“The transmission was in the front” The lower plate is dying

@Daniel-wy2kx

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting fact, due to the mediocre alloy quality of mid-late war Germany and bad welding, the front plate could fall off if struck

@HelpMein

3 жыл бұрын

@@Daniel-wy2kx lol, imagine that happening in-game with some mid-late panther models

@schadenfreude1061

3 жыл бұрын

@@Daniel-wy2kx literal hull break

@alanwatts8239

3 жыл бұрын

Panther is indestructible.

@wireworks4252

3 жыл бұрын

@@alanwatts8239 The comments above yours say otherwise.

Tiger 1: no spare parts Panther: teething issues Tiger2: Obesity

@deliqene3191

3 жыл бұрын

Also it burned through fuel like it was going out of style

@Orinslayer

3 жыл бұрын

@@deliqene3191 I guess you could say its the Badlands Chugs of the tank world.

@zeitgeistx5239

3 жыл бұрын

You forget all 3: petrol & bridges. You can make whatever you want but if you struggle to support it or get it to where it’s needed….

@tomendruweit9386

3 жыл бұрын

@@deliqene3191 that was more of en General problem during that time though. Engines where not very efficient at all.

@Charlietolemy

3 жыл бұрын

If tiger 2 is obese then what's the jagtigor or maus or even sturmtiger.

"On the orders of moustache man" - made me really laugh

@samuelsocha2767

3 жыл бұрын

He has to say it like that overwise the youtube gods will get Angy and smite him

@dem0nchild610

3 жыл бұрын

I got a kick out of it myself I had to think about it for a second tho

@getcancer1542

3 жыл бұрын

@@samuelsocha2767 A N G Y 😡

@cristsan4171

3 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, Winston Churchill

@kevindavis5966

2 жыл бұрын

Stalin had a very notable moustache as well, but KZread has no issues with creators mentioning THAT particular mass murderer and oppressor.

"Mustache Man orders front plate to be increased by 20mm" It seems Mustache Man was actually really good at designing tanks...that are effective in video games 80 years later.

@kamkueniu6128

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think demanding more armor can be counted as designing a tank

@LordOfChaos.x

3 жыл бұрын

@@kamkueniu6128 he specified which plate he wants to be thiccer

@zujiahuang8454

3 жыл бұрын

@@kamkueniu6128 Purely in the sense of tank games, I think the +20mm change crossed a boundary in terms of protection. Early Shermans and T-34s that have 50mm and 45mm front plate respectively at a similar angle, yet they're easily penned by common tank guns like US 76mm, German 75mm and Russian 85m. If Panther's UFP stayed at 60mm it wouldn't have been much different.

@bubassvaba6221

3 жыл бұрын

@@zujiahuang8454 Exactly. It makes a BIG difference.

@ottovonbismarck2443

2 жыл бұрын

Mustache Man was not the idiot people often think. He made a few decisions on designs that made perfect sense, like installing the 8,8 cm L/56 (to be changed for the L71 later) on Tiger I and increasing the Panther's frontal armor. Even the Me-262 to be a fighter bomber made perfect sense, when you think about it.

I honestly think the Panther is one of the best looking tanks ever. It's modular style looks very modern.

@Etaoinshrdlu69

3 жыл бұрын

It's kinda tall thou

@Kwisss

3 жыл бұрын

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 Yeah its 9'10" versus modern MBT that range from 8' to 9'

@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511

3 жыл бұрын

ah yeah I like its look a lot, I like it more than Tiger.

@IceAxe1940

3 жыл бұрын

Centurion looks more modern so does the T44

@albatwitchwiggler6905

3 жыл бұрын

@@IceAxe1940 Both of which were introduced after the Panther.

"being shown to the mustache man..." This is great XD

@commandergeokam2868

3 жыл бұрын

The Austrian failed artists ;)

The Panther isn’t a bad looking German tank

@wesleysnipes5638

3 жыл бұрын

I agree

@blek6457

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the German army never had an issue with looks lmao

@Redtails_gaming

3 жыл бұрын

@@phil-2725 nice to look at but poorly developed and executed lol

@josephikalashnikov2385

3 жыл бұрын

Far from ugly, yes I do agree

@shepherdlavellen3301

3 жыл бұрын

They looked pretty ugly when I visited the museum though

I like the panther and the tiger equally, but the panther does have better pen.

@Panther_5

3 жыл бұрын

But the panther is better shaped than the tiger, but the side armor is not that great, the D variant of the panther is not that great tho, do to the low turret traverse speed.

@Panther_5

3 жыл бұрын

And the engine problems. (On the D variant of the panther)

@cerealmilk1803

3 жыл бұрын

are you commenting to urself?

@thatmemer96

3 жыл бұрын

@@cerealmilk1803 lol yes

@t-90wantsyoursoul43

3 жыл бұрын

@@cerealmilk1803 he probably forgot he can just edit even though his comment is already edited

I just have a problem seeing thing in the comments. Saying things like the Panther or Pz. IV should be built more than Tigers or etc. They must both be built. The term Light, Medium, and Heavy tank are not just for weight but partially determine the roles of the tanks. In it's name and documentation the Tiger IS a breakthrough tank. It is meant to punch a hole in enemy lines and soak up lots of damage while surviving. It is meant to obliterate enemy tanks. It is meant to deal with heavy fortifications like bunkers etc. The Tiger is a Heavy tank, it is the Hammer of the Panzerwaffe. This is also why Germany has the designation Schwere Panzer-Abteulung or Heavy Tank Battalion. It consists of Heavy tanks. The Panther and Pz. IV are medium tanks, by weight and size a Panther is a heavy, but by role the Panther is by all means a medium tank. The medium tanks (In Germany's case) is to exploit the breakthrough the heavy tanks make, sometime to make one too. They are there to expand a breech in a frontline, to support the heavy tanks or infantry, to dislodge the enemy and cause confusion and disorganization among the enemy due to their speed. Medium tanks are multipurpose having adequate armor, firepower and speed. It is partially the reason the Panther has such weak side armor, it is not meant to soak hits like a Tiger, it just has thicker frontal armor to survive just incase they encounter heavily armed tanks. Germany was fighting the Soviets who implemented heavy tanks on large scales, they of course need to adapt and have their mediums at least survive some hits. Medium tanks are the anvil for the hammer, they support what the heavy tank does, they provide the stable allaround fighting ground for anything to come into contact with them. They support what the Heavy tanks does. It is the reasons why the Panzer-Abteilung or Panzer Battalion exist. It only consists of mediums. Panther were and always have been organized into medium tank units, never heavy tank units. The same goes for light tanks. But I'm too lazy too explain them, it's also the reason why the Leichte Panzerkompanie or Light tank company exist. Why would such terms as light, medium, or Heavy exist if it only defines weigt, a tank is a tank, if they all so the same thing there is no need to classify them.

@modest_spice6083

3 жыл бұрын

The problem with this assessment is that Nazi Germany absolutely does not have the industry nor the raw materials required to service numerous types and variants of armor at once. There's a particular reason why the United States and the Soviet Union both decided to mass produce smaller number of armor variants instead of doing what the Nazis and the British did, and well, we all know that it did pay off rather effectively in the end.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

@@modest_spice6083 actually Germany did have the capabilities but It did not have the resources. This is quite detailed so be prepared for a little essay XD This is where you look into production methods, that ultimately flawed them. (I will treat the term variant as an "upgrade". If it's a different vehicle like a tank destoyer, I will state that is is a different vehicle design.) The Soviets have a clear method of modifications. They design a tank, let it run for around a year and along the way design a new improved version with all the flaws they collect on it. This is why their T-34s have (1940), (1941), (1942), etc. It seems to be their principle of how they do it. The Germans on the otherhand have a different approach, instead of collecting data over longer periods they seek to add modifactions to every new problem that comes up, this is why the Pz.III, StuG IIIs, Pz.Ivs, etc have so many variants, every few months or so, they implement a new variant. The Soviets method is a slow process but It keeps a streamlined production, because there is so little or no change to the existing line of production, it can only grow larger and faster thus how the Soviets and Americans grew their tanks industry. The American having M4A1 then M4A2 then M4A3, etc. This method is perfect for mass production but slow to combat any downsides in the field. Production wise it is the best, combat was it's detrimental. For short I'll call this overhaul upgrading. The German took the more direct combat approach, which each new modifactions, they can effectively counter every new problem very quickly without much time and waste of manpower and equipment during the time the new variant is being made. While this was combat effective, production wise, it was not, with each upgrade, new tools, new machines, machine redesigns, and other things need to be added and/or removed in every factory. This slowed down the flow of production and since the Germans did many variants every few months (2-5), they couldn't reach mass production levels due to the need to constantly change stuff in the line of production. For short I will call this incremental upgrading. Hell Germany's industry was far more capable than most believe but it was limited by the method used. Another thing is craftsmenship, when regarding early war or prewar, the type of pridu tion was more of a craftsman than a streamlined production. Each tank was made like an art piece rather than an object that is just needed to be made on mass. If you ever get to get a close up on early war panzers the welding is just gorgeous, it truly is a work of craftsmanship. Incremental upgrading was somewhat similar to how a craftsman might work on his piece, there the industry is more familiar with that method and kept it that way through. Germany truly began mass production of tank in 1943, but the number could never reach as high as the Soviet tank industry, this was due to a multitude of factor but a large factor was incremental upgrade. During all of this the Soviets had been producing the same thing with little to no change, not slowing down at all and only increasing from 1941 upwards to 1943. The Germans did so many upgradea, production fluctuated, it raises up them goes down as new variant comes in then raises up again only to lower as new variants come on. A new type of vehicle is fine. Take for example a Pz. IV and Jadgpanzer IV L/70. The a factory is taken of the Pz.IV and put on the Jagdpanzer things will be slow of course but production efficiency will slowly rise as more tools, better method, etc come into play. Bit if minor upgrade keep happening their slow rises will just be haulted. Regarding different vehicle types, the US had a shitton, bit what they did was good, instead of directly influencing the line of production like the Germans them do addons. The bulldozer, the minesweepers, frontal plate add-on armor (Jumbo armor) etc. Those variants don't slow production down as much as they can be made in without influencing the tank production itself. Then when regarding things like the M7 Priest, it filled the same guidelines as the Pz. IV an Jagdpanzer if left to grow it's fine but if incremental upgrades happen, it ultimately slows production down. It's not a matter of how many variants you have, it's how you produce them, and the US did well by making either add-on upgrades or slower complete redesigns like transitioning from the M4A2 to the M4A3 Shermans. The Americans can be compared but they have such a large industrial capability I shall ignore them from now on The Soviets didn't really make variants (as in new vehicles), they just made variants (as in upgrades). If they want an SPG, they just made an entirely new vehicle or shoved a bigger gun in it. IS-1 to IS-2 to IS-3, completely different vehicles incorperating similar design. If they wanted a new vehicle, but on a certain chassis, they did so but made sure not to really interfere once in production. If they wanted a improved design, they just made slow overhaul and changes. As for the British, I never studied their production and don't give much care for it either so I have no say in it.

@unaimiguelgarnil

3 жыл бұрын

@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Thanks for this information, it was really interesting!

@modest_spice6083

3 жыл бұрын

​@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Definitely agree to this! As for the Brits, they also produced too many tanks and too many variants like the Germans because of the same issue, they have to produce what they can to quickly replace the heavy equipment that they lost during Dunkirk and beyond. They do have the prevailing doctrine of different armor for infantry support and exploitation/breakthrough, hence the faster Crusader, Cruiser and others, and heavier tanks like the Cromwell and Churchill. They did have the support of imported Allied war materiel, unlike the Germans. But when the British did get the gist of tank making, they did pretty well, as evidenced with the beautiful and capable Centurion.

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

@@modest_spice6083 the british were not produceing more tank types than the americans and soviets. the yanks had the M3/M4 medium chassis, the M3/M5 light chassis (replaced by the M24) and later added the M26 chassis (we could probably also had the M18 hellcat) so 2-4 designs at any one point. while the soviets had initially a scout tank (T-38), a light tank (T-26), a fast tank (BT-7), a medium tank (T-28) and a heavy tank (T-35), this was then reduced to just three (light, medium and heavy) and then 2 (although light chassis were maintained for SPGs) and they only got so low due to lendlease. so 2-5 designs at anyone point the british initially had a light tank, a cruiser tank and an infantry tank. but dropped the light tank (but started making 2 infantry tank types) then dropped to just a cruiser tank and a infantry tank. the large number of british designs is irrelvanet due to replaceing them on the production line. unlike the germans. when the cromwell was ready the crusader stopped (for example). so 2-3 designs at any one point.

2:18 The first 250 Panthers (and Tigers) actually used the HL 210 which was phased out in the rebuild programs due to awful reliability issues

The Panther tank is an amazing tank! Until the transmission kills itself and you now have a mechanic on suicide watch...

"funny moustache man"

@IHaevATajpo

3 жыл бұрын

KZread is gonna murder him if spookston mentions the moustache mans name.

@samculbertson4509

3 жыл бұрын

Adolf dripler

@kaybevang536

6 ай бұрын

I call him angry Austrian painter

Have you thought about doing a video about “how good was the Sherman/T-34” I would like to see that personally

@hubbel6831

3 жыл бұрын

how ´´good´´ are you sure?

@reid1283

3 жыл бұрын

@@hubbel6831 very.

@vukpsodorov5446

3 жыл бұрын

@@hubbel6831 they made several dozen thousand of them, won the war, and they remained in use for decades later. i think "good" is just fine.

@SleepySkull1

3 жыл бұрын

I would prefer a sherman over any other tanks. The sherman had a casualty rate of 0.4 for each destroyed sherman, and a burn rate of between 10-20% after a penetrating hit, While other nation was around 80%.

@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537

3 жыл бұрын

Sovietaboos would come out of the woodwork needing more preparation-H than the entire Soviet Army in 1941, after they get told their precious was smushed shit on the Oregon trail at best. Pre-tl;dr of such an argument: "COPE has a BOTTOM TEXT of its own."

Panther is no match to the speed and guns of the Laansbreig II!

@l0l0uch47

3 жыл бұрын

It looks glorious!

@spehhhsssmarineer8961

3 жыл бұрын

I Agree!

@yayeetmeoffacliff4708

3 жыл бұрын

Attack the D point!

@l0l0uch47

3 жыл бұрын

@@yayeetmeoffacliff4708 Negative!

Something really understated about the Panther here is that ergonomically it is horrific. -The gunner does not have a way of independently viewing anything, all he can see is through the narrow FOV of his primary optic. This makes it far more difficult for the gunner to know exactly what the commander is talking about and traverse to what he is directing to. -The driver cannot ride head out, and the small vision port on the front plate was deleted, making his only way of seeing a SINGLE forward facing periscope with no traverse. - the bow machine gunner had a similar periscope to the driver angled 45 degrees to his right, the only way he could see in front of the tank was with the optic on his MG, which was a narrow FOV. -There is no primary ammunition rack in the turret or turret ring for the loader, meaning he has to have loose spare rounds or reach outside the turret ring to the stationary hull to retrieve ammunition. For mechanics, the Panther is a nightmare. Unlike the Sherman, in which the transmission and lower plate bolt off as a unit that can be slid out, or earlier panzer that have access hatches to the transmission, the Panther had to be deconstructed. The turret had to be traversed, the roof plate above the driver and MG radio man had to be removed, the forward crews station (radio, MG. Some driver controls, seats, etc) had to be removed, and then the transmission had to be maneuvered inside the tank and lifted out the top of the hull roof. As you can imagine this is terrible. Other drawbacks are more well known, such as the mud sticking the interviewing road wheels as well as shellfire cause them to jam, gun mantlet on Panther A and D deflecting rounds into the hull, poor side armor, and poor reverse speed (we all feel that one). Ultimately the Panther is a bad tank in my opinion, it just happens to have good armor and a good gun. A tank that is more space efficient, ergonomic, and easier on mechanics would have been far more ideal, perhaps enlarging the panzer 4 and increasing its ballistic efficiency with slopd armor would have been a far better choice.

@owenlewis1314

3 жыл бұрын

I think it had the possibility of being a good tank but like you said, it's drawbacks drowned it. The was I see the panther is as a tank destroyer in all but name. It's HE was extremely lackluster and like you said the gunner only had the magnified gun sight. Not to mention reliability on top of all that. If the panther was developed by a less methed up fanatic country it could have had some hope.

@kobeh6185

3 жыл бұрын

@@owenlewis1314 personally I think an enlarged panzer 3/4 prototype would have promise, especially with a schmalturm like turret. Something far more reasonable and space efficient. Consider an IS-2s armor compared to a Panther and how the Panther is somehow the same weight

@owenlewis1314

3 жыл бұрын

@@kobeh6185 I definitely agree with that idea. I mean Germany had all of their offense successes when they emphasized mobility and reliability over armor and firepower. I feel the only reason they went with the panther was because they were becoming purely defense, something their army had little experience with.

@kobeh6185

3 жыл бұрын

@@owenlewis1314 well I think it was a reaction to how ineffective the panzer 3 and 4 were in terms of armor and firepower. Until the Panzer 4 with long barreled anti tank guns came along, the only tank mounted gun that faired a chance is the long 50, and its unreliable at best at killing T34s and not capable when talking about KV1s. The Panther is just a rushed attempt to not only match Soviet armor but exceed it

@owenlewis1314

3 жыл бұрын

@@kobeh6185 Yeah the Soviet armor definitely caught them off guard but KV1s and t-34s accounted for around 4% of Soviet tanks in 1942. Maybe even less because I'm counting all Soviet heavy tanks as KV1s and ignoring t-28s and other weird tanks. 25k of the 26k Soviet tanks were light tanks such as the t-60 and bt-5. You are right about the shock though. They really never expected the Soviets to have such armor on their tanks and that's why they started fielding bigger guns.

I like how spookston calls hitler mustash man

@CrazyDutchguys

3 жыл бұрын

Probably to prevent being demonitized

@Icedrake201

3 жыл бұрын

Mostly because you can get demonetized for saying his name. So it's both funny and sad.

@generalsquirrel9548

3 жыл бұрын

@@CrazyDutchguys i am aware

@generalsquirrel9548

3 жыл бұрын

@@Icedrake201 i know its just seens it funny and sad

@GeraltofRivia22

3 жыл бұрын

@@CrazyDutchguys "demonetized", aka KZread stealing revenue from content creators. At some point they changed demonetization from no ads to ads but KZread gets all the money.

Reminds me of a joke from a WW2 book. A German child while seeing American tanks remarked that Germany's were better. An American soldier asked an English-speaking old man what the kid had said. Once the old man told the soldier of the child's remark he replied: "If your tanks are better than ours where are they?" edit: After 2 years I finally decided to fix the grammar. My young dumbass didn't care cause I thought it wouldn't get that much attention. Oh boy was I wrong.

@nilihcrevo9820

3 жыл бұрын

They are better on paper and their steel quality sucks because of shortage. Having a better tanks doesn't mean you will win a war after all. Just like how the Italian lost to Ethiopia

@tntproductions1996

3 жыл бұрын

What’s the book called?

@quinndenver4075

3 жыл бұрын

nice grammar

@srkruger189

3 жыл бұрын

What a bad argument...

@wolfehoffmann2697

3 жыл бұрын

@@nilihcrevo9820 German steel was perfectly good. How it was applied could have been much better though. Too many of their tanks started out as boxes with very little sloping anywhere on them, and those design flaws, plus many others, cost them in the long run. Russians on the other hand had problems with steel quality, rather than sloping design. Some T-34s were so bad they could be shattered on impact. Some were a lot better. It all depended on which factory they came from.

A little critique: It would be great if you would talk a little slower.

@mr.astronuts3825

3 жыл бұрын

He’s better than dark docs at least

@noelblack8159

3 жыл бұрын

@@mr.astronuts3825 yeah

@-MarcelDavis-

3 жыл бұрын

Have you tried setting the playback speed to 0.75x?

@howcanyoureadthistheresnop9244

3 жыл бұрын

@@-MarcelDavis- it sounds so bad imo lol

@dapperfield595

3 жыл бұрын

wdym, I can easily follow him.

I feel that the Tiger 1 was a tank designed for a specific role that was then forced into roles it was never meant for. As a heavy breakthrough tank it did its job well. However once it became an emergency response to enemy breakthroughs (German recon was not very good) it ended up being used more and more between maintenance and refitting. So heavy tank battalion readiness suffered. The Panther was given the much larger and more difficult role of becoming the new medium tank. It was never able to really accomplish this and given its weight it is debatable if it even can be considered a medium tank. In short the Tiger H1 was a specialty tank that worked well to spearhead an attack, but lost much of its effectiveness when pressed to do things outside its role and operate longer than it could. The Panther was given a harder job and since it was later in the war it was often given inferior crews.

Any vehicle that’s designed and fielded in one year is absolutely going to be bad

@sosig6445

2 жыл бұрын

To be honest while everyone loves bashing wehraboo's and all. literally every side had unreliable tanks even the shermans were not as sturdy cross country... Problem is from 1942 Germany was on the defensive meaning they could not recover broken down tanks as much as the allies, the allies could afford relyability issues germany could not, neither side could eleminate them... Only tanks designed AFTER the war were actually mostly reliable, every side basicly kept slapping big guns and big armor to their tanks during the war with little regard towards suspension, transmission capabilities, engine tourge etc... and they had to better have a tank that breaks down every now and then than being shot and having ABSOLUTELY no chance at survival cause the other side choose to put a fuckin' 88 mm on theirs....

@aslamnurfikri7640

Жыл бұрын

That's why US Army didn't rush M26 Pershing. In a test report from December 1944 basically the armored branch refused to field M26 Pershing because it was crap

Who would ya prefer? Tiger I or Panther? 100mm flat or 80mm slope? 88mm L/56 or 75mm L/70 Mediocre reverse or slug reverse

@CrazyDutchguys

3 жыл бұрын

They're both good tanks in warthunder. I personally prefer the Tiger because its side armour makes it better protected from multiple angles. Panther has better frontal protection, a faster turret (later Panthers) and slightly more pen at closer range, Tiger holds its pen better at long range. For me the Panthers garbage reverse speed makes it unplayable, which is why i'm in love with the Panther II

@casematecardinal

3 жыл бұрын

@@CrazyDutchguys I didn't know 30mms is considered slight

@BIGluisluis

3 жыл бұрын

Panther for long range and tiger for city combat

@hi_-bz7wf

3 жыл бұрын

I'd rather see a tiger down the road because if unangled it's far easier to send a tiger turret flying.

@dariozanze4929

3 жыл бұрын

If you properly angle Tiger it has way much armor protection then a Panther. Tiger I turrret has only 100mm armor on paper, however it is incredibly well protected due to overlapping armor, and 80mm of side armor enables angling to about 40 deg. Panther turret is way less protected and it's not smart to angle the hull due to the possibility of overmatching the 40mm sideplates.

Also an interesting thing to note: The panther's turret was also going to be mounted on the tiger I chassis, in a variant called the Ausf H2, but this was cancelled due to modifications to the king tiger.

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

actually the H2 was a competetor to the H1. it was descarded as the 75mm requires more tungsten than the 88 aswell as haveing a smaller HE charge.

Who needs tigers or panthers when you can build many more STUGs?

@hecunt3633

3 жыл бұрын

Economic shit

@fulcrum2951

3 жыл бұрын

Manpower,resources,bad decisions to prolong the war....

@gravitatemortuus1080

2 жыл бұрын

@@fulcrum2951 No tanks were great in WWII, they all were still new designs.

@bkjeong4302

2 жыл бұрын

The fact Germany was so low on fuel that even with their big cats using more fuel than smaller tanks on a 1-to-1 basis, they were still better off using only a small number of tanks meaning bigger tanks were really the only option?

Panzer 4: Reliable. Medium. Not too expensive. Panther: "Hans, the engine is on fire again." Edit: Please stop debating. I know the Panzer 4 sucked with it's later variants and all but this is a joke comment.

@Predator20357

3 жыл бұрын

Panzer 4: Gets torn apart by 75mm Sherman Guns, unreliable with the later variants, has a outdated long 75mm cannons. Panther: Became just as cheap as a Panzer 4, Has Armor that can shrug off some shots, has a perfectly strong gun for almost all Ally tanks, Was close to Fatherland and has better crew training and improved components so breakdowns happened less often.

@ushikiii

3 жыл бұрын

@@Predator20357 just as cheap? If that's true then that's insane.

@m10tankdestroyer94

3 жыл бұрын

The problem with the Panzer IV is the lack of armor, especially on the sides. Also the later variants of the Panzer IV had issues with the transmission once all the armor upgrades were done

@Predator20357

3 жыл бұрын

@@ushikiii Became just as cheap, especially when you compare it to the other tanks.

@Albus_Rex

3 жыл бұрын

Should have just built more STUGs

While I was watching the footage, I noticed you got Gaijin'd at 2:05 even after so many years, volumetric armor continues to be a bitch.

@dankore6966

3 жыл бұрын

It’s funny how Gaijin claim that they fixed it but optics are still impossible to penetrate (especially the t34)

@SleepySkull1

3 жыл бұрын

That's not volumetric armor, his shot hit right after someone else's shot hit first. So the components and crew was already dead.

Fun fact: a commander of a panther saw an M26 Pershing and ordered his gunners to hold because he thought it was a German tank as it wasn’t a Sherman, within seconds the Pershing set the panther on fire

You should do the jumbo next. I’ve seen people saying it was amazing or just bad. I’ve heard both so a video would be pretty cool.

@hedgehog3180

3 жыл бұрын

Honestly I think the real answer is "There was only like a dozen of them it is completely irrelevant".

@plays4funs625

3 жыл бұрын

Well yes

@onebigfatguy

3 жыл бұрын

@@hedgehog3180 240ish Jumbo's made. All fought on the front with about half being lost in combat. Mostly known for being good combat tanks as all the tank battalions were basically screaming for more to be made ASAP.

By late war, Germans were running rookie crews in their Panthers vs Allied crews who had combat experience. That alone is going to kill the Panther's combat record.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

Lol, if you include the drivers as a main part, transmission failures be everywhere

@dapperfield595

3 жыл бұрын

War Thunder got that part in history quite accurately

@treefittyfoh1562

3 жыл бұрын

What happened to the experienced German tankers? Did they just pack up and leave? Could it be the experienced German crews met the same fate as the inexperienced?

@get_krinky5304

3 жыл бұрын

@@treefittyfoh1562 I don't know if the US did the same for the armored force. But I recall hearing that in the air, the US would take experienced pilots and put them in training roles. That way some combat experience could be passed on to green pilots. Thus, by the end of the war, the US standard of training was much better than that of other nations.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

@@treefittyfoh1562 more were likely on the eastern front

Friendly reminder that: The Panther was slower than the Pershing on all terrain in American testing Interleaved roadwheels were a terrible idea and German tankers had to suffer through 14+ hours of work to change one of the inner wheels The armor quality on late war German tanks was so bad that the Panther was frontally vulnerable to HE

@GreenDude420

3 жыл бұрын

Meanwhile in War Thunder: Panther goes pretty smoothly off-road whereas M26 is struggling to reach 40 km/h at paved road and is slower than Tiger off-road

@mattbowden4996

3 жыл бұрын

You know, I think you're fibbing about the American testing. Nothing I have read agrees with you - especially considering the M26 was badly underpowered and had pretty poor cross country performance until the M46 replaced the engine and transmission. All the testing results I have read agree the Panther's system gives first class terrain handling and ride, but not nearly enough to justify the complexity of the system. Speaking of which, 14 hours to change one inner wheel is a gross exaggeration. It was certainly a laborious task, but most sources indicate about eight hours as a worst case scenario.

@alexisgauthier7665

3 жыл бұрын

Source? Not saying your wrong, but a lot of “American testing” are just telling lies just to promote American vehicles to other clients in the world.

@fulcrum2951

3 жыл бұрын

@@alexisgauthier7665 so like german testing

@liviuganea4108

3 жыл бұрын

@@fulcrum2951 Germany had no clients. Also, american testing? What a joke.

You should do the Sherman Jumbo or the Chafee next

You might want to try slowing down your speech. I've noticed that over time it's become faster and more slurred due to the fast speed of your speech. If you just make a conscious effort to slow down your speech, I'm convinced that your videos will become even better. Keep up the great work, your videos are very good!

A pennysylvania class could easily penetrate it smh

@zacamakapaka3989

3 жыл бұрын

@Manuel - I know the one

I would like to point out something I missed my first time watching the Chieftains American myths video. At the Battle of Arracourt the German 5th Army with 100 Panthers fought Combat Company A (a battalion-sized unit with 74 maximum tanks). I have yet to find exact numbers for the US but there 51 Shermans at full strength making this at least a 2:1 for the Panthers. By the German retreat, there were 20 Panthers with 80 destroyed and only 20 Shermans knocked out. As the Chieftain stated this is mainly due to the US tankers much better training and survivability, as well as their overwhelming support. This is not to understate that an expected 5:1 kill ratio being a 25 times lower than anticipated (1:5) surely says something.

@CommissarPancakes

3 жыл бұрын

You're forgetting that the Shermans weren't the only Allied armor there. IIRC, Arracourt was one of the few times where US Tank Destroyer doctrine was actually put into effect and the faster M18s managed to savage a lot of the German armor.

@zhufortheimpaler4041

3 жыл бұрын

yeah, total air dominance, no fuel and APCR ammunition shortages and enough well trained personnel for each tank pay off^^

@stuffzie8329

3 жыл бұрын

@Manuel - Cas wasn't all that effective against tanks.

@haruusami1831

3 жыл бұрын

@@stuffzie8329 Right cause CAS totally needed to kill heavily armored tanks and literally forgetting about any light vehicle (trucks etc) and infantry outside, the point of CAS wasn't generally to kill tanks but also to cause massive chaos on the enemy line, do you think if you're in the receiving end being bombard by planes (MG and bombs) and artillery, its just nothing lol, lets not also forget that killing tanks also include that got disabled with tracks etc so Artillery pretty much will do the job.

@revolrz22

3 жыл бұрын

Okay so, let me get this out of the way: In the late nineties and 2000s, there were a handful of people on various internet forums pushing for recognition of the Sherman and fighting to overturn a lot of its bad reputation. I was one of those people. The uphill battle was grueling and, now that I'm older, I realize it was more trouble than it was worth. That said, I still have a love for the M4 as a piece of hardware. HOWEVER The Battle of Arracourt should not be seen as a triumph of the Sherman over the Panther. Rather, the Battle of Arracourt should be studied as a failure in TO&E. The Independent Panzer Brigades, of which the German force involved was (Panzer Brigade 113 being the major constituent), was lacking in several key areas. Notably, and by far the most damning, it didn't have sufficient organic reconnaissance assets. As such, it was essentially bumbling around blindly in a vague direction. A little pretense, here: The Independent Panzer Brigades were designed for local counter attacks on the Russian Front, against Russian Infantry, who were criminally under-equipped for dealing with tanks. Remember this, because this is the context for how they were designed and formatted. Russian infantry did not have lavish spreads of antitank guns, nor did they have shoulder fired rocket launchers. American and British infantry, however, did. American and British infantry were fully capable of, and designed, to resist armored attack. So, when these Panzer Brigades were thrown onto the west, they tended not to perform well. Even when they were just against Infantry, they got eaten alive. So, the attack at Arracourt started out badly from the get-go. They were spotted and subjected to rocket attack before they even headed out, so they were already in a damaged state before they made contact with any Allied force. The fog was dense during the attack, and without the eyes and ears of organic reconnaissance elements, they were going in blind. Because of this, they did not know where the enemy was, just what direction to generally sort of *go in* in order to do *something.* They were spotted by American reconnaissance elements, and Combat Command A (approximately one third of a late-pattern American armored division) of the 4th Armored was able to maneuver its M4s and attached tank destroyers into ideal flanking positions. Individual elements of Panzer Brigade 113 were fixed in place with exchanges of fire through the fog while they were flanked and beaten down in a hail of cannonade. For those of you who might be curious, the 4th Armored was equipped with 75-mm Shermans, so the 76-mm wasn't in play outside of the Tank Destroyers present, which were of the M18 type. For how bad it was for the Germans, Panthers and M4s were generally slugging it out one-for-one until the weather cleared and Allied fighter-bombers were able to seal the deal, seeing the Germans off the field and putting an end to the battle. In short, the moral of Arracourt is not that the M4 was a superior tank to the Panther. Rather, it's that no matter how powerful the main body of your formation is, it's operationally useless if it doesn't have the support elements to facilitate informed decision-making on the part of the commanders. Most of us can agree that we wouldn't want to fight with someone like Mike Tyson in his prime. But if you take Mr. Tyson and remove his eyes, his ears, and one arm, he becomes much more takable. *This* was the essence and failure of the Independent Panzer Brigades.

The panther is one of the most beautiful tanks I’ve ever seen and the paint schemes were perfect for it

@mbr5742

2 жыл бұрын

I take a "welded turret" Leopard 1 (the A3/A4 and Danish A5 variants, the latter is the most attractive) over Panther any time of the day for looks. It is a more refined tank in the same size/weight class, in some ways the "grandson" of Panther in looks and usage profile (speed as part of the defence etc)

"80 years ago, things broke down more than they do now"

@joshlower1

2 жыл бұрын

This is actually a false statement. Today things are built like shit and never fail to break.

@kaybevang536

6 ай бұрын

My Ford Fusion Would Like To Have A Word With You

Very good Video! One thing you could have added is, that test after the war also showed, that a panther engine had a service life of about 1000 to 1500 kilometers. (source: Welt ) (Can add a link if anybody wants it, but its in german)

Here's a bit of detail on the transmission. Though the rest of my notes are somewhere so some statement might not be entirely accurate At the start the transmission itself was a problem problem overall. It would break from something often. Whatever the case in the Ausf. G variant the transmission casing was either redesigned or thickened, but whatever the case the transmission lifespan was significantly increased since the casing itself was more durable. But the gears remained the main problem. The final drive gears were straight cut single teeth spur gears as opposed to the helical cut gears which would have been preffered. This type of gear n the panther was not well suited and tended to strip prematurely quite often, if the steel quality was worse and resources like molybdenum were missing, it could more or less shatter from brittleness. Helical cut gear would have much been preffered but it came down to a few things. Time and tools being a big part. People say Panthers were rushed into Kursk, why so? Because the choice of the finak drive gear, spur cut gear are much quicker to produce that helical it's more simpler but if that's the case why not change later? Because they couldn't. A big problem was that Germany lacked the tungsten tooling bits and maybe thr machines to make the helical cut gears. So instead they did a last ditch resort for a gear and made what we have now, a not well suited gear which is not great in dimensions. They could have solved the final drive problem anytime, they know how to, it's just that they lacked the necessary tools required to make the fix. Next the drive train "I believe", while the Ausf. G resolved some bit of the transmission, the suspensions still acted upon the the 3 gear or something, this led to premature stripping of the gear BUT this gear wasn't too much of a problem if the materials were good in quality. If they were good in quality it would last but it would still prematurely strip. It's main problem stems from design and materials, it's design a somewhat flawed and is the reasons it prematurely strips but since I can work the next problem is materials, this gear tended to shatter and sheer do to the amount of strain it got, the weight plus the suspension made it have a bunch of heavy forces placed on a small local area point, it was to much for this gear so the more brittle the steel the more likely it would shatter due to stress. Overall the transmission lifespan as a whole was increased. But two gears remained a problem. One stemming from quality of material. The other stemming from design. Both of which were quite hard to deal with

@mbr5742

2 жыл бұрын

The engineers had suggested switching to the Tiger transmission and delaying production for that. They where aware that the transmission used by Panther had initially been designed for a 30to tank (initial design weight) When basically the same companies where faced with a similar problem 20 years later the engineers got their way and the "target design weight" for the "Standardpanzer" was raised from "30to class" to "up to 50to class". Resulting in Leopard 1.

Nice video overall, but I am starting to have trouble keeping up with how fast the talking goes, especially when the words start blending together.

@alanhoff89

3 жыл бұрын

You can slowdown the playback

@esa4323

3 жыл бұрын

@@alanhoff89 Then it'll just sound weird, I would tell them to use the subtitle function Edit: 0.75 speed does not always sound weird, but in some parts yes

@billbuck3590

3 жыл бұрын

I agree.

@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334

3 жыл бұрын

It's Dark Docs all over again

@Orangefan77

3 жыл бұрын

Spookston, turning 12 minute videos into 5 minute videos since (whenever)

The Pz. IV couldn't have kept up till the end of the war. What they needed was some parts interchangeability between *all* their armoured vehicles, so they could've produced more of everything, and improvements to parts would help all the different models.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

That what the E series concept was thought up for

@jimmehjiimmeehh9748

3 жыл бұрын

Pz IV not only could have kept up but did keep up.

@LordOfChaos.x

3 жыл бұрын

E50 was supposed to be the panther series replacements A smaller tiger 2 with better armor on steroids

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

the Pz. Iv could have kept up. it had boggie suspension meaning, like the sherman, they could have easily introduced strengthened suspension systems to both old and new tanks, there was a variant that had a sloped hull (which was canceled in favor of the panther), which would be similar to the sherman's hull slope changeing angle over time, there was a protoytpe tested with the panther's turret (although they did not change the suspension and so it was overloaded). the panzer IV could have easily been a german sherman and a mini-panther, but instead, they went for a completely new design (the historical panther)

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

@@LordOfChaos.x it wasn't smaller, its literally the same hull as the E-75, just less armour. its actually slightly longer than a tiger 2.

One thing to keep in mind with the Panther was that the final drive wasn't just inadequate for its final 45 tonne weight, but was more than likely inadequate for its original ~35 tonne weight.

@jammygamer8961

3 жыл бұрын

tbh i personally think the Diamler Benz design was the best one

@XanderTuron

3 жыл бұрын

@@jammygamer8961 Not necessarily, the only way it would have been able to mount the 7.5cm L/70 would have required the DB design to only have a two man turret crew, which is a very bad idea.

@jammygamer8961

3 жыл бұрын

@@XanderTuron good point

@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334

3 жыл бұрын

Weight isn't the only factor, either. German steel quality was comparatively poor by the closing years of the war. Even if it wasn't stressed by weight limitations, brittle steel will only get you so far.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

Is gear choice was an overall flaw, no matter the design the spur gear was the problem. A helical cut gear was preffered and a known option to solve the final drive issue, the problem is Germany lack the tools to make the gear, so the gear we have right now is a halfassed version if what they designers wanted

İt tHE fiRsT mBt mAn!

@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537

3 жыл бұрын

@Manuel - Literally is. It's like calling the trash man "sanitation officer". It do be like: Neat title you have there, now go do medium tank stuff with extra steps.

Ah yes Subnautica songs are perfect

@danielcooper1124

3 жыл бұрын

yes my dude

@dapperfield595

3 жыл бұрын

subnautica ost is very cool

It may not be great, but it wasn't bad. That L70 could definitely reach out and touch someone.

The thing that struck me about the Panther watching the chieftain video is how the gunners only view of the world is the narrow gun sight. Even in something as crude as a T34-85 the gunner had his own 360 degree periscope. Situational awareness can't have been great in close in situations.

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

the gunner isn't the only crewman, and the gunners job is to look down the sight, the tank overall had superior situational awareness compaired to soviet tanks (better commander's vision)

@harmdallmeyer6449

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 But not being able to see doesn't help when setting the gun on the target. Also, the gunner being able to independently look takes a bit of the workload off the commander

OKW: We want to make the Panther as reliable as Panzer IV Tank crews: By making the Panther reliable, right? OKW:... Tank crews: BY MAKING THE PANTHER RELIABLE, RIGHT?!

German transmissions after driving for .00000001 miles :hehe I go cracc

@santiagoperez2094

3 жыл бұрын

Americans trying to cramp any possable engine on the m4 sherman to see woch wouldnt crack in the slightly slope: oh well

You touched on this, but it should be re-emphasized: one of the major problems, if not is biggest, was the fact that Hitler had placed such a low priority on logistics that he had damaged/crippled the Panzer divisions throughout the war. You may also want to consider this: The Germans were using forced labor to build their tanks. The workers came from conquered countries. These workers were sabotaging the gear boxes and other items during construction. I once read a report of workers breaking off teeth of gears.

This guy is great. He makes videos that aren’t just a rant but they are realistic and he points out problems that actually are relevant. Keep up the good work👍

"the genralhullshemainsimliarto the Panzer IV" uhh...what?

first 200! thanks spookston for the great content!

Another thing I think is how situational its optimal performance is. Coming down to the gun and the optics, the high velocity gun made firing HE unstable and was avoided, making it lose the multirole support aspect the tanks before it had. In another aspect for friendly infantry, being in proximity around the front of the tank was a notable health hazard because of the shockwave from the gun firing due again to the high velocity nature of the gun and ammo. Also the gunner optic was highly magnified, and the gunner had no panoramic site, so he had to rely on the commander to actually spot the target.

I like that the background footage used for this is of what I call the "Spy Panther". So easy to confuse some German players when they just glance at you, see a Panther, then get KO'd immediately after.

I've always wanted to know why the Germans had such issues building/designing a transmission that wasnt dogshit.

@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537

3 жыл бұрын

How we got to this point. 1)Start out with a smaller tank as the base design 2)Use an older gear design that doesn't handle overstress the best 3)Increase weight to meet new needs 4)Don't immediately upgrade the transmission, to keep resource strain down 5)Get sabotaged by willful doorknobs from the labor camps, making it look worse 6)Have victors writing the history spread rumors 7)The internet lost its barrier to access, allowing the lowest intelligence levels to spam fart jokes about it

@hedgehog3180

3 жыл бұрын

It's probably mostly that actually upgrading the transmission would potentially require a massive rework of the entire tank. The IS-2 for example started out as just a program to develop a better transmission for the KV line and it went through a handful of different designs until it ended up with a completely different and almost unrecognizable tank and it wasn't until 1944 it saw combat. The Soviets were at least motivated to do this because the KV-1 was becoming obsolete and they were focusing on the T-34 anyways, plus it was a heavy tank and you can survive without those, but imagine doing this with your brand new medium tank that at least on paper should be cutting edge and not need to be taken off the front line for years. Not only would it mean that a tank that you introduced might not have a functional replacement for years, at a time where things are really dire for you, but you'd probably basically need to make an entirely new tank to counter whatever your enemies have introduced in the mean time. It's a hard pill to swallow and you can see why the Germans were resistant to initiate such a program when the war wasn't going that well for them in the first place, so they ended up just settling for the work-arounds and quick fixes they could find and those were good enough for the moment. Though it does also seem like whoever was in charge of tank development in Germany failed to realize the importance of such issues since the Panther 2 program was started when they found that Soviet AT rifles were able to penetrate the side of the armor so I think there was perhaps also just an institutional bias towards valuing armor and guns over other parts of a tank.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

1. Transmission wasn't shot for all tanks. 2. Panther had a severe problem with transmission due to its design. They knew how to solve this issue but the problem is that they couldn't fix it because they lacked the tools to make the part so they half assed it to get a powerful tank up and partially running. 3. Slave labor contributes to mechanical failures. 4. Same goes for the Tiger I in that the correct get couldn't be made since they lacked tools to do so. But at least that transmission didnt have badly designed gears.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 don't immediately upgrade the transmission? Th ats how thatte hermana never truly reached mass production. The Soviets took time complimenting their changes after abo it a year. So production only grows, then slows down one the big change happens, then the production slowly rises up and without changes or upgrades the production stays streamlined. The Germans tended to implement upgrades and designs every couple of months or so. This slowly adds up and drags down production, it is why the Germans didnt produce tanks as quickly, any small changes has to be implemented in all factories which slows do production overall. It works best for dealing with problems immediately but is bad for mass production. The Soviet method works well for solving all issues but takes time and your flaws will remain for a while. In this case transmission should be changes immediately one the time comes.

@_aragornyesyes_7171

3 жыл бұрын

well for one they weren't getting fbombed by US & the Bri ish

Talkes about panther Uses the french dauphine panther to get easy kill montages because of tiger problem

Tiger fanboi here. With that said: 1) Panther's turret was unfriendly to the loader. Further, the single turret roof door coupled with the turret rear loading hatch* provided awkward egress. Gun overhang was an interesting factor, to say the least, in vehicle placement, movement, and transport. 2) Panther was more modern, suggesting it was (hopefully) more rationalized, production-wise. 3) 7.5cmKwK42 was quite the weapon. Generally, the higher the velocity, the shorter the barrel life. Like many tank qualities it's a trade-off. Do we want more punch or longer life/less logistical strain? 4) "I find our lack of Tigers disturbing". Johan Allenda Cmdr 20th Baguettenwerfer Battery *And the large breech and breech guard

it's worth pointing out that by the end of simultaneous industrial scale manufacturing the Panther ended up being cheaper and faster to produce, requiring only 2,000 man-hours compared to 5,500 man-hours for a Pz. IV to manufacture since there were less welded components and the modules in the drivetrain could be inserted as a unit rather than being installed seperately like the older Pz. IV, however a large part of improved reliability on the Panther in the late war can be attributed to Germany instructing Drivers to not attempt any neutral steer operations as that would put excessive stress on the final drive, to bandaid the backfiring issue you would simply operate the throttle more slowly since sudden throttle changes on a poorly tuned carbureted engine cause backfires, and the Panther 4 carburetor setup with a single intake manifold is a setup which would be hard to set up on a wide scale as any change in tune on one carb affects the operation of all the others, leading to performance issues, this was planned to be fixed by switching to a mechanical fuel injection unit which combined with a supercharger was expected to provide more HP and better reliability in the field.

having a kill shot at the beginning of every single video is so god damn satisfying

Heavy tank in medium tank's clothes (or the other way round?) and certainly not an MBT. Undoubtedly a looker.

@jerryudonneedtoknow3903

3 жыл бұрын

By weight and looks a heavy tank, by role a medium tank in all aspects

My father fought in East (Kursk) and West (Ardennes ) with the 1.SS Panzer, Leibstandarte . He said the Tiger I was brutal, Tiger II was called Life Insurance , but he would have never switched formlos Panther. They took out 11 T34/85 in 15 minutes and two ISII at 1945 Spring Awakening offensive in Hungary. Ehe French Army used the Panther Till the mid 1950s which was with a trained crew a killing machine ….March 16 they battled some well hidden IS2 Inna village , destroyed several but one hit him from the side ….

It was basically the same situation as early T-34(maybe it's just a sign of how hard it is to put a new tanks into production during wartime?). Same problems, same drawbacks, different solutions though. We haven't thankfully found out if Panther F would have been the same definite model that fixed most of the issues like 1943 model was for T-34. Funnily enough, Tiger also had KV-1 trouble, BUT they have gone in opposite direction from actually fixing them. KV-1S, KV-85, KV-13, IS-1, IS-2 and finally IS-3. Soviets had put priority on fixing the reliability trouble and that meant cutting weight and making new transmission. But with Tiger germans had gone for the opposite direction on that progression - they decided to tackle armor and armament increase first and only then fix reliability. I wonder how a Tiger 1S would have looked like though:D

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

the F was mostly just a turret, the initial Fs were just going to be G hulls with a new turret. the automotive components would be changed in a later design.

What is your opinion on the supposed war thunder 'hackers', would you do a video on it?

@jamesharding3459

3 жыл бұрын

They exist, they’re a big and growing problem, Gaijin won’t do anything.

@Atourq

3 жыл бұрын

What hackers? Are these the Chinese bots going around? The ones with just random letters or numbers for names?

@jamesharding3459

3 жыл бұрын

@@Atourq No, the ones with aimbot, wallhack, etc.

@akiiira6709

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesharding3459 thorq is right, most of the hackers r Chinese players with barcode number names

If you ask me the Panther had a pretty big profile. Not the best attribute.

@Etaoinshrdlu69

3 жыл бұрын

T-44 was better

@CrazyDutchguys

3 жыл бұрын

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 T-44 didnt even fight in WW2...

@CrazyDutchguys

3 жыл бұрын

You say that, but Shermans are a lot larget than you'd think, they're basically the same height as a Tiger

@Atourq

3 жыл бұрын

Tanks in general (hell planes in WWII even) are a lot larger than people think. Also a taller profile doesn’t necessarily mean a bad thing for tanks. There are pros and cons to both

@akiiira6709

3 жыл бұрын

@@CrazyDutchguys he didn't say it did tho

It should be noted that the French tests in 1947 weren't conducted accurately. They only tested 3 Panther A Early's recovered from the Normandy/Calais area, all 3 of which had seen substantial service before the test and weren't overhauled besides regular repairs needed to keep them running. This means that you have only 3 tanks of the 6000 produced, of an earlier build that had known issues, which all were susceptible to breakdown from previous damage. The numbers stated by German field reports, army newspapers and official inquiries by staff responsible for the Panzer arm all state different numbers throughout the Panther's lifespan. The final drive lay between the 150km mentioned at minimum, and a maximum of 1500km. The engine is also in the 1500km range. Some Panthers, especially with trained crew that knew how to drive them without causing overstressing, could reach distances of up to 4000km without major repairs besides track replacements or teething adjustments.

The turret rotation is a nightmare

@Atourq

3 жыл бұрын

Only one of them has horrible turret rotation, the rest are pretty fine.

More “everything wrong with the vehicles from” vids when?

Next do "How good was the Sherman really"

@teox7967

3 жыл бұрын

very good done

@justzzzx623

3 жыл бұрын

very bad done

@teox7967

3 жыл бұрын

@@justzzzx623 Wehraboo spottet

@hklassehutten1476

3 жыл бұрын

@@teox7967 average Yankee grammar Freeaboo spotted

I may have missed it in the video but I do remember a report a few years ago about German tank production of the late war being rated more unreliable than actually should have been due to slave labor to build the components and it being consistently sabotaged. A good example is the front sprocket on the tracks (Germans used very large sprockets with all preasure on a few teeth , 6 or so, while allied versions used 18+ to minimize the strain on the part) having teeth broken and glued together so it broke down very shortly after leaving the factory. I always thought this was one of the reasons it's reliability was called into question. It obviously had other issues though as well. I always wondered how good the tiger/panthers would have been under professional grade production.

As a former tanker, I cringe everytime I see that interleaved suspension system

If sturer emil was historically accurate? pls its my favorite vehicle in the game

@WhysafraidofCause

3 жыл бұрын

You must be the masochist I've been hearing so much about

@codexjerry1156

3 жыл бұрын

1.5 kd with 53% win ratio dont seem like suffering

Idk if you really care about improving your speaking in videos, all up to you, but if you're interested I think your speaking would be *greatly* improved if you didn't rush your sentences so much- your speaking voice is actually really pleasant, but it gets ruined when you garble pronunciation from rushing your sentences. Not to say you *have* to speak more slowly even, if you run through your line once or twice to make sure you aren't garbling or missing out on syllables, it'd sound just as good- bringing the tempo down a notch is probably a bit easier though

I love these history videos on tanks. Enjoying your analysis you normally do for your WT videos into some real stuff.

Spookston playing the French panther to get French teammates so he could record a video - smart

Its not bad, it was considered one of the best tanks in ww2

@racernatorde5318

3 жыл бұрын

I guess plenty of tanks at the time had mechanical issues. That's what happens when development is happening under war and there is no time for proper testing or such. Early T-34 was a pretty bad tank for example

@agentkaos1768

2 жыл бұрын

T34s are considered bad, especially the early version but they are considered the best tanks of the war. What's your point?

I’m starting to notice a pattern of spook either hating on Germany in war thunder or Germany irl

@akiiira6709

3 жыл бұрын

l2p

Fellas the touch screen on my phone doesn’t work where the KZread searchbar is, can someone pls link me the Barkley Shut up and Jam: Gaiden theme?

Love a underwater game’s music in a tank video. (I love Subnautica’s into the unknown by the way)

In before the angry wehraboos

@liviuganea4108

3 жыл бұрын

Says the angry burgerboo.

Honestly i think the vk 30.01 just looks better than the panther

It looks great, but it is a PAIN to maintain in the field. The interleaved road wheels were a curse. The final drive was so touchy that Speer had to command that drivers SLOW DOWN. They young kids were destroying their Panthers before they even reached the front. Today's video wargames/ paper wargames show too high of a rating for its mobility. In actual combat, the Krauts found that they could NOT use parade ground/ test track acceleration. They'd break their toy if they did.

Love the subnautica music in the backround

"make more pz4" HA one of most funny things i saw, instead of more tanks they would get same amount of worse tanks, Imagine having no fuel because your Marshal thought that your order to get oil first was stupid and did his own thing thne blaming it on you

@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334

3 жыл бұрын

>Implying the Panzer 4 was a bad tank

@wojszach4443

3 жыл бұрын

@@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334 >Implying there were no better alternatives

@magicelf7559

3 жыл бұрын

@@wojszach4443 >implying that the late war German economy could handle mass production of the panther compared to the pz4 when it has been bombed to oblivion

@wojszach4443

3 жыл бұрын

@@magicelf7559 Implying they had oil for mass producing anything oil, oil is the limit not industry. they had barely oil for low numbers they had already. Hitler wet east for oil, Halder decided that Moscow is better target, we know results.

@leonardwhite2708

3 жыл бұрын

You do realise how much more steel and reichmarks the Panthers and Tigers needed to be produced right? On top of that, they would have easily used more than double the amount of fuel as the earlier mediums, as well as many more man hours. All of which was scarce at the end of the war for Germany.

The cries of Wehraboos, I can hear them already

@AymanAli136

3 жыл бұрын

Das panther is the best ja well it has alot of problems but we don't we talk about that here

@jaxrammus9165

3 жыл бұрын

unfunny and unoriginal

@Azachor

3 жыл бұрын

@@jaxrammus9165 have not asked for your opinion

Can you make a video about the performance of the M26 Pershing and if it looked eye to eye with the T44, please? I would like to hear your opinion.

@akiiira6709

3 жыл бұрын

I can give a sort of over summarized evaluation based off of playing both a little although this won't be accurate to IRL. The t-44 basically is a slightly uparmored and more maneuverable t-34-85 whereas the Pershing had better armor and was slightly sluggish iirc but had a way punchier gun.

I think it's worth mentioning that generally speaking, it took most nations about two years to debug an entirely new tank chassis. The Churchill had many mechanical flaws in it's original form and it took about 18 months to develop the Mk III with the teething problems sorted. Early T-34s had a weak transmission and the KV series was never really reliable, but the work put into them through 1941 and 42 meant the later T-34s and IS series were. The M26 was a mechanical dog and it took the M46 of 1948 to turn it into a mechanically reliable system. The M4 was only as reliable as it was because it was a third iteration of the old M2 medium chassis. From the Panther's combat debut to the end of the war was scarcely two years. That the tank was not reliable straight out of the box was not surprising, and the Germans simply didn't have the time to fix all it's problems.

@matthiuskoenig3378

3 жыл бұрын

I mean the IS series is literally just a rebranding of the KV series. the IS-1 is just a lengthened KV-13 hull to allow a bigger turret. its got the same automotives, and the KV-13 itself is just a heavily modified KV-1, mostly just the hull shape, its got the same suspension and a very similar engine and drive train.

@Dreachon

3 жыл бұрын

This pretty much.

You bought me with the Subnautica music

Absolute chad using subnautica music

gotta love the subnautica soundtrack in the background

Having read nearly everything you can about this tank.. The video is "ok" but most things you stated come from soviet early "reports" on it. Thing is that soviet discovered that the Panther was so good, so powerful that they had to make a "watered-down" report and to exagerate bit some issues to keep the morale of their tankers up ! The Panther was really appreaciated by its crews, feared by its enemies. Sometimes mistaken for a "Tiger" (since all german tanks were "Tigers" for allies at some point), Panther seems to have lived in the shadow of its big brother.. The only real main issue was the width of the turret ring/deck which was too narrow to fit larget turrets and thus, larger guns ! Evolution potential was really poor (which lead to E-serie having a quite wide deck). Turret was really "inspired" from previous works and really conservative in design and the workload was heavy, manipulating very long 75mm shells is reported as "tedious" after a long period of battle. The chassis, the quality of drive was reported as very smooth and stable (which is surprisingly well represented in WT). Engine problems were tied to the variable quality of the fuel available and what kind of additives were put in it (some anti-freeze during the russian campaign). Some additive really reduced the potential of the engine, with a poor quality of fuel and sometimes they increase octane so high that it causes massive problems. Never forget that these old engine used carburettors and were real sensitive to a fine tuning of it ! Clogged carbu's caused overfillings and fires, and too high octane, massive knocking, backfire, valve twists and so on.. Finally, gearbox was "easily" removable by a huge plate that could be removed from the deck. BUT ! This work was reported as tedious and only "doable" by experienced mechanics from the main workshop of the battalion, small issues on the gearbox were fixed from inside and indeed it was hard to work it on. Also, removing the gearbox or working on it required specific tools not widely available I freaking love the Panther and how MAN tried to perfect a design that was flawed by "ego" decisions ! Their initial project was way better but too close in terms of visuals to a "filthy", "untermensch", "communist", "sub-par" design Both sides fantasied about the Panther, soviets were scared to see reports of their new T-34 smply wiped by them and germans and their known propaganda.. Most of books i've read are in french because french quite used them after WW2 and made several objective reports on them and the Panther was the tank who influenced the french tank doctrine the most for the upcoming decades ! -Not the biggest caliber gun -Mounted on a very sane, very stable chassis -Strong and powerful engine -Good view around with huge emphase on TC role -Very good cross terrain mobility -Not the best armor, but refined tactics Sorry for long post, i was a bit emotionnal ^^

My favorite German tank in World War 2 is the Panzer IV. But I think the panther is neat and in my mind it's kinda like a "Tiger but better" sorta thing Also I like how a lot of the Panther's development was "those T-34's are pretty good, we're gonna need some T-34s but with an iron cross on them to beat them"

Just a hint on the pronunciation of German tank "brands": for Krupp say: "kroop" (same as "crook" with a "P" at the end), for Daimler-Benz, say: "Dime-ler Bentz".

YES! I finally caught a video within an hour of release. Love you man, another great video

I kind of want to see you do a video on the future of air combat, and I'd like you to talk about why modern aircraft have a gun, despite it not being the primary weapon. I've seen a ton of arguments about this subject.

@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334

3 жыл бұрын

It's the same type of reason military personnel still carry knives and the like despite the fact that firearms of all kinds have lengthened standard engagement ranges to far beyond the usable range of a knife. It's better to have it and not need it in most engagements than to not have it when that one rare close-up fight takes place and your opponent ends up the victor because of its absence.

@akiiira6709

3 жыл бұрын

As a last resort on the very off chance that it comes down to a dogfight. Also akiiira says hello

As someone who has played the firefly a lot, I'm more scared of panthers than tigers.

@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537

3 жыл бұрын

Before the armor cap on the tiger, you could angle at 45 degrees and only die to a shot trap. It was pretty horrifying in the days where shells were pixels that auto penned Shermans at all angles. You either hit the trap or died before you could be coward spraying his barrel with a 50cal.

@wolfehoffmann2697

3 жыл бұрын

When I do play, my entire line up now is 76mm gun shermans and the M18 hellcat. I completely agree. The panther is harder to deal with. I think part of it too is that many German players tend to be over confident because of the mythology of German armor. I see a lot of Tiger players quit a match the second the get shot up, but the ones that stick it out to get to the panther seem to be more patient and competent.

@oscarswinnerton3538

3 жыл бұрын

@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 most of the tigers that I encounter don't angle. Sadly the ones that I did encounter angeling was when I was using the comet.

@nikolairostov3326

3 жыл бұрын

It seems that I’m usually over tiered when I play firefly.

@racernatorde5318

3 жыл бұрын

@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 "Armor cap"? (Never really played WT too actively)

modifying to 80mm front armor?? The guy who made that decision must have been smoking cra- oh i see.

When a Sherman faced a Panther, the Sherman won about 60% of the time BTW. Usually because the Sherman was better supported with supplies, spare parts. infantry support and air reconnaisance. Also because the US had the luxury of time to thoroughly test the Sherman before putting it into production.

I definitely feel like if there was ever a perfect middle ground between “Screwed from the production line” and “Good design, decent product” the Panther would fit perfectly there.

Unfortunately a number of standard German tank hull design approaches (their rather tall engines, flat engine deck, full-width hull, hull sponsons and front drive) all conspired to make the Panther incredibly tall and wide for the turret, gun and engine it was packing. This compounded the weight gain from front and side armour massively, resulting in a vehicle less protected than a T-44 in all respects, but 15 tonnes heavier and with the same turret ring diameter. German designers kept these features around for various reasons (some rational and others more or less office-political), but taken together they were a disaster for a design that entered service already at the outer edge of its automotive weight margins. Tank archives has a good articles following how this all unfolded.

i love the background subnautica music

The Panther is my favourite tank in War Thunder, regardless of what happened irl.

everyone says "the germans made horrible transmissions" meanwhile in the russian tanks was much more terrible transmissions,and dont forget,the panther was able to turn on spot,what is a huge advantage in city fights and ect..

@harmdallmeyer6449

2 жыл бұрын

Well, the Soviets could very easily replace their broken transmissions, whereas the Germans, due to lack of spare parts and bad accesibilty, couldn't