the war by the british with missing parts. Original German chain on the left, British chain on the right. No difference in functionality, but the German chain is nicer to look at but also more time consuming to produce.

Attached: Panther chains.png (885x366, 441K)

i dont understand what im looking at here

German Chain is made to be perfect, despite being overall useless
The British Chain is hastily made, made to work.
The example is of a Panther tank that was being built in a factory when the British captured the factory, and decided to finish building this particular tank for testing. Its now in Bovington Tank Museum.

The Sherman actually wasn’t too bad, just underequipped

The reason why Germans are good engineers is because they're very used to fixing broken shit.