@@DeerHunter308 Not quite. I advocated that the Sherman was a credit to logistical foresight, but I didn't specifically berate anything for failing the logistical considerations per se.
“Things have gone a little bit skew-whiff on the Continent.” We really need to hear more from the Director, his mastery of British understatement is prodigious.
@Scumfuck McDoucheface it is often used to describe two things that should line up but don't like a bolt that should go into a hole but is bent off to one side, is a bit "skew-whiff". You might also say things had "gone a bit sideways"
@@christofferthorsson7657 Was the wooden mallet a real thing? Both the T-34 and KV-1 had notoriously difficult transmissions, and yes, there are at least anecdotal reports of drivers carrying a mallet to help shift gears. Or use their feet, or another crew member to help move the thing. “Good enough” wartime Soviet engineering at its finest. (And they won, so that may say something.)
Just a tip of the hat to the logistics comment. Most people will understand why I approve.... I had a similar experience with Tom Jentz. By the time I was done talking to him after half an hour, he had made me feel (without intending to) that I knew nothing on the subject.
@VollerVollkorn And the T-34 had mechanical issues into 1943, with a significant proportion of the 5th Guards Tank Army breaking down on their way to the Kursk battle front. Already by March 1944 the Panthers of Panzer Regiment 2 had done 1,500 km.
@VollerVollkorn Most are either not aware of it or they deliberately ignore it. Even the Sherman, which had the benefit of a lot of existing components, when it was being develop still seemed to have had its share of automotive problems. One of us over at Tank Encyclopedia is working on a new article about the Sherman and he made mention that he has a report from early on that has a 3 page list of defects for just the Sherman. A new tank design is going to have issues, that is just how it went back then. The Churchill also had a myriad of mechanical issues early on and the British A27 tank was a first an utter nightmare until after a year or so of thinkering with it they finally got it to be design and slapepd the name Cromwell on it. The Panther certainly had its shares of issues, make no mistake about that. A large number of these were the result of the incredibly short design and development period the tank underwent.
@VollerVollkorn Efficient is not the word I would use, the performance of the ausf. D at Kursk was pretty poor but that was to be expected. It isn't really until the ausf. G appears that a lot of of the first issues are resolved but eventhroughout production of the ausf. G they keep of developing it.
I love Matilda I's they are the best tank for the role they where designed for and when they got to do it where a holly terror to their enemies but they where not the tank for the war they ended up having to fight alas
Logistics makes the world go around, and as some who does work in logistics, Richard's rant about the two types of organizations and how they treat logistics rings true.
Yup. Sales and operational management - promise everything. Logistics - as the last in the line, get left with the mess, and all the blame, 99% of which could have been resolved if they had had input from the start, for very little effort and virtually no cost (certainly far less cost and effort that will be required to sort the issues.).....
@@gunmnky Agreed.The Allies won because they produced more of everything individually than the Axis produced in combination... and then effectively got it to the fighting front and kept it supplied.
"A failed prototype is a success, because you've been brave enough to say 'that hasn't worked' and walked away from the project" Very surprised that the Elefant didn't get mentioned after that. Good list and good arguments overall!
@@darianbrowning1608no, but it was built on a failed prototype. I mean it failed as much as a prototype could fail. If your car catches fire in front of your boss, you probbapy shouldn't build an extra few dozen. And definitely not even heavier.
I really enjoy Mr. Smith's presentations. They are well thought out and his apparent effortless use of humour to make his points is admirable. It definitely keeps one rivetted to what he is saying. Good arguments for the tanks on this list.
Nut the TOG was surely even worse than Mathilda 1 with the exact same flaws and less excuse as they had seen the Blitzkrieg in action by then and knew WWI wasn't going to repeat.
Thom S I enjoyed it too. Mr Smith’s delivery, his mannerisms, sense of humour and his use of the clipboard reminded me very much of the late Denis Norten. Sort of a “It’ll be alright on the night worst tanks edition.” That is, of course, “If you’re one of those people...” who are old enough to remember it! 😱🤣
Ahahaha, haven't laughed that well for a while: "If the russian 18 years old learns driving a crappy tractor and gets assigned to a T-34, then this tank also drives like a crappy tractor" 😂😂😂 That is so well said, man! I'm coming from the former Soviet Union, so I can get it very well! 👍
@@landonorris6 well, it's the point; good use of what you have in resource and knowledge. Sure, the T34 is kinda crappy compared to the high-polished Panther. But you can have crappy T34 and drivers and mechanics to run them, from Russian population. . Germans had Panthers broken down and not enough people able to fix it.
@@ulissedazante5748 Well considering the German tanks took out over 5-1 on average, and that still wasn't enough, all it really says is you shouldn't fight a war where you are outnumbered over 15-1. Kind of obvious but High Command missed the memo.
well i will be honest i wasnt sure if i would be able to split my crushes with yet ANOTHER tank curator at the museum but Richard talking about supply chain management is something i never considered learning about tanks and watching these videos, and i love how each individual curator has their own personality and view when talking about tanks, there could literally be 5 different videos on the one tank by 5 different people and each one would be a unique experience!
One thing that's made the Covid outbreak bearable is how it brought people like Richard into our sphere of awareness. I've watched all the videos he's made and they're all fascinating. His approach to things military is unique, insightful and thought provoking. David's videos have been equally fascinating. In many ways, the epidemic has greatly improved The Tank Museum's on-line presence. While I'm happy that the museum has been able to reopen, I'll miss this sort of content if they can no longer find the time to create it.
@@silentotto5099 Very well said, indeed! Those two gentlemen (in all senses of the word) together with Nicholas Moran (the Chieftain) have been uniquely responsible in developing my interest in tanks - a field where I previously had zero interest.
Your passion and erudition when it comes to tanks is greatly appreciated, as is all you do as director of the Tank Museum. I've never visited there in real life, physically, but virtually, it's one of my favorite places in the world, and you, David Wiley, and David Fletcher are some of my favorite people.
@@bigblue6917 to a westerner maybe , but the Germans were trying to keep ahead of the Soviets who were bennining mass production of heavy Tanks protected by 200mm + armor and wielding high velocity 100mm/122mm canons. A decade later the American and British army were fielding tanks just as heavy to counter the Soviet IS line up
@@mikhailzavarov4958 The thing is, at the end of WWII Germans werent producing vehicles that were ahead of anything. They just produced heavier things. Jagdtiger was mostly used on the western front, cause even transporting them from the Ruhr valley to the eastern front was too difficult. In IIIrd Reich you could be shot for disbelief in the ability of the Wehrmacht. And common sense was ignored because of that.
@@Paciat The first Jagdtigers to come off the asembly line were sent to the western front to participate in the upcoming ardenne offensive. A few survivors were then sent east to Hungary/ Austria front to fight the Soviets, transporting them around from sector to sector on rail cars clearly wasnt the biggest issue for the high command
Of course it was. Think of it's size compared to the Jagtiger. Imagine they were making these at the same time as Valentine and Matilda 2, tanks that were actually useful. So really these being built compromised capacity to build decent vehicles.
I'd like to see more content from Director Richard Smith. His enthousiasm and delivery are really entertaining and gripping at the same time while providing the correct amount of information.
I have to see that Jagdtiger IRL... What a ridiculous machine! I'm going to the UK as my next vacation, and this museum is very near the top of my list of places I plan on visiting. I'm a new subscriber and also relatively new to being totally fascinated by tanks, and I love the work you all do. This channel is fantastic, and I really appreciate the TH-camr enthusiast videos that you host!
I have often thought that the mustache was one he had inherited from an ancestor from the later part of the 19th century. Possibly while said ancestor was serving in India. Bengal Lancers or something similar.
@@mapexblack polish tanks were good, the 7tp could handle the panzers pretty well during the invasion and the tankettes did their job (although a very limited job since they still were tankettes) the poles just didn't have many modern tanks or many tanks at all
Pedro... must say I agree with you, which is ironic as it was the Brits who innovated, produced and employed the first tanks in combat... which in fairness were relatively successful for their day.
Pedro are you forgetting the Centurion? One of the best post war tanks. Even the cheiftan had a lot of good points and would have been even better if they had ignored the nato requirement for a mutlifuel tank like the other nations did.
Excuse me but I think we all know that the Mustached Man, David Fletcher, is quite obviously the best-looking presenter on the Tank Museum's TH-cam channel.
They all look so much like Historians and its brilliant! Historians by and large all have bad hair and fringe at best, terrible at worst fashion sense. -A Historian.
"If you have any issues with my inclusion of Panther pleas include them of David Willey's videos" Outstanding administrator! Passes the buck and blame onto his subordinates. Would your HR director happen to be Dogbert?
@@paavobergmann4920 Yet Mcdonalds is a successful company that still sells more icecream and milkshakes than any other single company out there. Just saying.
Personally, I liked this take on tanks from the perspective of whether or not the tanks could mechanically meet expectations. Panther was a superior tank tactically, able to take hits and give them, but its bad final drive really prevented it being a replacement for the Mk IV in a war of movement like it was supposed to. If you wanted to drive 200 km into the enemy, you were better off with StuGs and Mk IV even in 1945. Same with the Jadgtiger: even if it was supremely deadly when it was in battle, it couldn't really ever get to the battle so very much a failed vehicle.
Please, please STOP this panther final drive myth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability HaVoC117X wrote under the Panther: The most Controversial Panzer video: "In regards to final drive and reliability: "From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t). Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100. General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem. He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation." (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger). According to Hartmut Knittels Book "Panzerfertigung im Zweiten Weltkrieg", the officials in the Nibelungen Werke (Panzer IV production) were clearly aware that they made use of final drives, which did not meet the quality standards. The german war industry was forced to experiment with the hardening processes during the steel production, because they were short on certain resources. This could be the reason, why all late war german tanks (38t, Panzer III and IV, Panthers, Tigers) suffered from broken finald drives and bad bearings. Were the final drives to weak or a flawed design. I dont think so: Some people claim (including Spielberger), that the final drives of the Panther were bad by design, but the Centurion, which was 7 tons heavier, used the exact same type of final drives. Like many other tanks too, M26 for example. (Thx Roland). Page 118 "The Centurion Tank" by Pat Ware In the Chapter "Centurion Reference Data it says: "Final Drive: double-reduction spur gear train; ratio 7.41:1 (MK 1 6,94:1) Here is a picture out of Spielbergers Book: Final Drive with double spur reduction gear i.imgur.com/dGktjYv.png A Bergepanther drove 4200 km without new spareparts and 1000 km from 4200 km it was towing other panthers. (Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55.) "There is an article on this subject in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (News sheet: Armoured troops): Performance of a Panther-recovery tank driver. Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has up to 3 May 1944 driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km without an engine change or damage to the transmission, including the final drive units, gearbox and drive shaft. Approximately 1,000km of this was made towing a Panther tank. The vehicle and engine are still in excellent condition and continue to be operational.(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55). "On Octover 28, 1944, the problem with the final drives seemed to be solved. The 654th reported that Jagdpanthers had already covered 400 to 500 km without damage." (Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development - Production - Operations by Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz. Schiffer Publishing Ltd page 24.) The theory that the drivetrain of the Panther was overstressed, can explain why Panthers had big reliability problems. But this theory can not explain, why large percentage of Panthers made it easily beyond those often claimed 150 km before the final drive gave up or other parts of the drivetrain broke down. This theory can not explain why a Bergepanther drove 4200 km including the stress of towing another 45 Ton Panther without receiving any damage. I think production quality, available resources and crew training were the true limiting factors. In terms of reliability i think we are a bit hypercritical in the Panthers case. Lets compare it to other tanks: The russians turned the war around with tank engines (The V2-series), which had a service life of only 300 to 400 km between 1941 until mid 1944 (T 34 vs Stug III by Steven Zaloga). Percentage of T34 tanks reaching 300km during factory trials (Zaloga, Page 14): Apr 43 = 10.1%, May 43 = 23%, Jun 43 = 7.7% This number slowly imporves to 79% in February 1944. But only 33% reached 1000 km before a breakdown in Feb. 1944 The 6th Guards Tank Army discovered the following lifespans of their tanks (late 1944/45): T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours IS 2/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours The Churchill was accepted for frontline duty in 1941, after its engine reached a service life of 500 miles (800 km). The first Churchill production batches had a service life for the engine and transmission of 250 miles. Cromwells, Matildas and Valentines (also less than 1000 miles) are also not shining examples in terms of reliability. (British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934-1945 by Benjamin Coombs). Hilary Doyle pointed out several times, that the final drives became quite reliable. He also said that the germans knew what they were doing when it comes down to tank maintenance. (Chieftain and Doyle in the Panzer Museum Munster, on Chieftains youtube channel). The replacement of the engine took only 8 hours in a Panther under field conditions. For a Centurion you need 15,5 hours in the field. I would assume that a Sherman with a radial engine, a twin diesel or an 30 cylinder Chrysler Multibank engine are much harder to maintain than a regular V12. At least the radial and the Multibank engine have many cylinder heads facing down into the tank hull. I think that they had to remove the engine out of the sherman for basic maintenances. Does anyone have detailed information on this? Spielberger wrote that the germans disliked the idea of an radial engine for a tank, because of difficult maintenances. The French guys of the Tank Museum in Saumur were interviewed by Bernhard at the Tankfest 2019 about their Panther and their experiences with it. Didn't they admitted that they prefer to work on the Panther than on other tanks of the same time period? Unlike the common believe, they admitted, that the Panther was actually build with ease of maintenance in mind (at least the engine bay). Correct me if i am wrong here. I think it is really surprising that they mentioned maintainability as big pro for the Panther design. But there must be something to it, because the Panther achieved the same combat ready rates as the Panzer IV since spring 1944 (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz). Nonetheless there are many contradicting facts and reports around. The matter remains complicated. The Leopard 2 was also designed as a counter to the possible massive soviet tank assaults. Its main purpose was tank on tank warfare. Panther served the same purpose. Nobody would call the Leopard 2 a tank destroyer."
@@rolandhunter So, you're saying that the Panther's final drive was just fine, except for the small fact that Germany was unable to produce it to the high technical standards required for it to be as reliable as it should have been. I have news for you: That means the Panther's final drive was *CRAP!* A design for a component you cannot produce is a *BAD DESIGN.* I'm saying this as an engineer. The simple fact is that the Panther was a BAD tank. It had some admittedly impressive components on it, but it was an abject *failure* as a reliable weapon system because the people running the show were too busy jerking themselves off about sloped armor and big guns. And what really mystifies *me* is that, nearly eighty years later, people are *still* jerking themselves off about the exact same sloped armor and big guns!
@@JohnnyWishbone85 If you are an engineer, why are you not look at this in the objective way? Why are you can't understand what I wrote? If the Panther was so bad, why the experienced drivers could drive 1,800-4,200 km without final drive replacement? Why are you deny as an engineer the early Panther reports, and the late? (1944 spring) Early said: Engine problem, that was the main issue of the Panther Late said: With good driver and with enough fuel, you could use the Panther for 1,500-2,000 km, with trained crew. The very late reports:(1945) Everything was craps, because the germans had no materials for steel hardening. Why are you can't accept this 3 facts?
@@rolandhunter -- I assure you; I *AM* looking at it objectively. What the tank can do under ideal conditions when the country has all the exotic materials it needs and the drivers have all the exquisite training they need and the enemy drive out in ranks very slowly and without maneuvering and don't have artillery and air support and the planets align and God is On Our Side isn't worth one warm turd. What matters is what the weapons system can do under the conditions that are in front of you RIGHT NOW. What materials do we have right now? What training can we give the drivers right now? The Panther was a bad tank because the designers *FAILED* to see the reality they lived in. The Panther was designed for a fantasy world where Germany had enough exotic materials and spare parts and had the luxury of training all its tank drivers to the highest standard. To summarize: It doesn't matter what the tank was capable of under ideal conditions. The only thing that mattered was what the tank could do under *REAL* conditions.
@@JohnnyWishbone85 The last of your paragraph told me 100%, you know nothing about Germany in 1943-45. Did you ever ready any combat report about the Panther in 1944? Do not answer it, you already did: You are not. Why do I know this? If you had read any of it, you would not have written down your last paragraph. Thank you for telling me your lack of information/ignorance and relative point of view in this topic. Have a nice day!
It wasnt actually THAT bad. I mean, the Mk Vs they were having at the time with the rhomboid track going all around of course fared better than what effectively was a box on top of tracks that barely went the full length in the first place, and the high center of mass didnt help either. The battlefields were also just littered with so many craters and thrown up loose soil, that it was much more difficult to traverse than a WWII battlefield wouldve been. But it still got around reasonably well. Having a suspension as opposed to *not* definitely helped. But compare the A7V to some utter failures like the St. Chamond, which has approximately half the length of track it needs to get anywhere, or the Schneider CA1, which was even more boxy than the A7V, if you can imagine that, both of which had much worse engine power compared to their weight and still carried thinner armor only. Sure, the A7V was a hasty design with a whole bunch of flaws, but if I was going to arm the military of Elbonia in 1919, the A7V seems like a solid enough bet, at least after the FT-17, just because in any non-WWI trench warfare it would actually fare much better than either the Schneider or the St. Chamond, and probably also better than a Mk V.
@@builder396 uuuh. in the sticky swampy mud of no-mans land the A7v would get stuck, around 2/3 of a division never made it to the hostile trenches, and in a shell crater they would become trapped without infantry scouting their path ahead. The mark V would at least have the dignity to find DEEP mud or a mechanical issue before they broke down. and had to be abandoned.
Got a few things to say about this video: 1stly, Very Many Thanks for getting The Museum's Esteemed Director out of his office and busy schedule to make a post-lockdown video- I really enjoyed the videos Ricard Smith posted during lockdown. 2ndly, this video shows why he is the Director, Richard has the Tools for the job. 3rdly, I was at The Tank Museum on 30th September , and must say, the staff are doing an excellent job in such hard circumstances of making it accessible and enjoyable to visit. as I was leaving, I did encounter David Willey, but he was busy, so I couldn't chat with him, but, such is life. 4thly, the rearrangements of the displays look really good. Lastly, Richard's worst tank does , of course, correspond with The Revered Moustache's worst tank
Love the bottom 5 vids much more than the top 5s, they are much more interesting. I also really love your specification of production vehicles and some of your choices. Mr. Yentz's comments to you on the Panther and 18 year olds were very interesting indeed!
Mr Smith, today I just got a set of wrench, on sale, a very good deal. But even with it's lifelong warranty my kit will never unbolt as much things as your video just did to my mind. Sincerely thank you, have a nice day.
The Panther IS one of my favorite tanks (feeling a tiny bit wounded, lol), but you made some really good points, I think.. and all true.. thank you very much for an awesome share.. God bless.
He's information is actually quite poor. Dr Doyle wrote in one of he's books that german engineers tried to build a tiger i transmission for the panther but because of lack of proper machinery (because of lack of proper materials ) they chose a model of transmission that was easier to mass produce.I don't see how you can blame a tank design and it's designer for lacking proper materials .Also it's not the tanks fault for having poorly trained crew. Not to mention the french panthers were wrecks refurbished by AMX so the french tests as every test performed on foreign hardware has it's limitations . Another issue that Germany faced was lacking manpower so it was a far bigger problem for them to loose tank crews than it was to loose tanks or to repair those tanks. PS: Dr Doyle said in a video you can find on Chieftain channel (visiting German tank museum min 20 or so) that Panther was unreliable at first but by the time they produced the G model it was quite reliable .
@@ivjgknight5134 that still means that the transmission is not a good fit for the panther, and also means that the panther is still lacking in a key component. and thus they should've just shelved the panther as a prototype instead of passing it into production. imagine a smartphone whose batteries have a quirk that you should only charge it to 60% power every time, or risk having it burst into flames. it is technically a functional smartphone but its still a flawed phone.
The Oanther is a good, reliable tank and the most experienced crew were put in them. We have a lot of myth based on first performance as they were rushed out. These issues were fixed later. awhat we see here is a typical boss. He has no ideas of the product, he worked in a totally different field and falls for every myth and legend as he has no in depth knowledge. As a boss he does not have to bur he shoukd have been smart enough that Fletcher or another expert edited his biggest mistakes.
Really interesting list, made using a well justified metric. Well delivered with some good humour! To be honest, I'd have put jagdtiger further up the list, but there we go. I think it might be worth noting, for those critical of Mr Smith: directors are generally chosen for their management skills rather than their specific knowledge of individual inventory items. They are there to run the "business" of the museum, not the ins and outs of vehicles that may not even be on display. For a director to have that knowledge, to be spending half an hour talking to an expert about a single tank out of a portfolio of hundreds, is very unusual and beyond what would be expected.
The invasion through the Ardennes, the crushing of the French army, the fall of France and the headlong flight of the British and subsequent loss of equipment, ships and men resulting in the near destruction of the army, bringin Britain to the brink of surrender, equates to; "things went a little skew-whiff on the continent"
the command of the 600 men of the Gloucester's under attack by 30,000 chinese in Korea reported their situation as "things are a bit sticky, sir", that summary of the battle of France seems about right for scale. I don't think the British were ever near surrender, though they might have take a draw at points, while there's a British warship afloat the idea of the German Navy carrying an opposed landing and resupplying it seems far fetched.
what brink of surrender? they wouldn't have ever considered surrendering as long as the Royal Navy and Air Force were still around just like the USSR, the germans would have to march to Kamchatka (which is laughable considering they couldn't even get to Moscow without a total logistical collapse) and they still wouldn't surrender
@@Jeyeyeyey You do know the British government were seriously considering negotiating peace terms with the Nazis don't you? It got to the point where Italian ambassador Count Giuseppe Bastianini had received a visit from Lord Halifax in preparation for possible negotiations. It was largely the inluence of Churchill that changed the government mind after May 28th and withdrew the offer of further discussions. So you're wrong, they did consider it, they just didn't go ahead with it.
This is the same English descriptive standard Douglas Bader applied when, after barely surviving an aerobatics accident with the loss of both legs, he recorded the incident in his logbook as, "Crashed slow-rolling near ground. Bad show."
It is controversial. It would only be brave if it were true. He's blaming the tank for the problems of late war Germany, and the part he mentions specifically was fixed after the initial teething issue. It comes across as being controversial for controversy's sake, since the argument is the same as saying a race car breaks down too much. Well, given how hard they are run, you expect as much...
@@T4nkcommander Racing cars have nothing to do with it; they are not subject to mass production. The Panthers final drive was improved but was never flawless. French reports on the issue are well documented, and they could properly train the drivers and maintain the tanks in peace time. Still, the Panther wasn't a bad tank. Put in Murphy's Law here: anything that can (or even cannot !) break down will break down. Even the super-reliable Shermans broke down; why else would you design the thing to have its gear box literally screwed to the front where you can change it very quickly ? Not every US boy in the 40s was a petrol head nor did everybody have a car. Mr Smith pointed out one crucial, often overlooked aspect: you have to think about the operators. Any military hardware has to be designed for dummies. That doesn't mean a fighter pilot or electronics operator is a dummy, but a repair crew might not consist of rocket scientists either. From that point, the Panther was a nightmare. During my service, I was in a repair shop for Leopard I and Marders. I came fresh from school and had no idea of tank engines; being one of the above mentioned dummies. Nevertheless I had to fix the bloody things. Fair enough, these things were designed to be used and repaired by dummies.
@@T4nkcommander Nah it wasn't great. in top trumps its neat, but as an actual fighting vehicle that needs to be maintained and supplied it wasn't good.
Yes, but to paraphrase Guderian, the engine, and I guess by extension, the final drive are weapons. The Panther was a disaster mechanically. Yes, the German system was a mess, and it created overdesigned, overbuilt, unreliable, and unnecessary tanks like the Panther, the Tiger series, including Elephant. The fact that the tank is the result of a bad system doesn't excuse the flaws in the tank.
Slightly surprised that the biggest failing of the Panther wasn't mentioned: it was supposed to help the Germans to win at Kursk, and that offensive was delayed for months in order to have more of them there. Instead, those delays they missed their chance, and most of those that were in the area failed to do much other than break down.
A very good presentation that explains some of the most common and crucial development problems, good humour, clipboard was a nice touch. But maybe a little less coffee beforehand? Sins: 5. Finalize a design that is already obsolete. 4. Contempt for supply chain. 3. Failure to manage requirements. 2. Usability doesn't match capability. 1. Design a tank that doesn't actually work. Of course, sometimes an obsolete design is good enough in an emergency (American M3 Medium), servitude to the supply chain put a 3.7cm gun in the PzKpfw III, and if the requirements for the PzKpfw III had been better managed, a 5cm gun would have been impossible, usability beyond capability can make important upgrades possible (T-34 to T-34-85). Like any rules, the first four can be broken. But if you don't know when and how to break them, don't.
"Any issues with Panther... Please include them on any of David Willeys' video..."!!!!! CLASSIC VWell done! Great vid. Good choice of tanks In Production.
Not even remotely true. All fighting generals are clueless about logistics. They have people that care about that. Patton didn't even know where his railhead were. Montgomery tried to ford the Rhein instead of securing his supply line.
Nah professionals talk what they are tasked to talk about. Tacticians do tactics, logisticians do logistics, and the best commanders are the ones who talk to both before making important decisions. The real skill is learning when to worry about one more than the other.
Great presentation, I wouldn't place Panther so high on this list because, for one, it was usually crewed with veterans and they made really good use of it. I also would place Jagdtiger first on the list, even before Covenanter, because Covenanter made at least some good training vehicles.
And Britain did cut their loses and never bother using the thing in combat. I can think of way worse tanks than Panther. The Italian, French and Japanese tankettes were hopelessly obsolete on being built. Every problem of the Matilda I but without at least the benefits of decent armor and a rotating turret. The French Schneider and St. Chamonds were the same problem as the A7V of being nothing but a metal box on a Holt tractor chassis with minimal cross country ability and the French made a ton of them despite that flaw.
Indeed it takes a ship logistic guy to come up with such an idea. As mentioned before we see in Japan, Italy, France and other places failed tank designs by the dozen.
Panther is one of many where it's amazing on paper (and in games), but only on paper. I'm always interested by the shortcomings that wouldn't necessarily occur to even some enthusiasts. "These were being driven by 18-year-olds whose only driving experience was some hours in an outdated tank with completely different characteristics" is one of those things.
Exactly. Or Crew comfort. Obviously the Crew is going to fight worse if its been thrown around in a hot, cramped metal box with sharp edges all around, but it just isn't in the front of your mind when you think about tanks.
Considering the number of tanks & armoured vehicles in action across WWII, how many do you think got taken OOA after a crew member got caught with a muscle cramp (or something) at a key moment?
Can't really agree with the Panther, as you guessed. All mid to late war German tanks had the same issue with their final drives because they had to make them with soft, inferior steel due to the fact they lacked the Molybdenum to alloy the steel into something that could take the stress of moving around 30+ tons of vehicle.
Huh? You are agreeing with him! But you say you don't agree? How does that work? He said it was bad because the gear train isn't reliable. You said the gears aren't reliable because the Germans didn't have a specific material needed to make them strong enough. You just just proved him right.
@@fredygump5578 Because you can't blame a tank design on not having proper materials. He's information is actually quite poor. Dr Doyle wrote in one of he's books that german engineers tried to build a tiger i transmission for the panther but because of lack of proper machinery (because of lack of proper materials ) they chose a model of transmission that was easier to mass produce.I don't see how you can blame a tank design and it's designer for lacking proper materials .Also it's not the tanks fault for having poorly trained crew. Not to mention the french panthers were wrecks refurbished by AMX so the french tests as every test performed on foreign hardware has it's limitations . In Korea the Pershing was very unreliable because it was underpowered even compared to the Panther but still 3 to 4 times better than the Sherman tank as a study quoted By Zaloga in the book: "Panther Vs Sherman battle of the Bulge " states. Not to mention lack of lubricants .So many things that should have been said .
@@ivjgknight5134 He is trying to teach you something about reality: the design failed. It wasn't the appropriate design for the moment. They couldn't make it reliable enough to be effective. These things make it a failure. (Another sign that it was a failure, as said by The Chieftain, is that nobody used German tanks post war...well, I guess he said that the French tried to use Panthers for awhile, but they discovered the same reliability issues...and this was post war! They had access to every resource, and best of all, nobody was bombing them...so if it was such a great design needing a simple fix, they could easily have fixed it. But they didn't.)
@@fredygump5578 Dr Doyle said "quite reliable " when he was talking about later models of Panther tanks : Video on Chieftain channel called: WW2 at the Panzermuseum with Hilary Doyle Dec 26, 2018 . You can see figures supporting that in the book i quoted earlier by zaloga . The failed design claim is contradicted by veterans on both sides and the best tanks experts out there(not to mention you provided zero statistics and prove and zero information on battles it took part in ). Zaloga wrote in the book i mention that the Panther was clearly comparable to the Pershing and that it was better tactically than the Sherman .I'll get my books out and show you what's what . The Chieftain .He's writes worst scenario for german tanks , best scenario far allied sherman because he want's to end the death trap stigma of the sheman tank which and because of he's emotional emotional attachment.He didn't say the french test was performed on wrecks did he, not to mention like i said tanks don't usually do well in foreign tests , look at t34 , Abrams etc . Wasn't used after the war because it was a bad tank ? False the french base their post war designs like AMX-50 on german technology , suspension, engine etc.I'll give you the french historian who said that tomorrow when i look into my book collection . Even the Sherman wasn't as reliable as you think . Just to give you an example Earl W. Norris (veteran ) spent all he's time fixing M4 series tanks for the 12 armored division and he said quote: "it was nearly impossible to keep the stabilizer systems working properly and as a result very few tankers used them".But the Chieftain doesn't say negative things about the Sherman because like i said. And this is just the beginning .He said stuff like "After normandy the Tiger I was so rare that there were only 3 tiger vs us Sherman battles " .He doesn't say that tiger I production was stopped in August of 44 . So like i said poor info .I can read in five languages so there's plenty more info i have .
@@ivjgknight5134 I have an idea: why don't you give Hillary a call and tell him about this horrid injustice being perpetrated by the director of The Tank Museum? What I'm saying is, go tell someone who cares! LOL!
I have a hard time believing that a large percentage of American 18 year olds had much if any experience driving a car during the 1930s. I can believe tractors, but not cars because most Americans during this period did not live in cities and even those who did live in cities did not need a car because they used buses, trolley cars, or subways. Years ago I had a neighbor who was a veteran of WW2 (in fact a veteran of Omaha Beach) and he was a son a country doctor. I remember him telling me how he had to hitch his father's horse drawn carriage in the middle of the night whenever they got an emergency call. My grandfather was a city kid and did not drive until he was in his mid 20's which was after WW2.
I enjoyed this, not because it is gospel, but because it is a good summary of issues in design and manufacture that have knock on effects. These lessons are very applicable today, in numerous industries. I think the Tank Museum (and others) should offer talks about industry and managment with respect to tanks and charge buisnesses for seminars. It would be a great way to make money and get big name donors. Companies would like it because it is more interesting than a Mariot or Hilton and it might be partially tax deductible.
His arguments supporting his point are well-reasoned and presented. He also does not make the mistake of dismissing or criticizing the tank's good points, but praises them as they deserve to be praised. Of course, one could argue it's hardly the tank's fault the training regime and standards for it's drivers was not up to the task of teaching them to drive it correctly, but he still makes an excellent point.
The Panther was not a heavy tank: it was classified as a medium tank. I also think there's a much better argument made for the Tiger or the King Tiger being on this list for every reason he cites for both the Panther and the Jagdtiger. The Panther is widely regarded as one of the best tanks of WW2, and much expert commentary revolves around the lost opportunity of a simplified logistics chain had the Wehrmacht mass produced common-item systems like Panther and Jagdpanther vice white elephants.
Tiger at least was designed to meet a design specification the Wehrmacht issued even before WWII started. The Germans started developing a break through heavy tank as early as 1938. Any problems with logistics and usability were minimized by the fact that at least in theory, Tiger would only be used in very limited roles. The Heavy tank units would be shipped to the front in preparation for an attack, assemble, carry out their part in the operation and then be pulled back off the line for rest and refit until called upon to break the next enemy line. Tiger does not really start having problems until the Germans are put on the back foot and the heavy tank units are now forced to act as fire brigades and respond to areas of crisis and then redeploy without being given adequate down time between operations. So Tiger is a case of perfectly good equipment being tasked with missions it was not designed for. Panther and Jagtiger on the other hand proved unsuitable for the missions they were designed for. Panther is perhaps the best tactical weapon the Germans had, but as a medium tank, it needs to be serviceable at the operational and strategic levels. And Panther units would continue to report low readiness rates for the remainder of the war. Jagtiger is an even worse offender. It was too immobile to effectively act as a battering ram during assaults and too immobile to conduct the type of mobile defense the German army was famous for. It was designed to be a mobile bunker which it does very well but being a mobile bunker contradicts German defensive tactics and doctrines. Thus its a peice of equipment unsuited to the types of missions it would have to perform.
@@Avalanche041 Those are great points about the tiger being forced into a roll it wasn’t designed for. But that’s part of the rub: the panther was designed to fill an urgent need discovered on the eastern front, and had it been deployed in sufficient numbers after proper developmental and operational testing it would’ve alleviated the tiger having to be a do-it-all; that was the operational level failure of the panther. Final drive issues plagued most German tanks including the tiger, and diverting funds to white elephants like king tiger and jagdtiger prevented those finite resources from deploying truly effective tanks/tank destroyers like panther and jagdpanther in numbers sufficient to meet the operational need.
Panther was heavier than the t 34 sherman and panzer 4. In any other nation it would be classed as a heavy tank. It had terrible transmission problems and general reliability. I agree that building elephants or jagpanthets was a bad idea but more stugs and artillery Instead of panthers would be more useful. At least until the design flaws are foxed6
@@ivanvoronov3871 That's correct; however, it was still classified as a medium tank because by German standards it was. The complaints about its final drive were largely mitigated following its disastrously premature roll-out in Russia, and the Panther is regarded as one of the best tanks of WW2 by the majority of historians, including others at the Tank Museum itself.
I'd like to point out that King Tiger had a mechanical reliability of around Sherman at about 60%. The final drive issue is very much Panther alone. They had figured out those issues when King Tiger was fielded.
I love your thoroughly logical way of going about this list. Well done for realising prototypes for what they are! In my opinion, what makes the Matilda so bad is not it's obsolescence but it's inability to be modified. The Churchill was obsolete in many ways technologically but was a big box that could be turned to all sorts of other uses. Matilda was too small and too funny shaped to do anything with. Question: do you think the Matilda would have made a difference if we had sent them to Malaya instead of France? Discuss.....
Ooooh, now that's a good question. Dare I say it, even, yes even, a battalion of Covenanters might have done, erm, something. Other than overheating that is. Or not being able to brake. Or burning out the clutch. We made 1700 in 4 mks because, well why not?
I pretty much agree with your entire list, Mr. Smith. My only exception would be the Panther. Growing up I've always been obsessed with military history, and with that I read a lot about the Panther and fell in love with it. It's arguably my favorite tank ever made, the only tank that can compete for the top of my favorite list is the US's own M109(A7). Don't get me wrong, I like the Abrams line of tanks, but I've always dreams of going into the military to be an artillery crewman or even maybe gunner. The closest I've ever gotten to shooting an artillery piece is the Russian D-20 Anti-Tank Cannon at DriveTanks in Uvalde, Texas which is just a few miles from where I live. Unfortunately, the military wasn't for me due to health issues I was disqualified, but at least I can still go over to DT and shoot the D-20 as much as I like..which wouldn't be much because at about $110/round it's expensive to shoot.
I love your broad minded and practical approach to making your list. Taking into account some of the real-world implications of design is so much more meaningful than the boring top trumps style arguments over armour thickness, gun calibre etc.
Oh dear, the Panther being in the list will upset the Wehraboos. I personally like the Panther, but I will admit that it is kinda overrated. Really good video.
@@LuixWalkingDead21 If you excluded mechanical reliability and overengineering, it was on paper, an excellent tank, although it still had flaws. If it had been given the final drives that it was actually designed for it probably would have been more reliable. (The Panther was supposed to have the same final drives as the Tiger I but they were forced to use simpler ones due to cost and the authorities wanting the Panther to be mass-produced). Overall, it's an alright tank, but it is still overrated.
Well, quite good arguments, still, I don't really agree with the verdict. 5 - Mathilda 1. What makes a tank a tank? It should be indestructible (as much as possible), while it should be able to inflict considerable damage to the enemy. In this, Mathilda 1 is half a tank. Hard to destroy, but doesn't make much difference. 4 - JagdTiger. Please consider that the Germans didn't plan on losing the war. They didn't plan to stop production at 80 pieces. Also consider that in the cold war era 120mm was about the standard caliber for heavy tanks. So, you could even consider the JagdTiger to be ahead of its time. :) 3 - A7V. It is clear to consider it a really bad direction today. But remember, in 1917 Germany only knew one thing - that it needs tanks. Preferably bigger and better than the British tanks. They were perfectly right at that, they just didn't have the time to produce a mature response. 2 - Panther. This all would be true for the first batches. Operational ratio went down to ~30% quickly. But, after a few months of improvements and learning, operational ratio went back to 60-80%, which wasn't worse than for PzIII and PzIV. Actually the Panther was probably the best tank of WW2 produced in any numbers. Also, consider the success of the Leopard cold-war era tanks - they inherited the same characteristics. Actually, I would replace the Panther with the Sherman. The Sherman had similar performance as the PzIV, but it was out 2 years late, and it was ~10T heavier. It wasn't a bad tank - it was adequate - but by the time it was introduced it was already inferior to anything but the outdated models. 1 - no arguments here - building 1700 of a tank that simply doesn't work shows how superior allied resources were. "Cruiser tanks" (cavalry tanks) weren't a very successful concept anyway - a tank that has next to no armor and weak weaponry is not expected to be a very effective tank. Well, hindsight is always 20/20.
2- There are waaay worse than either Panther or Sherman. The tankettes of Italy, France and Japan come to mind. Also the T-60 of the Soviets. The Marmon-Harringtons the Dutch and USMC used were awful. No redeeming qualities.
A very astute comment about morale courage to kill a bad program. I think that the worse example was the US Navy's MK IV torpedo of WWII. It cost countless allied lives. I was involved in the US Army"s mine roller and mine plow programs of the 1970s. This was a case of a good program being killed because a General didn't want the ugly things on his beautiful new XM1 tanks. Twelve years later, in Saudi Arabia, the tankers saw the minefields and realized that a $100 mine could ruin their $1,000,000 tanks. Then the tankers were screaming for the Engineers to do something. The old prototypes were fortunately still sitting at the review board yard. The prototypes were sent to the Gulf and more were ordered. This was a program that should have gone ahead but was killed. My father had told me about seeing rollers and flails at Normandy. Another very good video. Good Luck, Rick
He's talking a load of **** about the Panther, he knows nothing at all, it's the best... Wait! Hmmmm. Yes, he has a valid point. Eh he. I see now, my eyes are open. I agree. I now see Tanks in a new light, many thanks.
Nah. It’s way too hyperbolic. The whole story about the 18years for example. Yes it’s unlikely the German recruit had a lot experience driving a car but same goes absolutely for the Russian (does he think Russia was still a completely agrarian society or that a T-34 drives like a tractor just because they were often made in tractor factories?). Also yeah - the Panther had liabilities but Germany in 44 and 45 did no lack tanks, they lacked commanders, support vehicles and air cover. Even if they continues with the panzer 3 as a super reliable tank it would have still not mattered at all. Quantity and durability were not the issues Germany was having when the Panther was around.
@@bingobongo1615 Russia absolutely was a very agrarian society during ww2, and he thinks the t34 drives like a tractor because the t34 drives like a tractor.
@@bingobongo1615 Have you not considered that, given the tone of the presentation, Richard Smith was mischievous enough to deliberately choose Jagdtiger and Panther for criticism, to trigger comments like yours? Game, set and match, old boy!
@@photoisca7386 Yeah, but blaming a superior tank for the faults of late war Germany - when any other era tank would have fared as badly or worse - is pretty lame.
"A failed prototype is a success."
Excellent point.
'No such thing as a failed experiment . . . just scar tissue'. : )
What did Edison say about inventing the light bulb ?
Task failed successfully
LJCyrus1 British car industry has lot to learn.
MrTangolizard "I will be credited for what others did before me".
Never before has a tank been rated as an affront to logistics people everywhere.. I salute you sir.
I assume logistics people have done it a lot
I think the Chieftain did this first re the Sherman
@@DeerHunter308 Not quite. I advocated that the Sherman was a credit to logistical foresight, but I didn't specifically berate anything for failing the logistical considerations per se.
Reminds me of sturmtiger
An overly ambitious death charge launcher, assisted by rocket
Leave it to the Germans
“Things have gone a little bit skew-whiff on the Continent.” We really need to hear more from the Director, his mastery of British understatement is prodigious.
@Scumfuck McDoucheface "Not quite right" or "A bit dodgy" even "weird" would be 3 alternate ways
@Scumfuck McDoucheface it is often used to describe two things that should line up but don't like a bolt that should go into a hole but is bent off to one side, is a bit "skew-whiff". You might also say things had "gone a bit sideways"
@Scumfuck McDoucheface absolute clusterfvkc
A bit "How ya going? ". Nowhere near professional standards.
@Scumfuck McDoucheface "Askew". Google 'askew' and see what happens, then amaze your friends.
Thank me later.
Red Army driving instructor: "If it doesn't shift, use this wooden mallet." Russian farm boy: "Da, just like traktor on collective farm."
Gear go to gulag if not work, hit harder
Was this a real thing?
@@christofferthorsson7657 Was the wooden mallet a real thing? Both the T-34 and KV-1 had notoriously difficult transmissions, and yes, there are at least anecdotal reports of drivers carrying a mallet to help shift gears. Or use their feet, or another crew member to help move the thing. “Good enough” wartime Soviet engineering at its finest. (And they won, so that may say something.)
Lmao loving the collective bit, so unnecessary, brilliant
@@jvleasure Motivational Nordic resorts.
Just a tip of the hat to the logistics comment. Most people will understand why I approve....
I had a similar experience with Tom Jentz. By the time I was done talking to him after half an hour, he had made me feel (without intending to) that I knew nothing on the subject.
Jentz was right 😂.
well you were once a 2nd Lieutenant
@VollerVollkorn And the T-34 had mechanical issues into 1943, with a significant proportion of the 5th Guards Tank Army breaking down on their way to the Kursk battle front.
Already by March 1944 the Panthers of Panzer Regiment 2 had done 1,500 km.
@VollerVollkorn Most are either not aware of it or they deliberately ignore it.
Even the Sherman, which had the benefit of a lot of existing components, when it was being develop still seemed to have had its share of automotive problems. One of us over at Tank Encyclopedia is working on a new article about the Sherman and he made mention that he has a report from early on that has a 3 page list of defects for just the Sherman.
A new tank design is going to have issues, that is just how it went back then. The Churchill also had a myriad of mechanical issues early on and the British A27 tank was a first an utter nightmare until after a year or so of thinkering with it they finally got it to be design and slapepd the name Cromwell on it.
The Panther certainly had its shares of issues, make no mistake about that. A large number of these were the result of the incredibly short design and development period the tank underwent.
@VollerVollkorn Efficient is not the word I would use, the performance of the ausf. D at Kursk was pretty poor but that was to be expected.
It isn't really until the ausf. G appears that a lot of of the first issues are resolved but eventhroughout production of the ausf. G they keep of developing it.
"Before I came to the tank museum I worked 11 years in shipping"
Well, that explains the clipboard...
Haaah, depends where,. I'm working in shipping operations and did not seen such clipboards for a while
Where people into jets will clipboard every initiative
It's a key accessory for thousands of council employees too ....
He does seem the type for a clipboard....
@@plasot I see plenty of them. With the exact same crack in the exact same place repaired in the exact same way on three ships in a row now.
Never have I been so offended with something I completely agree with.
LOL
You sir just won on this comment thread!
LMAO thank you for putting into words my feelings as well
The Panther is what did it for me
I love Matilda I's they are the best tank for the role they where designed for and when they got to do it where a holly terror to their enemies but they where not the tank for the war they ended up having to fight alas
Logistics makes the world go around, and as some who does work in logistics, Richard's rant about the two types of organizations and how they treat logistics rings true.
@James W : To which the experienced logistics person says you missed the point entirely, James.
Logistics won WW2. Nothing else.
@@gunmnky Yeah, its true + Lend&Lease to Russia. The War was Amercan Industries with Russian Soldiers against Axis.
Yup.
Sales and operational management - promise everything.
Logistics - as the last in the line, get left with the mess, and all the blame, 99% of which could have been resolved if they had had input from the start, for very little effort and virtually no cost (certainly far less cost and effort that will be required to sort the issues.).....
@@gunmnky Agreed.The Allies won because they produced more of everything individually than the Axis produced in combination... and then effectively got it to the fighting front and kept it supplied.
"A failed prototype is a success, because you've been brave enough to say 'that hasn't worked' and walked away from the project"
Very surprised that the Elefant didn't get mentioned after that. Good list and good arguments overall!
The Elefant wasn't a prototype.
@@darianbrowning1608no, but it was built on a failed prototype. I mean it failed as much as a prototype could fail. If your car catches fire in front of your boss, you probbapy shouldn't build an extra few dozen. And definitely not even heavier.
I really enjoy Mr. Smith's presentations. They are well thought out and his apparent effortless use of humour to make his points is admirable. It definitely keeps one rivetted to what he is saying.
Good arguments for the tanks on this list.
Nut the TOG was surely even worse than Mathilda 1 with the exact same flaws and less excuse as they had seen the Blitzkrieg in action by then and knew WWI wasn't going to repeat.
Thom S
I enjoyed it too. Mr Smith’s delivery, his mannerisms, sense of humour and his use of the clipboard reminded me very much of the late Denis Norten. Sort of a “It’ll be alright on the night worst tanks edition.” That is, of course, “If you’re one of those people...” who are old enough to remember it! 😱🤣
@@melvillesperryn9268 he stated at the beginning a failed prototype is a success, and therefore he wouldn't do any prototypes that werent past design.
He's a very good public speaker. Very enjoyable!
Ahahaha, haven't laughed that well for a while: "If the russian 18 years old learns driving a crappy tractor and gets assigned to a T-34, then this tank also drives like a crappy tractor" 😂😂😂 That is so well said, man! I'm coming from the former Soviet Union, so I can get it very well! 👍
If that crappy tractor breaks, you can fix it with a hammer. To fix a German car, you need to be a surgeon.
But who won? 🤔
@@landonorris6 well, it's the point; good use of what you have in resource and knowledge.
Sure, the T34 is kinda crappy compared to the high-polished Panther.
But you can have crappy T34 and drivers and mechanics to run them, from Russian population. .
Germans had Panthers broken down and not enough people able to fix it.
@@ulissedazante5748 Exactly! Your comment reminds me on on this quote: "Its not about of having the best weapons, but to handle them well."
@@ulissedazante5748 Well considering the German tanks took out over 5-1 on average, and that still wasn't enough, all it really says is you shouldn't fight a war where you are outnumbered over 15-1. Kind of obvious but High Command missed the memo.
well i will be honest i wasnt sure if i would be able to split my crushes with yet ANOTHER tank curator at the museum but Richard talking about supply chain management is something i never considered learning about tanks and watching these videos, and i love how each individual curator has their own personality and view when talking about tanks, there could literally be 5 different videos on the one tank by 5 different people and each one would be a unique experience!
I agree with your sentiment, but one small correction, Richard Smith is not a curator, he's the museum's Director.
One thing that's made the Covid outbreak bearable is how it brought people like Richard into our sphere of awareness. I've watched all the videos he's made and they're all fascinating. His approach to things military is unique, insightful and thought provoking. David's videos have been equally fascinating. In many ways, the epidemic has greatly improved The Tank Museum's on-line presence. While I'm happy that the museum has been able to reopen, I'll miss this sort of content if they can no longer find the time to create it.
@@silentotto5099 Very well said, indeed! Those two gentlemen (in all senses of the word) together with Nicholas Moran (the Chieftain) have been uniquely responsible in developing my interest in tanks - a field where I previously had zero interest.
look also at this clip th-cam.com/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/w-d-xo.html
@@neilcam Just don't believe everything they say or claim. Use your own research and alternative sources, which often goes against theirs.
"...it's a little bit dispiriting to shoot at something that doesn't stop when you hit it." No truer words were spoken.
Especially if you are a poacher looking at the charging elephant you just took a shot at.
Your passion and erudition when it comes to tanks is greatly appreciated, as is all you do as director of the Tank Museum. I've never visited there in real life, physically, but virtually, it's one of my favorite places in the world, and you, David Wiley, and David Fletcher are some of my favorite people.
"If you set the bar low enough you can always clear it!"
That's all the convincing I need.
You can imagine Jingles dancing around his loungeroom yelling yes yes as his beloved Tog skips another list of worst Tanks
Tog is a prototype so that's why is got the pass
@@no1wafer no its because the TOG II is a perfect tank
@@hestia2486 no, because TOG II is a landship
The TOG III was so long that it couldn't shoot straight forward, for fear of hitting itself in the rear,
In all fairness, I think he does say it is c**p, but fun....
That quote on the jagdtiger is so accurate it hurts.
That point in the German war effort when any semblance of sanity had given up and left.
@@bigblue6917 to a westerner maybe , but the Germans were trying to keep ahead of the Soviets who were bennining mass production of heavy Tanks protected by 200mm + armor and wielding high velocity 100mm/122mm canons. A decade later the American and British army were fielding tanks just as heavy to counter the Soviet IS line up
@@mikhailzavarov4958 The thing is, at the end of WWII Germans werent producing vehicles that were ahead of anything. They just produced heavier things. Jagdtiger was mostly used on the western front, cause even transporting them from the Ruhr valley to the eastern front was too difficult.
In IIIrd Reich you could be shot for disbelief in the ability of the Wehrmacht. And common sense was ignored because of that.
@@mikhailzavarov4958 The British and USA had petrol and steel so could make big stupid things Germany did not.
@@Paciat The first Jagdtigers to come off the asembly line were sent to the western front to participate in the upcoming ardenne offensive. A few survivors were then sent east to Hungary/ Austria front to fight the Soviets, transporting them around from sector to sector on rail cars clearly wasnt the biggest issue for the high command
When I saw the introduction, my first thought was “I bet the Covenanter is on the list”...
Of course it was. Think of it's size compared to the Jagtiger. Imagine they were making these at the same time as Valentine and Matilda 2, tanks that were actually useful. So really these being built compromised capacity to build decent vehicles.
same here
@@iantreefellow Wasn't it also to allow the new factories to learn how to make tanks?
Agreed - but still, I think that it was the best tank possible for training
I'd like to see more content from Director Richard Smith. His enthousiasm and delivery are really entertaining and gripping at the same time while providing the correct amount of information.
I have to see that Jagdtiger IRL... What a ridiculous machine! I'm going to the UK as my next vacation, and this museum is very near the top of my list of places I plan on visiting.
I'm a new subscriber and also relatively new to being totally fascinated by tanks, and I love the work you all do. This channel is fantastic, and I really appreciate the TH-camr enthusiast videos that you host!
I think I've just witnessed the weaponisation of the clipboard. Brilliant vid.
Having been taught in a English boarding school in the late 1970s that was the soft option
Fletcher's mustache is the best looking presenter on this channel. How dare you sir.
I have often thought that the mustache was one he had inherited from an ancestor from the later part of the 19th century. Possibly while said ancestor was serving in India. Bengal Lancers or something similar.
I think Finn is giving him a good run for his money these days. Finn has actual merchendise in the shop. Can the Fletcher Mustache say the same?
@@A.J.K87 yes
But he just may be the best looking presenter on the channel...who is balding and does not have a mustache!
Agreed. Armour-Asterix does have a splendid soupstrainer which really ought to have its own show on this channel.
“Vigorous discussion” such a British thing to say.... feel so proud 😂🇬🇧
It jolly well worked dodnt it!
If he uses the phrase "philosophical disagreement" please call an ambulance.
"I'm paraphrasing a bit. He didn't actually say 'jolly well'; he used a much ruder, er.... _slightly_ unnecessary word instead."
“If you set that bar low enough, you can always clear it”.
Good point sir.
Well said.
This was...jolly well done! I wonder how many more British and German tanks would show up on the list if it was, say, bottom 15 tanks!
More likely be Italian, Japanese and Polish.
@@mapexblack polish tanks were good, the 7tp could handle the panzers pretty well during the invasion and the tankettes did their job (although a very limited job since they still were tankettes) the poles just didn't have many modern tanks or many tanks at all
To be honest, coming from a Brit, you'd have to multiply that number by a factor of at least 10
Pedro... must say I agree with you, which is ironic as it was the Brits who innovated, produced and employed the first tanks in combat... which in fairness were relatively successful for their day.
Pedro are you forgetting the Centurion? One of the best post war tanks. Even the cheiftan had a lot of good points and would have been even better if they had ignored the nato requirement for a mutlifuel tank like the other nations did.
Great reasoning used and I learned something. Eye opening comparison of the 18 year olds varied experiences with driving.
I completely agree
Excuse me but I think we all know that the Mustached Man, David Fletcher, is quite obviously the best-looking presenter on the Tank Museum's TH-cam channel.
But he owes it all to the moustache.
there is also the guy in the workshop with a big mustache
They all look so much like Historians and its brilliant! Historians by and large all have bad hair and fringe at best, terrible at worst fashion sense.
-A Historian.
I maintain Finn is the best looking presenter on the Tank museum's channel.
Finn for the win!
"If you have any issues with my inclusion of Panther pleas include them of David Willey's videos" Outstanding administrator! Passes the buck and blame onto his subordinates. Would your HR director happen to be Dogbert?
From Matilda I through JagdTiger to A7V was like watching a trailer for "Honey, I Shrunk the Richard Smith"
David & Richard present with a intuitive insight and quirkiness that takes their posts to the next level
as corporate middle management I really enjoyed this,
Nothing more fun than middle management.........
My condolescence.
You poor bugger.
Senior enough to get the blame.
Too junior to make the changes to stop the problems you're blamed for.
Too bad upper management is too busy playing golf to watch this video.
@@andrewszigeti2174
They wouldn't give a damn anyway...
They've risen past such matters.
Richard: 50% of 30% of the time, it fails every time.
Sex panther final drive?
15% failure "by itself" is comparable to McDonald´s Ice machines, and simply unacceptable for a viable product
@@paavobergmann4920 Right! McDonalds....
@@JohnyNJ the tiger 2 was as reliable as the McDonald’s ice cream machine
@@paavobergmann4920 Yet Mcdonalds is a successful company that still sells more icecream and milkshakes than any other single company out there. Just saying.
This man is so british I can practically see every drop of tea he's ever imbibed radiating off him like an aura.
Personally, I liked this take on tanks from the perspective of whether or not the tanks could mechanically meet expectations. Panther was a superior tank tactically, able to take hits and give them, but its bad final drive really prevented it being a replacement for the Mk IV in a war of movement like it was supposed to. If you wanted to drive 200 km into the enemy, you were better off with StuGs and Mk IV even in 1945. Same with the Jadgtiger: even if it was supremely deadly when it was in battle, it couldn't really ever get to the battle so very much a failed vehicle.
Please, please STOP this panther final drive myth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability
HaVoC117X wrote under the Panther: The most Controversial Panzer video:
"In regards to final drive and reliability:
"From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t).
Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100.
General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem. He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation." (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger).
According to Hartmut Knittels Book "Panzerfertigung im Zweiten Weltkrieg", the officials in the Nibelungen Werke (Panzer IV production) were clearly aware that they made use of final drives, which did not meet the quality standards. The german war industry was forced to experiment with the hardening processes during the steel production, because they were short on certain resources.
This could be the reason, why all late war german tanks (38t, Panzer III and IV, Panthers, Tigers) suffered from broken finald drives and bad bearings.
Were the final drives to weak or a flawed design. I dont think so:
Some people claim (including Spielberger), that the final drives of the Panther were bad by design, but the Centurion, which was 7 tons heavier, used the exact same type of final drives. Like many other tanks too, M26 for example. (Thx Roland).
Page 118 "The Centurion Tank" by Pat Ware
In the Chapter "Centurion Reference Data it says:
"Final Drive: double-reduction spur gear train; ratio 7.41:1 (MK 1 6,94:1)
Here is a picture out of Spielbergers Book: Final Drive with double spur reduction gear
i.imgur.com/dGktjYv.png
A Bergepanther drove 4200 km without new spareparts and 1000 km from 4200 km it was towing other panthers.
(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55.)
"There is an article on this subject in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (News sheet: Armoured troops):
Performance of a Panther-recovery tank driver.
Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has up to 3 May 1944 driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km without an engine
change or damage to the transmission, including the final drive units, gearbox and drive shaft. Approximately 1,000km of this was made towing a Panther tank.
The vehicle and engine are still in excellent condition and continue to be operational.(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55).
"On Octover 28, 1944, the problem with the final drives seemed to be solved. The 654th reported that Jagdpanthers had already covered 400 to 500 km without damage."
(Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development - Production - Operations by Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz. Schiffer Publishing Ltd page 24.)
The theory that the drivetrain of the Panther was overstressed, can explain why Panthers had big reliability problems.
But this theory can not explain, why large percentage of Panthers made it easily beyond those often claimed 150 km before the final drive gave up or other parts of the drivetrain broke down.
This theory can not explain why a Bergepanther drove 4200 km including the stress of towing another 45 Ton Panther without receiving any damage.
I think production quality, available resources and crew training were the true limiting factors.
In terms of reliability i think we are a bit hypercritical in the Panthers case. Lets compare it to other tanks:
The russians turned the war around with tank engines (The V2-series), which had a service life of only 300 to 400 km between 1941 until mid 1944 (T 34 vs Stug III by Steven Zaloga). Percentage of T34 tanks reaching 300km during factory trials (Zaloga, Page 14):
Apr 43 = 10.1%, May 43 = 23%, Jun 43 = 7.7%
This number slowly imporves to 79% in February 1944. But only 33% reached 1000 km before a breakdown in Feb. 1944
The 6th Guards Tank Army discovered the following lifespans of their tanks (late 1944/45):
T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
IS 2/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours
M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours
The Churchill was accepted for frontline duty in 1941, after its engine reached a service life of 500 miles (800 km). The first Churchill production batches had a service life for the engine and transmission of 250 miles. Cromwells, Matildas and Valentines (also less than 1000 miles) are also not shining examples in terms of reliability. (British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934-1945 by Benjamin Coombs).
Hilary Doyle pointed out several times, that the final drives became quite reliable. He also said that the germans knew what they were doing when it comes down to tank maintenance.
(Chieftain and Doyle in the Panzer Museum Munster, on Chieftains youtube channel). The replacement of the engine took only 8 hours in a Panther under field conditions.
For a Centurion you need 15,5 hours in the field. I would assume that a Sherman with a radial engine, a twin diesel or an 30 cylinder Chrysler Multibank engine are much harder to maintain than a regular V12. At least the radial and the Multibank engine have many cylinder heads facing down into the tank hull. I think that they had to remove the engine out of the sherman for basic maintenances. Does anyone have detailed information on this? Spielberger wrote that the germans disliked the idea of an radial engine for a tank, because of difficult maintenances.
The French guys of the Tank Museum in Saumur were interviewed by Bernhard at the Tankfest 2019 about their Panther and their experiences with it.
Didn't they admitted that they prefer to work on the Panther than on other tanks of the same time period? Unlike the common believe, they admitted, that the Panther was actually build with ease of maintenance in mind (at least the engine bay). Correct me if i am wrong here. I think it is really surprising that they mentioned maintainability as big pro for the Panther design. But there must be something to it, because the Panther achieved the same combat ready rates as the Panzer IV since spring 1944 (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz).
Nonetheless there are many contradicting facts and reports around. The matter remains complicated.
The Leopard 2 was also designed as a counter to the possible massive soviet tank assaults. Its main purpose was tank on tank warfare. Panther served the same purpose. Nobody would call the Leopard 2 a tank destroyer."
@@rolandhunter So, you're saying that the Panther's final drive was just fine, except for the small fact that Germany was unable to produce it to the high technical standards required for it to be as reliable as it should have been.
I have news for you: That means the Panther's final drive was *CRAP!* A design for a component you cannot produce is a *BAD DESIGN.* I'm saying this as an engineer. The simple fact is that the Panther was a BAD tank. It had some admittedly impressive components on it, but it was an abject *failure* as a reliable weapon system because the people running the show were too busy jerking themselves off about sloped armor and big guns.
And what really mystifies *me* is that, nearly eighty years later, people are *still* jerking themselves off about the exact same sloped armor and big guns!
@@JohnnyWishbone85 If you are an engineer, why are you not look at this in the objective way? Why are you can't understand what I wrote?
If the Panther was so bad, why the experienced drivers could drive 1,800-4,200 km without final drive replacement?
Why are you deny as an engineer the early Panther reports, and the late? (1944 spring)
Early said:
Engine problem, that was the main issue of the Panther
Late said:
With good driver and with enough fuel, you could use the Panther for 1,500-2,000 km, with trained crew.
The very late reports:(1945)
Everything was craps, because the germans had no materials for steel hardening.
Why are you can't accept this 3 facts?
@@rolandhunter -- I assure you; I *AM* looking at it objectively.
What the tank can do under ideal conditions when the country has all the exotic materials it needs and the drivers have all the exquisite training they need and the enemy drive out in ranks very slowly and without maneuvering and don't have artillery and air support and the planets align and God is On Our Side isn't worth one warm turd.
What matters is what the weapons system can do under the conditions that are in front of you RIGHT NOW. What materials do we have right now? What training can we give the drivers right now?
The Panther was a bad tank because the designers *FAILED* to see the reality they lived in. The Panther was designed for a fantasy world where Germany had enough exotic materials and spare parts and had the luxury of training all its tank drivers to the highest standard.
To summarize: It doesn't matter what the tank was capable of under ideal conditions. The only thing that mattered was what the tank could do under *REAL* conditions.
@@JohnnyWishbone85 The last of your paragraph told me 100%, you know nothing about Germany in 1943-45.
Did you ever ready any combat report about the Panther in 1944?
Do not answer it, you already did: You are not.
Why do I know this?
If you had read any of it, you would not have written down your last paragraph.
Thank you for telling me your lack of information/ignorance and relative point of view in this topic.
Have a nice day!
In the Covenanters defense.. I think its a really good looking tank. ^^
Only a woman can love her son that much!!!
They say that if an airplane looks good, it flies good. Apparently this is not applicable for tanks :)
He just reminded me about that Covenanter that's being restored!
@ thats because tanks don't fly - or shouldn't :-)
i wonder id covenanter could have been fixed if they did proper testing before hand
"best-looking presenter on the Tank Museum TH-cam channel"
I'm sorry to say that without any facial hair, you stand no chance.
That certainly explains Finn's brilliance
Interestingly, and somewhat spookily, as I am reading your comment there is a David Fletcher video just to the right. #Enough said
@@amandajones8841 I now want to see Finn pick out his favorite tank.
Yes, and to qualify your facial hair must be epic!
Finn wins hands down every time.
A7V: Doesn’t really do off-road 🤣
It sounds like a ton of things a fellow manager wants from his group....
(need to send this to my colleagues....)
It looks like it should be on a rail road.
It wasnt actually THAT bad.
I mean, the Mk Vs they were having at the time with the rhomboid track going all around of course fared better than what effectively was a box on top of tracks that barely went the full length in the first place, and the high center of mass didnt help either. The battlefields were also just littered with so many craters and thrown up loose soil, that it was much more difficult to traverse than a WWII battlefield wouldve been. But it still got around reasonably well. Having a suspension as opposed to *not* definitely helped.
But compare the A7V to some utter failures like the St. Chamond, which has approximately half the length of track it needs to get anywhere, or the Schneider CA1, which was even more boxy than the A7V, if you can imagine that, both of which had much worse engine power compared to their weight and still carried thinner armor only. Sure, the A7V was a hasty design with a whole bunch of flaws, but if I was going to arm the military of Elbonia in 1919, the A7V seems like a solid enough bet, at least after the FT-17, just because in any non-WWI trench warfare it would actually fare much better than either the Schneider or the St. Chamond, and probably also better than a Mk V.
Well, no, it just sits in a museum in Brisbane.
@@builder396 uuuh. in the sticky swampy mud of no-mans land the A7v would get stuck, around 2/3 of a division never made it to the hostile trenches, and in a shell crater they would become trapped without infantry scouting their path ahead.
The mark V would at least have the dignity to find DEEP mud or a mechanical issue before they broke down. and had to be abandoned.
Got a few things to say about this video: 1stly, Very Many Thanks for getting The Museum's Esteemed Director out of his office and busy schedule to make a post-lockdown video- I really enjoyed the videos Ricard Smith posted during lockdown. 2ndly, this video shows why he is the Director, Richard has the Tools for the job. 3rdly, I was at The Tank Museum on 30th September , and must say, the staff are doing an excellent job in such hard circumstances of making it accessible and enjoyable to visit. as I was leaving, I did encounter David Willey, but he was busy, so I couldn't chat with him, but, such is life. 4thly, the rearrangements of the displays look really good. Lastly, Richard's worst tank does , of course, correspond with The Revered Moustache's worst tank
We need a shirt that says "IT DOESN'T jolly well WORK, OKAY!?"
Love the enthusiasm of all the tank museum presenters and the effort they all put in to their talks. Well done all.
Love the bottom 5 vids much more than the top 5s, they are much more interesting. I also really love your specification of production vehicles and some of your choices. Mr. Yentz's comments to you on the Panther and 18 year olds were very interesting indeed!
gotta love how, while he's critiquing the A7V, you can see beside him that he's written "Director Rules" in the dust :-D
Truly a legend
What's the enormous thing he's stood on during that segment?
@@TimInertiatic Centurion BARV (Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle)
I love how Mr. Smith describes his thoughts. A very thoughtful gentleman. Thank you for presentation.
Mr Smith,
today I just got a set of wrench, on sale, a very good deal. But even with it's lifelong warranty my kit will never unbolt as much things as your video just did to my mind. Sincerely thank you, have a nice day.
The Panther IS one of my favorite tanks (feeling a tiny bit wounded, lol), but you made some really good points, I think.. and all true.. thank you very much for an awesome share.. God bless.
He's information is actually quite poor. Dr Doyle wrote in one of he's books that german engineers tried to build a tiger i transmission for the panther but because of lack of proper machinery (because of lack of proper materials ) they chose a model of transmission that was easier to mass produce.I don't see how you can blame a tank design and it's designer for lacking proper materials .Also it's not the tanks fault for having poorly trained crew.
Not to mention the french panthers were wrecks refurbished by AMX so the french tests as every test performed on foreign hardware has it's limitations .
Another issue that Germany faced was lacking manpower so it was a far bigger problem for them to loose tank crews than it was to loose tanks or to repair those tanks.
PS: Dr Doyle said in a video you can find on Chieftain channel (visiting German tank museum min 20 or so) that Panther was unreliable at first but by the time they produced the G model it was quite reliable .
@@ivjgknight5134 that still means that the transmission is not a good fit for the panther, and also means that the panther is still lacking in a key component. and thus they should've just shelved the panther as a prototype instead of passing it into production.
imagine a smartphone whose batteries have a quirk that you should only charge it to 60% power every time, or risk having it burst into flames. it is technically a functional smartphone but its still a flawed phone.
@@ivjgknight5134 You blame the tank designer for using materials that aren't available.
@@wytfish4855 Could say that about almost every tank though, don't see why that only makes the Panther bad
The Oanther is a good, reliable tank and the most experienced crew were put in them. We have a lot of myth based on first performance as they were rushed out. These issues were fixed later. awhat we see here is a typical boss. He has no ideas of the product, he worked in a totally different field and falls for every myth and legend as he has no in depth knowledge. As a boss he does not have to bur he shoukd have been smart enough that Fletcher or another expert edited his biggest mistakes.
Really interesting list, made using a well justified metric. Well delivered with some good humour!
To be honest, I'd have put jagdtiger further up the list, but there we go.
I think it might be worth noting, for those critical of Mr Smith: directors are generally chosen for their management skills rather than their specific knowledge of individual inventory items. They are there to run the "business" of the museum, not the ins and outs of vehicles that may not even be on display. For a director to have that knowledge, to be spending half an hour talking to an expert about a single tank out of a portfolio of hundreds, is very unusual and beyond what would be expected.
It's nice to see richard again.. it's always a pleasure when he's doing his thing
What a great first minute and a half. he has my attention. jokes, and the smarts to state a failed prototype can be considered a success. 10/10
Really well spoken, and thoughtfully created list. It's a true pleasure to listen to you, Richard! Thanks!
Fantastic way of looking at things! I really enjoyed this.
Next week - why the Bren is better than the MG 42.
you made my Day :D
Correction: the sPaNdAu
Didn’t Lindybeige already cover that?
Australian Army still had rebarrelled Brens in 1990.
bruy88 He did - and a second one for all the MG fanboys
This is probably the most well thought out bottom 5, well done.
This has got to be the most concise, logical, and best tank presentations I have ever seen.
Seen a few of these top/bottom 5 from the tank museum and this is by far my favorite. Really well thought out reasoning from a top down perspective.
The invasion through the Ardennes, the crushing of the French army, the fall of France and the headlong flight of the British and subsequent loss of equipment, ships and men resulting in the near destruction of the army, bringin Britain to the brink of surrender, equates to; "things went a little skew-whiff on the continent"
Though on the bright side, at least they got rid of a lot of Matilda 1 tanks.
the command of the 600 men of the Gloucester's under attack by 30,000 chinese in Korea reported their situation as "things are a bit sticky, sir", that summary of the battle of France seems about right for scale. I don't think the British were ever near surrender, though they might have take a draw at points, while there's a British warship afloat the idea of the German Navy carrying an opposed landing and resupplying it seems far fetched.
what brink of surrender? they wouldn't have ever considered surrendering as long as the Royal Navy and Air Force were still around
just like the USSR, the germans would have to march to Kamchatka (which is laughable considering they couldn't even get to Moscow without a total logistical collapse) and they still wouldn't surrender
@@Jeyeyeyey You do know the British government were seriously considering negotiating peace terms with the Nazis don't you? It got to the point where Italian ambassador Count Giuseppe Bastianini had received a visit from Lord Halifax in preparation for possible negotiations. It was largely the inluence of Churchill that changed the government mind after May 28th and withdrew the offer of further discussions. So you're wrong, they did consider it, they just didn't go ahead with it.
This is the same English descriptive standard Douglas Bader applied when, after barely surviving an aerobatics accident with the loss of both legs, he recorded the incident in his logbook as, "Crashed slow-rolling near ground. Bad show."
Is it just me or at 7:00 does the A7V look like it has a 105mm cannon sticking out the front lol
Covonanter: we need to protect the armour with the engine radiator. We're sure it won't get shot and punctured by a machine gun or shrapnel.
Honest, respectful, truth!
Well DONE!!
Thank you, great comments.
Love the clipboard. That. Was. Hilarious.
That was a smashing video, definitely food for thought. The Panther “issues” were interesting and thought provoking. Definitely agree on the rest!
Panther makes sense. If it doesn't move, it's a crap tank
Tim Cave yes, I agree but the controversy is far from settled.
Richard Smith: **disses the Panther**
Everyone else: "Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?"
It is controversial. It would only be brave if it were true. He's blaming the tank for the problems of late war Germany, and the part he mentions specifically was fixed after the initial teething issue.
It comes across as being controversial for controversy's sake, since the argument is the same as saying a race car breaks down too much. Well, given how hard they are run, you expect as much...
@@T4nkcommander Racing cars have nothing to do with it; they are not subject to mass production. The Panthers final drive was improved but was never flawless. French reports on the issue are well documented, and they could properly train the drivers and maintain the tanks in peace time. Still, the Panther wasn't a bad tank.
Put in Murphy's Law here: anything that can (or even cannot !) break down will break down. Even the super-reliable Shermans broke down; why else would you design the thing to have its gear box literally screwed to the front where you can change it very quickly ? Not every US boy in the 40s was a petrol head nor did everybody have a car.
Mr Smith pointed out one crucial, often overlooked aspect: you have to think about the operators. Any military hardware has to be designed for dummies. That doesn't mean a fighter pilot or electronics operator is a dummy, but a repair crew might not consist of rocket scientists either. From that point, the Panther was a nightmare.
During my service, I was in a repair shop for Leopard I and Marders. I came fresh from school and had no idea of tank engines; being one of the above mentioned dummies. Nevertheless I had to fix the bloody things. Fair enough, these things were designed to be used and repaired by dummies.
@@T4nkcommander Nah it wasn't great. in top trumps its neat, but as an actual fighting vehicle that needs to be maintained and supplied it wasn't good.
Yes, but to paraphrase Guderian, the engine, and I guess by extension, the final drive are weapons. The Panther was a disaster mechanically. Yes, the German system was a mess, and it created overdesigned, overbuilt, unreliable, and unnecessary tanks like the Panther, the Tiger series, including Elephant. The fact that the tank is the result of a bad system doesn't excuse the flaws in the tank.
Because its true and the truth often hurts!
I really like his approach of looking at practical and unsung issues of the tanks. I'd love to see more of him on the channel.
"Things had gone a bit skew-whiff on the continent" - describing the start of WW2 🤣
Slightly surprised that the biggest failing of the Panther wasn't mentioned: it was supposed to help the Germans to win at Kursk, and that offensive was delayed for months in order to have more of them there.
Instead, those delays they missed their chance, and most of those that were in the area failed to do much other than break down.
"Selecting a bottom tank lists is harder than it looks"
David Fletcher "well, thank you sir"
It's like a great wee practical introduction to project management dos/don'ts, but fun, because it's tanks. Fantastic.
A very good presentation that explains some of the most common and crucial development problems, good humour, clipboard was a nice touch. But maybe a little less coffee beforehand?
Sins:
5. Finalize a design that is already obsolete.
4. Contempt for supply chain.
3. Failure to manage requirements.
2. Usability doesn't match capability.
1. Design a tank that doesn't actually work.
Of course, sometimes an obsolete design is good enough in an emergency (American M3 Medium), servitude to the supply chain put a 3.7cm gun in the PzKpfw III, and if the requirements for the PzKpfw III had been better managed, a 5cm gun would have been impossible, usability beyond capability can make important upgrades possible (T-34 to T-34-85). Like any rules, the first four can be broken. But if you don't know when and how to break them, don't.
"Any issues with Panther... Please include them on any of David Willeys' video..."!!!!! CLASSIC VWell done!
Great vid. Good choice of tanks In Production.
I still want a Panther
@@bungobox7454 What is curious even post war parts from the tank were still used.
Amateurs talk about tactics but professionals study logistics.
Not even remotely true. All fighting generals are clueless about logistics. They have people that care about that.
Patton didn't even know where his railhead were.
Montgomery tried to ford the Rhein instead of securing his supply line.
Professionals talk doctrines, which is why this video is misleading, he is not a professional.
Nah professionals talk what they are tasked to talk about. Tacticians do tactics, logisticians do logistics, and the best commanders are the ones who talk to both before making important decisions. The real skill is learning when to worry about one more than the other.
spot on. without logistics nothing happens. no one gets fed. nothing gets transported to where it needs to be.
Logistic: For commanders behind desks and politicans.
Tactics: for commanders on the field.
"A little bit skewiff on the continent" funny
Yeah even for a Brit that's some weapons-grade understatement.
Great presentation, I wouldn't place Panther so high on this list because, for one, it was usually crewed with veterans and they made really good use of it. I also would place Jagdtiger first on the list, even before Covenanter, because Covenanter made at least some good training vehicles.
And Britain did cut their loses and never bother using the thing in combat. I can think of way worse tanks than Panther. The Italian, French and Japanese tankettes were hopelessly obsolete on being built. Every problem of the Matilda I but without at least the benefits of decent armor and a rotating turret. The French Schneider and St. Chamonds were the same problem as the A7V of being nothing but a metal box on a Holt tractor chassis with minimal cross country ability and the French made a ton of them despite that flaw.
Indeed it takes a ship logistic guy to come up with such an idea. As mentioned before we see in Japan, Italy, France and other places failed tank designs by the dozen.
Very well argued and entertaining as well!
Panther is one of many where it's amazing on paper (and in games), but only on paper.
I'm always interested by the shortcomings that wouldn't necessarily occur to even some enthusiasts. "These were being driven by 18-year-olds whose only driving experience was some hours in an outdated tank with completely different characteristics" is one of those things.
Exactly. Or Crew comfort. Obviously the Crew is going to fight worse if its been thrown around in a hot, cramped metal box with sharp edges all around, but it just isn't in the front of your mind when you think about tanks.
Considering the number of tanks & armoured vehicles in action across WWII, how many do you think got taken OOA after a crew member got caught with a muscle cramp (or something) at a key moment?
Solution for the A7V, put tracks on the sides so when it flips over it still moves at just a minor cost to crew comfort
Outriggers. That will fix everything.
Can't really agree with the Panther, as you guessed. All mid to late war German tanks had the same issue with their final drives because they had to make them with soft, inferior steel due to the fact they lacked the Molybdenum to alloy the steel into something that could take the stress of moving around 30+ tons of vehicle.
Huh? You are agreeing with him! But you say you don't agree? How does that work? He said it was bad because the gear train isn't reliable. You said the gears aren't reliable because the Germans didn't have a specific material needed to make them strong enough. You just just proved him right.
@@fredygump5578 Because you can't blame a tank design on not having proper materials. He's information is actually quite poor. Dr Doyle wrote in one of he's books that german engineers tried to build a tiger i transmission for the panther but because of lack of proper machinery (because of lack of proper materials ) they chose a model of transmission that was easier to mass produce.I don't see how you can blame a tank design and it's designer for lacking proper materials .Also it's not the tanks fault for having poorly trained crew.
Not to mention the french panthers were wrecks refurbished by AMX so the french tests as every test performed on foreign hardware has it's limitations .
In Korea the Pershing was very unreliable because it was underpowered even compared to the Panther but still 3 to 4 times better than the Sherman tank as a study quoted By Zaloga in the book: "Panther Vs Sherman battle of the Bulge " states.
Not to mention lack of lubricants .So many things that should have been said .
@@ivjgknight5134 He is trying to teach you something about reality: the design failed. It wasn't the appropriate design for the moment. They couldn't make it reliable enough to be effective. These things make it a failure.
(Another sign that it was a failure, as said by The Chieftain, is that nobody used German tanks post war...well, I guess he said that the French tried to use Panthers for awhile, but they discovered the same reliability issues...and this was post war! They had access to every resource, and best of all, nobody was bombing them...so if it was such a great design needing a simple fix, they could easily have fixed it. But they didn't.)
@@fredygump5578 Dr Doyle said "quite reliable " when he was talking about later models of Panther tanks : Video on Chieftain channel called: WW2 at the Panzermuseum with Hilary Doyle
Dec 26, 2018
.
You can see figures supporting that in the book i quoted earlier by zaloga .
The failed design claim is contradicted by veterans on both sides and the best tanks experts out there(not to mention you provided zero statistics and prove and zero information on battles it took part in ). Zaloga wrote in the book i mention that the Panther was clearly comparable to the Pershing and that it was better tactically than the Sherman .I'll get my books out and show you what's what .
The Chieftain .He's writes worst scenario for german tanks , best scenario far allied sherman because he want's to end the death trap stigma of the sheman tank which and because of he's emotional emotional attachment.He didn't say the french test was performed on wrecks did he, not to mention like i said tanks don't usually do well in foreign tests , look at t34 , Abrams etc .
Wasn't used after the war because it was a bad tank ? False the french base their post war designs like AMX-50 on german technology , suspension, engine etc.I'll give you the french historian who said that tomorrow when i look into my book collection .
Even the Sherman wasn't as reliable as you think . Just to give you an example Earl W. Norris (veteran ) spent all he's time fixing M4 series tanks for the 12 armored division and he said quote: "it was nearly impossible to keep the stabilizer systems working properly and as a result very few tankers used them".But the Chieftain doesn't say negative things about the Sherman because like i said.
And this is just the beginning .He said stuff like "After normandy the Tiger I was so rare that there were only 3 tiger vs us Sherman battles " .He doesn't say that tiger I production was stopped in August of 44 .
So like i said poor info .I can read in five languages so there's plenty more info i have .
@@ivjgknight5134 I have an idea: why don't you give Hillary a call and tell him about this horrid injustice being perpetrated by the director of The Tank Museum? What I'm saying is, go tell someone who cares! LOL!
I have a hard time believing that a large percentage of American 18 year olds had much if any experience driving a car during the 1930s. I can believe tractors, but not cars because most Americans during this period did not live in cities and even those who did live in cities did not need a car because they used buses, trolley cars, or subways. Years ago I had a neighbor who was a veteran of WW2 (in fact a veteran of Omaha Beach) and he was a son a country doctor. I remember him telling me how he had to hitch his father's horse drawn carriage in the middle of the night whenever they got an emergency call. My grandfather was a city kid and did not drive until he was in his mid 20's which was after WW2.
Wow never expected to agree about the Panther being a bad tank but his arguments were so solid that I can only agree.
Richard, your passion, but also your insight, is a credit to yourself and the museum.
I enjoyed this, not because it is gospel, but because it is a good summary of issues in design and manufacture that have knock on effects. These lessons are very applicable today, in numerous industries. I think the Tank Museum (and others) should offer talks about industry and managment with respect to tanks and charge buisnesses for seminars. It would be a great way to make money and get big name donors. Companies would like it because it is more interesting than a Mariot or Hilton and it might be partially tax deductible.
When he said Panther was one of the worst tanks in his list
I expected a cesspool on comment section but boy oh boy its clean
cause he explained well why. Drivetrain are to weak.
@@partikelsmusic yeah and poor training
His arguments supporting his point are well-reasoned and presented. He also does not make the mistake of dismissing or criticizing the tank's good points, but praises them as they deserve to be praised.
Of course, one could argue it's hardly the tank's fault the training regime and standards for it's drivers was not up to the task of teaching them to drive it correctly, but he still makes an excellent point.
kan;t typ,,,, sharpenin pitchforc
Because all the comments are on David Willis' video!
I cant beleive so many people are getting so offended because the man is pointing out flaws of their favorite metal box
A lot of people are really infatuated with German tanks. It's quite scary.
Very insightful and humourous analysis. Great. Thanks. Cheers from Canada :-)
Jagdtiger is one of my favourite tanks. It's just crazy and I love crazy. The only think even more mental is the Maus tank.
Tortoise.....Hold my tea.....
@@wideyxyz2271 I also really love the Tortoise.
The Panther was not a heavy tank: it was classified as a medium tank. I also think there's a much better argument made for the Tiger or the King Tiger being on this list for every reason he cites for both the Panther and the Jagdtiger. The Panther is widely regarded as one of the best tanks of WW2, and much expert commentary revolves around the lost opportunity of a simplified logistics chain had the Wehrmacht mass produced common-item systems like Panther and Jagdpanther vice white elephants.
Tiger at least was designed to meet a design specification the Wehrmacht issued even before WWII started. The Germans started developing a break through heavy tank as early as 1938. Any problems with logistics and usability were minimized by the fact that at least in theory, Tiger would only be used in very limited roles. The Heavy tank units would be shipped to the front in preparation for an attack, assemble, carry out their part in the operation and then be pulled back off the line for rest and refit until called upon to break the next enemy line. Tiger does not really start having problems until the Germans are put on the back foot and the heavy tank units are now forced to act as fire brigades and respond to areas of crisis and then redeploy without being given adequate down time between operations. So Tiger is a case of perfectly good equipment being tasked with missions it was not designed for. Panther and Jagtiger on the other hand proved unsuitable for the missions they were designed for. Panther is perhaps the best tactical weapon the Germans had, but as a medium tank, it needs to be serviceable at the operational and strategic levels. And Panther units would continue to report low readiness rates for the remainder of the war. Jagtiger is an even worse offender. It was too immobile to effectively act as a battering ram during assaults and too immobile to conduct the type of mobile defense the German army was famous for. It was designed to be a mobile bunker which it does very well but being a mobile bunker contradicts German defensive tactics and doctrines. Thus its a peice of equipment unsuited to the types of missions it would have to perform.
@@Avalanche041 Those are great points about the tiger being forced into a roll it wasn’t designed for. But that’s part of the rub: the panther was designed to fill an urgent need discovered on the eastern front, and had it been deployed in sufficient numbers after proper developmental and operational testing it would’ve alleviated the tiger having to be a do-it-all; that was the operational level failure of the panther. Final drive issues plagued most German tanks including the tiger, and diverting funds to white elephants like king tiger and jagdtiger prevented those finite resources from deploying truly effective tanks/tank destroyers like panther and jagdpanther in numbers sufficient to meet the operational need.
Panther was heavier than the t 34 sherman and panzer 4. In any other nation it would be classed as a heavy tank. It had terrible transmission problems and general reliability. I agree that building elephants or jagpanthets was a bad idea but more stugs and artillery Instead of panthers would be more useful. At least until the design flaws are foxed6
@@ivanvoronov3871 That's correct; however, it was still classified as a medium tank because by German standards it was. The complaints about its final drive were largely mitigated following its disastrously premature roll-out in Russia, and the Panther is regarded as one of the best tanks of WW2 by the majority of historians, including others at the Tank Museum itself.
I'd like to point out that King Tiger had a mechanical reliability of around Sherman at about 60%. The final drive issue is very much Panther alone. They had figured out those issues when King Tiger was fielded.
For a moment I thought the A7V had been armed with an L7 105mm gun complete with bore evacuation - it wouldn't have needed to do off-road.
"If you set that bar low enough - you can always clear it" - so true and a modern mantra for IT project management...
And this is why this person is the director of the museum! :)
Ah, I like the mental process on this one. The moment I heard "gone into production and not work" I thought of the Covenanter.
I want a list of the top 5 best examples of moral courage (or 'bottom 5 failed prototypes' as they're also known).
I love your thoroughly logical way of going about this list. Well done for realising prototypes for what they are!
In my opinion, what makes the Matilda so bad is not it's obsolescence but it's inability to be modified.
The Churchill was obsolete in many ways technologically but was a big box that could be turned to all sorts of other uses.
Matilda was too small and too funny shaped to do anything with.
Question: do you think the Matilda would have made a difference if we had sent them to Malaya instead of France?
Discuss.....
Ooooh, now that's a good question. Dare I say it, even, yes even, a battalion of Covenanters might have done, erm, something. Other than overheating that is. Or not being able to brake. Or burning out the clutch. We made 1700 in 4 mks because, well why not?
I pretty much agree with your entire list, Mr. Smith. My only exception would be the Panther. Growing up I've always been obsessed with military history, and with that I read a lot about the Panther and fell in love with it. It's arguably my favorite tank ever made, the only tank that can compete for the top of my favorite list is the US's own M109(A7). Don't get me wrong, I like the Abrams line of tanks, but I've always dreams of going into the military to be an artillery crewman or even maybe gunner. The closest I've ever gotten to shooting an artillery piece is the Russian D-20 Anti-Tank Cannon at DriveTanks in Uvalde, Texas which is just a few miles from where I live. Unfortunately, the military wasn't for me due to health issues I was disqualified, but at least I can still go over to DT and shoot the D-20 as much as I like..which wouldn't be much because at about $110/round it's expensive to shoot.
I love your broad minded and practical approach to making your list. Taking into account some of the real-world implications of design is so much more meaningful than the boring top trumps style arguments over armour thickness, gun calibre etc.
Oh dear, the Panther being in the list will upset the Wehraboos. I personally like the Panther, but I will admit that it is kinda overrated. Really good video.
It would be an perfect tank if germans didnt overengineered everything they do, why have 14 gears when 5 would do just fine
@@LuixWalkingDead21 If you excluded mechanical reliability and overengineering, it was on paper, an excellent tank, although it still had flaws. If it had been given the final drives that it was actually designed for it probably would have been more reliable. (The Panther was supposed to have the same final drives as the Tiger I but they were forced to use simpler ones due to cost and the authorities wanting the Panther to be mass-produced). Overall, it's an alright tank, but it is still overrated.
Well, quite good arguments, still, I don't really agree with the verdict.
5 - Mathilda 1. What makes a tank a tank? It should be indestructible (as much as possible), while it should be able to inflict considerable damage to the enemy. In this, Mathilda 1 is half a tank. Hard to destroy, but doesn't make much difference.
4 - JagdTiger. Please consider that the Germans didn't plan on losing the war. They didn't plan to stop production at 80 pieces. Also consider that in the cold war era 120mm was about the standard caliber for heavy tanks. So, you could even consider the JagdTiger to be ahead of its time. :)
3 - A7V. It is clear to consider it a really bad direction today. But remember, in 1917 Germany only knew one thing - that it needs tanks. Preferably bigger and better than the British tanks. They were perfectly right at that, they just didn't have the time to produce a mature response.
2 - Panther. This all would be true for the first batches. Operational ratio went down to ~30% quickly. But, after a few months of improvements and learning, operational ratio went back to 60-80%, which wasn't worse than for PzIII and PzIV. Actually the Panther was probably the best tank of WW2 produced in any numbers. Also, consider the success of the Leopard cold-war era tanks - they inherited the same characteristics.
Actually, I would replace the Panther with the Sherman. The Sherman had similar performance as the PzIV, but it was out 2 years late, and it was ~10T heavier. It wasn't a bad tank - it was adequate - but by the time it was introduced it was already inferior to anything but the outdated models.
1 - no arguments here - building 1700 of a tank that simply doesn't work shows how superior allied resources were. "Cruiser tanks" (cavalry tanks) weren't a very successful concept anyway - a tank that has next to no armor and weak weaponry is not expected to be a very effective tank. Well, hindsight is always 20/20.
2- There are waaay worse than either Panther or Sherman. The tankettes of Italy, France and Japan come to mind. Also the T-60 of the Soviets. The Marmon-Harringtons the Dutch and USMC used were awful. No redeeming qualities.
Best looking presenter? I'm offended on behalf of Finn, the true star.
David Fletcher's mustache literally said "by God, those are fighting words old chap!"
@@svenjonsson9 David Fletcher would just scowl and and say it's a stupid thing to go on about as it's not tank related at all! imho
Finn is absolutely number one in this category. No doubt about it!
Finn is the only one that would get a tummy-tickle from me.
I concur with this statement.
Supremely entertaining and informative. You should be on the telly.
A very astute comment about morale courage to kill a bad program. I think that the worse example was the US Navy's MK IV torpedo of WWII. It cost countless allied lives.
I was involved in the US Army"s mine roller and mine plow programs of the 1970s. This was a case of a good program being killed because a General didn't want the ugly things on his beautiful new XM1 tanks. Twelve years later, in Saudi Arabia, the tankers saw the minefields and realized that a $100 mine could ruin their $1,000,000 tanks. Then the tankers were screaming for the Engineers to do something. The old prototypes were fortunately still sitting at the review board yard. The prototypes were sent to the Gulf and more were ordered. This was a program that should have gone ahead but was killed.
My father had told me about seeing rollers and flails at Normandy. Another very good video. Good Luck, Rick
He's talking a load of **** about the Panther, he knows nothing at all, it's the best... Wait! Hmmmm. Yes, he has a valid point. Eh he. I see now, my eyes are open. I agree.
I now see Tanks in a new light, many thanks.
Nah. It’s way too hyperbolic.
The whole story about the 18years for example. Yes it’s unlikely the German recruit had a lot experience driving a car but same goes absolutely for the Russian (does he think Russia was still a completely agrarian society or that a T-34 drives like a tractor just because they were often made in tractor factories?).
Also yeah - the Panther had liabilities but Germany in 44 and 45 did no lack tanks, they lacked commanders, support vehicles and air cover. Even if they continues with the panzer 3 as a super reliable tank it would have still not mattered at all. Quantity and durability were not the issues Germany was having when the Panther was around.
@@bingobongo1615 Russia absolutely was a very agrarian society during ww2, and he thinks the t34 drives like a tractor because the t34 drives like a tractor.
@@bingobongo1615 Have you not considered that, given the tone of the presentation, Richard Smith was mischievous enough to deliberately choose Jagdtiger and Panther for criticism, to trigger comments like yours? Game, set and match, old boy!
@@photoisca7386 Yeah, but blaming a superior tank for the faults of late war Germany - when any other era tank would have fared as badly or worse - is pretty lame.
@@bingobongo1615 Imaging losing a war against some Russian peasant farmers.
Lol! ..."if you set the bar low enough" LOL