testtest

Pantherturm: Hitler’s Deadly Investment

I'd argue that the Panther was the finest tank of the war. It had even more maintenance problems than the Tiger. Their debut at Kursk was less than stellar with 6 having destroyed themselves by fire while road marching from the rail head. Out of 202 sent to battle 80 went down for mechanical failure alone. With final drive problems, poor suspension design which led to jammed road wheels in muddy weather it's no surprise they ended up as immobile forts. Later Panthers had solved some of these problems but not all. At best they had a 50+ percent readiness rate. In my day the commander would have been fired.
 
Cedric said:
I'd argue that the Panther was the finest tank of the war. It had even more maintenance problems than the Tiger. Their debut at Kursk was less than stellar with 6 having destroyed themselves by fire while road marching from the rail head. Out of 202 sent to battle 80 went down for mechanical failure alone. With final drive problems, poor suspension design which led to jammed road wheels in muddy weather it's no surprise they ended up as immobile forts. Later Panthers had solved some of these problems but not all. At best they had a 50+ percent readiness rate. In my day the commander would have been fired.
Click to expand...
As per @Cedric comments the Panther had plenty of problems "under-the-hood".

@trader the King Tiger & Elefant/Ferdinand were separate designs albeit using the same gun.
 
Talyn said:
As per @Cedric comments the Panther had plenty of problems "under-the-hood".

@trader the King Tiger & Elefant/Ferdinand were separate designs albeit using the same gun.
Click to expand...
The King Tiger and the Elefant/Ferdinand didn't use the same gun. They and the Jagdpanther used the "other" 88, the 88L70, which was not the same as on the Tiger I. That was the flak gun 88L56 modified for the Tiger I.
 
USMC6094 said:
It was also the basis for the best tank destroyer of the war, the Jagdpanther.

If the German Army had done what we did, incremental development, concentrating on developing mechanical reliability, the Allies would've truly been a world of hurt.

As it was, we still paid a crazy high price in their defeat.
Click to expand...
Tank destroyers are primarily defensive weapons. Generally, any force will pay a price going on the offense but there are exceptions. Incremental development comment is correct, but it was hard for the Germans to do that when Hitler stuck his nose into every design and production decision, and builders jostling for a piece of the pie. The Panther was a good example. Armored fighting vehicles need a balance of armor, firepower and mobility for their expected role. Hitler intervened and wanted more armor up front. This meant the side armor of the initial models were even slightly thinner than a Sherman's. I'll say it again, no tank is invincible. Crew training, leadership is key.

Below, a knocked out Panther like hit by a US 76mm high velocity gun from an M18 Hellcat or a later model Sherman.

1733054492623.jpeg
 
trader said:
@Cedric Heard the king tiger (the elephant) was a good tank for the war. Comments?
Click to expand...
The Elephant and Ferdinand were tank destroyers. At Kursk, the Early Ferdinands were used offensively and for some reason did not have secondary machine gun armament. This led to cases of Soviet infantry swarming and overcoming these vehicles.
 
I'm a bit of a history buff, using Panther turrets as a dug-in fortification is something I had not run across before. Skimmed over in many history books I see. Seems like the flashy weapon got all the attention. I have to question the concept of the permanent defensive "wall". Seems the lessons of the Maginot Line didn't quite sink in.
 
The French put quite a few Panthers into service post war.

They also developed its 75mm gun further. Said gun was the primary armament of the Israeli M50 Super Sherman.
 
Cedric said:
The King Tiger and the Elefant/Ferdinand didn't use the same gun. They and the Jagdpanther used the "other" 88, the 88L70, which was not the same as on the Tiger I. That was the flak gun 88L56 modified for the Tiger I.
Click to expand...
Variations on the ** theme, like the US M68 105mm was a variant of the Brit RO L7 which spawned etc, etc.
 
Cedric said:
Except the M68 and L7 were the same gun. The 88L71 was longer the the 88L56 and was developed to counter KV's and IS series of tanks.
Click to expand...
Yes, while the M68 and L7 are both 105mm tank cannons, the M68 is essentially the American version of the British L7, meaning there are slight design differences between the two, including variations in the recoil system (example below), breech block mechanism, and barrel details, making the M68 a distinct variant of the L7 cannon.

The M68 uses a concentric recoil spring instead of a separate buffer and recuperator hydraulic cylinders.

The same general differences exist between the US and German 120mm's. And the newer Leo2's use L55's vs. the M1 Abrams L44's.

Apples & oranges between the WW2 88's and the later 105's and 120's.
 
Talyn said:
Yes, while the M68 and L7 are both 105mm tank cannons, the M68 is essentially the American version of the British L7, meaning there are slight design differences between the two, including variations in the recoil system (example below), breech block mechanism, and barrel details, making the M68 a distinct variant of the L7 cannon.

The M68 uses a concentric recoil spring instead of a separate buffer and recuperator hydraulic cylinders.

The same general differences exist between the US and German 120mm's. And the newer Leo2's use L55's vs. the M1 Abrams L44's.

Apples & oranges between the WW2 88's and the later 105's and 120's.
Click to expand...
I believe the point Cedric is trying to make is that there were two distinct "families" of 88mm in German service. The "original" capacity Flak 18/36/37 as seen on the first gen Tiger. The later 8.8 Flak 43 as installed in the Tiger II, Nashorn, and others is a completely different chambering that is not analogous to the L7/M68 pattern of adoption. The 8.8 43 can best be thought of as the "magnum" version of the earlier chambering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top