Your melodic Dutch accent makes my own crude english, (one & only), language sound good. Very easy on the ear. And your multilingual styled pronunciation is not only impeccable but also aids comprehension of info'
That's a very very nice photo of a Pz IV Ausf. C of 21st Panzer division in France right at the start. Interestingly the picture was taken in 1944 just prior to D-day. You can tell by the uniforms. Ausf. C was relatively rare to begin with but finding one in 1944 is pure gold ! The concept of sloped armor wasn't invented on T-34. Sloped armor on tanks dates back as far as WW1 and the concept as a whole (fortresses, warships and armored trains) is a lot older. The French had tanks with sloped armor way before T-34 made its debut. There were some technical issues with welding sloped thick armor plates, that's why Germany didn't bother in the early years and other countries like the US and France went for casting. Also welding still wasn't that popular in the 30s, many tanks and ships were still riveted. Besides, when you angle your tank correctly, i.e. shooting over the corners of the tank, your vertical front armor effectively becomes sloped armor. Yes, true sloped front armor is always better. As you've stated correctly, it has disdvantages when you exaggerate it on a very compact vehicle like -T-34 or "Hetzer". It was less of an issue on large tanks like Panther and Tiger II. Still, the Russians got rid of sloped side and rear armor on their medium tanks as soon as the war ended. PTRDs could penetrate the vertical lower side armor on Panther (and any other German medium tank), not the sloped part. That's why the side skirts were invented on German tanks. If these hadn't worked, Panther II would have been a thing. You show me any prototype or early production vehicle that has no teething problems. The issues on Panther were solved within a few month with Panther Ausf. A. Panther was as reliable as any other German tank and more reliable than 80% of T-34. The action at Kovel: " 3 Panthers were in need of repairs while 6 Panthers had to be towed away". That makes 9 BATTLE DAMAGED Panthers, 3 of which made it back on their own and 6 were still in a state to be fixed. That's saying something about toughness and reliability. During "Operation Goodwood" in July '44, 1st SS had 46 operational Panthers out of 78 on paper. They weren't yet fully equipped nor trained when the invasion started. So after 1 month of bitter fighting WITHOUT replacements, they still had roughly 60% of a strength they never had to begin with. Yes, a few Panthers broke down here and there due to mechanical failure, but usually damage occured during battle ! Who says Shermans never broke down ? Reliability isn't all about mechanical failure, it's also about taking it on the chin and still come back. Panther was quite heavy for WW2 standards, but as it turned out, it was just setting a new trend: Centurion, Pershing etc.
hey just wanted to say that i never said the T-34 invented Sloped Armour, i just said that the Germans concluded that it was one of its main strengths, i also believe that welding was more expensive :)
@@LearningHistoryTogether No offense bro ! I just can't hear anymore about T-34 and its sloped armor. Welding these days was indeed more expensive and you needed a qualified workforce - which the Russians didn't have on a large scale, so their welding was exceptionally bad in many cases. There were very well-made T-34 and they worked properly, but that was the exception. Badly welded sloped armor is worse than well welded vertical armor, that's the point. Although cheaper, riveting has many flaws: it's heavier due to the extra framework to rivet your armor onto. Also rivets have the nasty tendency to bounce around inside your tank when "properly" hit. Interstingly the US and France went for casting their sloped armor before settling on welding. But this can open another can of worms from a production standpoint.
1st SS did not enter combat until June 28 and then only the Pz Grenadier elements. GOODWOOD can be considered its first real combat as a Unit and thus it did not have '1 month of bitter fighting' under its belt by July 18. On July 16 it reported 46 fit Panthers out of 72. By July 20 it was 20 fit Panthers.
@@michaelkenny8540 Goodwood was 18-22 July. They weren't fully equipped when the invasion started and they didn't receive reinforcements in between. They didn't loose 30 Panthers due to breakdown before they went into action. The ones lost were lost in combat.
I like how you justify your opinion of the panther however I disagree with it being the best German tank of the war. I believe the panzer IV should get this spot due to its fighting on every front, it’s numbers produced, it’s continued upgradability, it’s reliability, etc. all the way to the end of the war. Just my opinion. Great video that’s well thought out and put together. Looking forward to more of these.
Panzer IV had reached its peak in 1943. There was absolutely no further room for improvement. It was however one of the best and most versatile tanks until then. Numbers alone don't make a good tank. T-34 was not a good tank, IMHO.
Well not really! Note that Pz-IV was designed as a support role to the Pz-III. Interestingly Pz-III was supposed to be the main German Tank whereas Pz-IV was supposed to be for Support (having short barrel gun instead of long). Moreover, Pz-IV was not sufficient to cater T-34/76 and later T-34/85. Panther was the perfect combination of Firepower - Armour and Mobility! That is why French inducted Panthers after the war and NOT Pz-IV
@@livingroomtheatre174 By mentioning Pz IV's history you actually make an excellent point why the tank was so versatile. Panzer IV could be upgraded to a role for which it was never intended. Pz III could not. I never fully understood why Germany bothered with Pz III at all. They could have installed the same guns in Pz IV, which is ALMOST the same size, weight armor etc. And it was cheaper as well. You could even build the StuG on Pz IV chassis. Long-barreled Pz IV could take out any enemy tank frontally except IS-2 and Churchill ! Latest Pz IV also suffered from production issues. A lot of things were left out to ease manufacture, i-e. turret motor. The French used Panthers because they were a more modern, better armed and armored design. And of course they were deeply impressed by German design philosophy as can be seen in their early post-war designs.
1:33 The Panthers High Explosive shell actually Underperformed and had a lot less explosive Filling than that of Panzer IV Ausf. A through F1 because it’s shells had to be specially reinforced to withstand the Barrel Pressure of the Longer L70 Gun of the panther which meant their was less space for Explosive Filling and this is Often evidenced by Panther crews who complained about their HE shells performing poorly and not having enough Splash Damage. So All I was trying to say was that the HE shells of the panther Underperformed and had a lot less explosive filling that is in addition to the Mediocre Caliber. The tank was meant to 1v1 Other Tanks not to Fire HE at soft targets such as Bunkers, MG Nests, and Anti-Tank Guns among others.
You're talking about the short 75mm, that gun's only virtue was its HE performance while its performance against armour was questionable. Later on the Panzer IV and StuG III got a longer 75mm gun, there were no complaints about its HE performance and the Panther's gun still had more HE filling that these guns. Panther crews didn't complain about HE rounds performing poorly. In fact during the heavy fighting in Kurland some Panther units were used as artillery guns much like the Western Allies did with Shermans on occasions.
I think the Panther looks so cool! - in my humble opinion, I think based on the tanks it opposed, the Panther was too good, the PzKw IV was more reliable and could do the same job.
Biggest issue with the Panther was the unreliable gearbox and final drive due to rushed development and lack of trials. In the hands of a good driver, it was a dangerous weapon. But I do agree that the Mk.IV range is often overlooked for it's versatility and ability to be continually upgraded as the war progressed.
@@Dreachon To quote Albert Speer; '....But in the course of a year, Hitler once again insisted on clapping so much armour on it as well as larger guns, that it ultimately reached forty eight tons, the original weight of the Tiger.' Only once - ?
@@simongee8928 It's Speer you're qouting, the man lied through his teeth like so many others after the war to make themselves look better. Hitler's only request was to increase the front of the hull from 60 to 80mm and the turret front from 80 to 100mm. He never made a request for a bigger, the un to picked pretty early on and they stayed with it.
I've admired the Panther, possibly for it's looks since I built an Airfix one in 1964 - ! 😁 I have three in my models collection with another four waiting to be built. Just saying - ! 😁
One of the best German WW2-tanks. My personal favorite German tank is the PzKw4 with a long 75mm gun. It is in my opinion some kind of a workinghorse,where the Panthers and Tigers had more a glamoures Image . I am Not saying the PzKw4 is better.
I think that the 75mm L/48 was a good gun (mass production wise) but the issue is that it would definitely struggle against tanks like the IS-2, M4A3E2, Churchill and probably some more tanks.
My opinion about the panther is slightly more biased then the tiger 1, but acknowledges the usefulness/effectiveness the Tiger 1 presented during the early years of ww2. For the Panther: Good Gun Effective/sloped Amour Decent Mobility Bad reliability/needing repair/tow High fuel mileage Cheaper Production cost compared to Tiger 1 (2-3 Panthers for every 1 Tiger) The Panther is about quality and out gunning/out armouring the enemy but without sufficient reinforcements from combined arms this doctrine would never stand a chance by itself. Sometimes you don't need the best tank to win the war, what is needed is an effective tank that can kill other tanks and support infantry. T34-85, M4A2/A3 (76), M4A3E8 (76), Pnz4, Stug III, Hellcat, Comet.
Your melodic Dutch accent makes my own crude english, (one & only), language sound good. Very easy on the ear. And your multilingual styled pronunciation is not only impeccable but also aids comprehension of info'
Ah thank you very much this compliment made my day :)
@@LearningHistoryTogether you too, my bro
Thank you collin 👍 good video again
Thank you👍
Yeah I fully agree with the Panther being the best german tank, maybe even the best ww2 tank🤔
Yeah maybe!
100 %. But I think Tiger I was more effective as for kill/loss ratio.
That's a very very nice photo of a Pz IV Ausf. C of 21st Panzer division in France right at the start. Interestingly the picture was taken in 1944 just prior to D-day. You can tell by the uniforms.
Ausf. C was relatively rare to begin with but finding one in 1944 is pure gold !
The concept of sloped armor wasn't invented on T-34. Sloped armor on tanks dates back as far as WW1 and the concept as a whole (fortresses, warships and armored trains) is a lot older. The French had tanks with sloped armor way before T-34 made its debut.
There were some technical issues with welding sloped thick armor plates, that's why Germany didn't bother in the early years and other countries like the US and France went for casting. Also welding still wasn't that popular in the 30s, many tanks and ships were still riveted.
Besides, when you angle your tank correctly, i.e. shooting over the corners of the tank, your vertical front armor effectively becomes sloped armor. Yes, true sloped front armor is always better.
As you've stated correctly, it has disdvantages when you exaggerate it on a very compact vehicle like -T-34 or "Hetzer". It was less of an issue on large tanks like Panther and Tiger II. Still, the Russians got rid of sloped side and rear armor on their medium tanks as soon as the war ended.
PTRDs could penetrate the vertical lower side armor on Panther (and any other German medium tank), not the sloped part. That's why the side skirts were invented on German tanks. If these hadn't worked, Panther II would have been a thing.
You show me any prototype or early production vehicle that has no teething problems. The issues on Panther were solved within a few month with Panther Ausf. A.
Panther was as reliable as any other German tank and more reliable than 80% of T-34.
The action at Kovel: " 3 Panthers were in need of repairs while 6 Panthers had to be towed away". That makes 9 BATTLE DAMAGED Panthers, 3 of which made it back on their own and 6 were still in a state to be fixed. That's saying something about toughness and reliability.
During "Operation Goodwood" in July '44, 1st SS had 46 operational Panthers out of 78 on paper. They weren't yet fully equipped nor trained when the invasion started. So after 1 month of bitter fighting WITHOUT replacements, they still had roughly 60% of a strength they never had to begin with. Yes, a few Panthers broke down here and there due to mechanical failure, but usually damage occured during battle ! Who says Shermans never broke down ?
Reliability isn't all about mechanical failure, it's also about taking it on the chin and still come back.
Panther was quite heavy for WW2 standards, but as it turned out, it was just setting a new trend: Centurion, Pershing etc.
hey just wanted to say that i never said the T-34 invented Sloped Armour, i just said that the Germans concluded that it was one of its main strengths, i also believe that welding was more expensive :)
@@LearningHistoryTogether No offense bro ! I just can't hear anymore about T-34 and its sloped armor.
Welding these days was indeed more expensive and you needed a qualified workforce - which the Russians didn't have on a large scale, so their welding was exceptionally bad in many cases. There were very well-made T-34 and they worked properly, but that was the exception.
Badly welded sloped armor is worse than well welded vertical armor, that's the point.
Although cheaper, riveting has many flaws: it's heavier due to the extra framework to rivet your armor onto. Also rivets have the nasty tendency to bounce around inside your tank when "properly" hit.
Interstingly the US and France went for casting their sloped armor before settling on welding. But this can open another can of worms from a production standpoint.
The Normandy wreck surveys found that 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated.
1st SS did not enter combat until June 28 and then only the Pz Grenadier elements. GOODWOOD can be considered its first real combat as a Unit and thus it did not have '1 month of bitter fighting' under its belt by July 18. On July 16 it reported 46 fit Panthers out of 72. By July 20 it was 20 fit Panthers.
@@michaelkenny8540 Goodwood was 18-22 July. They weren't fully equipped when the invasion started and they didn't receive reinforcements in between. They didn't loose 30 Panthers due to breakdown before they went into action. The ones lost were lost in combat.
You can also comment a Subject / tank for the next video
Discord:
discord.gg/ZBjEKbpyR4
Great video! Thanks for sharing.
I like how you justify your opinion of the panther however I disagree with it being the best German tank of the war. I believe the panzer IV should get this spot due to its fighting on every front, it’s numbers produced, it’s continued upgradability, it’s reliability, etc. all the way to the end of the war. Just my opinion. Great video that’s well thought out and put together. Looking forward to more of these.
yeah and your opinion is very much understandable, thanks for watching. :)
Panzer IV had reached its peak in 1943. There was absolutely no further room for improvement. It was however one of the best and most versatile tanks until then. Numbers alone don't make a good tank. T-34 was not a good tank, IMHO.
Well not really! Note that Pz-IV was designed as a support role to the Pz-III. Interestingly Pz-III was supposed to be the main German Tank whereas Pz-IV was supposed to be for Support (having short barrel gun instead of long). Moreover, Pz-IV was not sufficient to cater T-34/76 and later T-34/85. Panther was the perfect combination of Firepower - Armour and Mobility! That is why French inducted Panthers after the war and NOT Pz-IV
@@livingroomtheatre174 By mentioning Pz IV's history you actually make an excellent point why the tank was so versatile. Panzer IV could be upgraded to a role for which it was never intended. Pz III could not.
I never fully understood why Germany bothered with Pz III at all. They could have installed the same guns in Pz IV, which is ALMOST the same size, weight armor etc. And it was cheaper as well. You could even build the StuG on Pz IV chassis. Long-barreled Pz IV could take out any enemy tank frontally except IS-2 and Churchill ! Latest Pz IV also suffered from production issues. A lot of things were left out to ease manufacture, i-e. turret motor.
The French used Panthers because they were a more modern, better armed and armored design. And of course they were deeply impressed by German design philosophy as can be seen in their early post-war designs.
1:33 The Panthers High Explosive shell actually Underperformed and had a lot less explosive Filling than that of Panzer IV Ausf. A through F1 because it’s shells had to be specially reinforced to withstand the Barrel Pressure of the Longer L70 Gun of the panther which meant their was less space for Explosive Filling and this is Often evidenced by Panther crews who complained about their HE shells performing poorly and not having enough Splash Damage. So All I was trying to say was that the HE shells of the panther Underperformed and had a lot less explosive filling that is in addition to the Mediocre Caliber. The tank was meant to 1v1 Other Tanks not to Fire HE at soft targets such as Bunkers, MG Nests, and Anti-Tank Guns among others.
You're talking about the short 75mm, that gun's only virtue was its HE performance while its performance against armour was questionable. Later on the Panzer IV and StuG III got a longer 75mm gun, there were no complaints about its HE performance and the Panther's gun still had more HE filling that these guns.
Panther crews didn't complain about HE rounds performing poorly. In fact during the heavy fighting in Kurland some Panther units were used as artillery guns much like the Western Allies did with Shermans on occasions.
I have to point out that it never was planned to weigh only 30 tons, it isn't a requirement or a specification.
I think the Panther looks so cool! - in my humble opinion, I think based on the tanks it opposed, the Panther was too good, the PzKw IV was more reliable and could do the same job.
Biggest issue with the Panther was the unreliable gearbox and final drive due to rushed development and lack of trials. In the hands of a good driver, it was a dangerous weapon. But I do agree that the Mk.IV range is often overlooked for it's versatility and ability to be continually upgraded as the war progressed.
Still wonder how they would've been if they just went with the 30 tonnes version
@@LearningHistoryTogether And if Hitler hadn't kept interfering. 🙄
@@simongee8928 Hitler did not interfere that much, only once did he require a change to the design.
@@Dreachon To quote Albert Speer; '....But in the course of a year, Hitler once again insisted on clapping so much armour on it as well as larger guns, that it ultimately reached forty eight tons, the original weight of the Tiger.'
Only once - ?
@@simongee8928 It's Speer you're qouting, the man lied through his teeth like so many others after the war to make themselves look better.
Hitler's only request was to increase the front of the hull from 60 to 80mm and the turret front from 80 to 100mm.
He never made a request for a bigger, the un to picked pretty early on and they stayed with it.
I've admired the Panther, possibly for it's looks since I built an Airfix one in 1964 - ! 😁
I have three in my models collection with another four waiting to be built.
Just saying - ! 😁
Very very cool man👌
One of the best German WW2-tanks.
My personal favorite German tank is the PzKw4 with a long 75mm gun.
It is in my opinion some kind of a workinghorse,where the Panthers and Tigers had more a glamoures Image .
I am Not saying the PzKw4 is better.
I think that the 75mm L/48 was a good gun (mass production wise) but the issue is that it would definitely struggle against tanks like the IS-2, M4A3E2, Churchill and probably some more tanks.
My opinion about the panther is slightly more biased then the tiger 1, but acknowledges the usefulness/effectiveness the Tiger 1 presented during the early years of ww2.
For the Panther:
Good Gun
Effective/sloped Amour
Decent Mobility
Bad reliability/needing repair/tow
High fuel mileage
Cheaper Production cost compared to Tiger 1 (2-3 Panthers for every 1 Tiger)
The Panther is about quality and out gunning/out armouring the enemy but without sufficient reinforcements from combined arms this doctrine would never stand a chance by itself.
Sometimes you don't need the best tank to win the war, what is needed is an effective tank that can kill other tanks and support infantry.
T34-85, M4A2/A3 (76), M4A3E8 (76), Pnz4, Stug III, Hellcat, Comet.
Yeah I basically agree with almost everything you said👌
Hope you're exams went well 👍🏻
😅 not entirely