The difference in design is glaring in these tests, and so is the difference between the German vs American approach to tanks. The Germans were forced to strive for "the very best" in tank design and crew training due to inability to produce gobs of Panthers and Tigers. The Russian and Americans design motto was obviously "good enough - cheap enough - make them fast and make a whole bunch, by the thousands!".
Honestly I disagree, Germans wanted the bare minimum and barely actually tested their tanks (Panther for example was rushed into service and was horrifically unreliable), while the Americans tested their tank many times to make sure it was the best they could make.
@@aletron4750 Maybe you compare the different situations: The germans were hard under pressure while the american had much more time until they decided to enter the almost won war :-)
Poor little Germans still cant get over the fact the Sherman kicked your asses inside out… And Im happy to say my Father knocked out multiple German panzers from his Sherman, and a lot more Stugs, halftracks, armored cars and other vehicles and artillery… He told me how easy it was to make a Panther burn if you hit it right. Often telling me how he preferred the 76mm over the 75… 4th Armored Division, 3rd Army under Patton…
@@CH-pv2rz it is still commander and gunner that made the fight. Talked to some US tank commanders of WW II which had the opportunity to command captured Panthers in battle and they were impressed. For them the Panther was the best tank they ever used. In the last stage of war it was easy for the Allies to destroy German tanks because most of the crews were young and hand no battle experience. 1942 with enough Panthers and experienced crews would have been a diffrent story. And due to oil and gasoline leaks every tanks have, it is easy to knock them out when you are experienced enough to know where to hit. You could easily knock out an Abrams with an cigarette lighter and 1/4 gallon of gasoline.
I dont agree and i hate to say that ( i am German) but the best medium tank of WWII was probably the T-34,especially the later version with its bigger gun,the 85mm main weapon. In addition of all of its abilities - speed,reliability,engine,weaponry,bevelled armor (the T-34 was the first tank with bevelled armor to increase protection) - this was a tank the russians really nailed. It inspired heavily the construction and the design of the panther tank. The main flaw of the panther was its boxed drive gear which made maintenace very uneasy and difficult. Sad but true.
bernisweltredsun t34s werent that reliable. their turret was extremely cramped and i’d say that all late war medium tanks are good in their own way Panthers had amazing armor and guns T34s had good mobility and firepower Shermans were agile and had good fire power. But they had pretty big problems as well. Like the panther’s engine, bad armor design (could break after a few nonpenetrating hits) transmission, hand crank turret, and bad turret ring design. The shermans trAcks were also pretty short and would get bogged down, and their armor wasn’t the best either. T34s were only good due to the amount made, on the battlefield they were only effective in medium-close ranges, while german tanks could pick them off at a far distance. Their armor was also not well made and would break after a few HE hits. The crew were also extremely cramped inside the turret, with the loader sometimes getting injured during the turret traverse.
if the Nazis had known about the Sherman's poor characteristics they could have taken the war to difficult terrain and perhaps the war would have taken another path
The Panther broke down and failed in the competition. The M4A3e8 won the competition but the channel owner failed to shows the clips of this Sherman nor disclose that the Panther failed... He is a pussy.
@@CH-pv2rz it's the Swedish post war tank trails. In the original video the Panther is superior in every category and it is still in running condition in a German tank museum today. Crossing marshlands, trench crossing, climbing slop, climbing vertical obstical, passing through woodlands, plowing deep snow, driving on icy roads, driving over rocks and rubble. The sherman didn't won in a single category. M4A3(76) HVSS vs Panther A/G: Trench crossinge: 230cm vs 250cm Ground clearance: 43cm vs 54cm Suspension travel: 20cm vs 51cm Max grade: 30° vs 35° Max vertical obstacle: 60cm vs 90cm Max fording depth: 91cm vs 190cm Operational range (on road): 161 km vs 190km The Panther beats the HVSS Sherman in every category.
... yes, for example the factories (and the workers' houses) bombed night and day, the railway lines and assembly lines sabotaged by the heroic partisans, the petrol distributed with the dropper, the strategic materials blocked by the democratic Portuguese regime etc .etc. ... Here, these were the great advantages enjoyed by German industry during WW2
@@sergiogregorat1830 All of which argues against the construction of a complex, expensive, gas guzzling tank, even if it did offer some advantages. Congratulations. You just identified why the Panther was a failure. On the other hand, the Sherman's design allowed it to be built by the tens of thousands. It's size allowed it to be shipped all around the world. It was reliable and comparatively economical to operate in theaters where everything it needed to run had to be shipped in across vast oceans. That's why the Sherman was a success, even if it suffered from some disadvantages.
@Sergio GREGORAT … Another brainiac… Panthers were built mostly by slave labor. Not by regular factory workers as at that late stage of the war most workers were already drafted into the German army.
I would have thought the comparison should have been between the Sherman and the Panzer 4 and I'm sure Shermans made it all the way to Germany facing exactly the same obstacles as shown in this video so it cant be all that bad
It wont change a lot...that german Panzer-4 will win the race too. German Tanks where build for a good performance in any terrain. A tank that cant be handled under those conditions (watch part-1 too) are simply useless and makes it much harder to do fight. German tanks are know as all-terrain tanks with great performance.
@@errolkim1334 Sherman and Panther where common tanks of its time. Panzer 4 would do the same like the Panther did. But srsly...comparing a Panther to a Challenger-2 to show a missleading of two WW-2 tanks? Srsly?
There was no best tank of the war, each tank is good in certain areas and some operate different. In my opinion each tank has its faults, it all comes down to who operates the tank.
Полностью согласен. Каждый танк хорош по своему. Даже куча маусов не сможет изменить ход боя. И все же самыми универсальными и многочисленными танками будут дешевые средние танки
amiable attitude, but technically wrong. There are a lot of tank failures from many perspective. True tank specialisations exist, but we try to compare tanks within the same group of specilisation - and planned battle scenario: Sherman and Panther are comparable and fill the same roles - but one fills it better. Thats a simple fact. There panther wins - provided an equally skilled driver is on the wheel. But strategically it does not matter much, if you have 100 vs 1 number advantage in shermans, you will still kill the panthers. And this was how germany was defeated on all fronts. Numbers, not engineering quality or ingenuity. Now that we all (except the russkies) fight on the side of peace and freedom - we started to combine german ingenuity and engineering, with allied numbers. (i think the abrams and challenger arent too shabby either and dont need to hide behind the leopard 2 , especially now that the challenger receives some upgrading)
2 things to point out, the second hill test the Sherman actually made it, but they cut it out, second is it made it to the other side just fine on the rough terrain test, but it still "failed"
You mean 1:50 ? Well i must say i must agree but also he got very veeery slow at the end so its speculation if he barely made it or got stuck. And the next one with the wedge surface youn clearly see that he slided sideways downhill so not gread that one he clearly failed.
It was very reliable, so long as you did a maintenance check every 200km. Which when its post- D-day and its the only unit for 50 miles is... Not very realistic. They were ran into the ground.
Maybe because they were more reliable than we are led to believe. The Germans kept sending them back out from the repair shops relying on cannibalized parts cause they couldn't get new ones due to interdiction, yet more Panthers escaped the Falaise gap than pz ivs. This meant that without new parts arriving that the pzivs ran out of cannibalized parts and had to be written off more often than panthers. The victors of a war tend to be the ones who write the history books. What country would want to admit that their enemy had better weapons than they had.
@@Hornet_Legion Why were they going to the repair shops in the first place? oh yeah they broke down.... During tests the Sherman was driven 2000 miles to check reliability, could a Panther do that?
@@douglasorr7799 when the tank gets shot up they tow them to the repair shop if salvageable. Many tanks that have knocked out could be repaired and sent back out. Maybe with some blood, a hole in the hull or a replaced road wheel or a damaged turret ring or gun barrel. So long as it didnt catch fire or blow up from an ammo rack hit. when you are on the defensive this can be a problem and most tanks were destroyed by their crews to prevent the enemy from repairing them and using their own tanks against them.
@@douglasorr7799 periodical maintetance........every tank even today have maintenance before after some amount of mileage.........btw Bergeb Panther (the towing one made 4200km without any damage on engine,transmission, final driv or gearbox even that from those 4200 km it did 1000km by towing another panther...................
I love How half the comments are just "Sherman reliability this" and "ughh they used a firefly with a weaker engine that" I mean seriusly. This film is from the 50s if not earlier. They didnt really have acces to all varients of shermans and just used that sherman that they had smh
Hey Brainiac... The entire film shows how superior the M4A3e8 version of the Sherman was and it was chosen as winner of the competition... This person who posted this video just picked the small segments of the film to fit his agenda... The truth hurts...
@@CH-pv2rz so tell me what about my comment was incorrect or are you just salty And dyslexic? I said I love how everyone is mad that they used a firefly and how they probably used what they had for the film. Never did I accord myself to any agenda, state anything that's incorrect or otherwise false in connection to this comment section. You however saw a comment that is making fun of people getting mad over this and (here is the funny part) get mad over this yourself. Lol
@@CH-pv2rzThe M4A3 "won" the test because the Panther's gearbox broke down before they could even be compared. The Swedes only had that single Panther, and it was using an early Ausf.D gearbox, lacking the later modifications as seen in the Ausf.A and Ausf.G which finally made it reliable. Finally there was no obstacle that the Panther couldn't negotiate during the Swedish tests, unlike the Sherman.
First time I've seen this doco' Panther leaves the poor old Sherman floundering in the snow an slush. Amazing mobility for a 45,ton tank. Read some-where that the Americans or the British did the same test and the Sherman failed, but in that trial they had a T-34, and the Panther and T-34 pasted with flying colors.
@@peterson7082 for Russia and Germany it's all terrain all version all day anyday. We'll arrange special terrain for American tanks when next world war erupts
So here you see the reason why it normally needed 5 or 6 Sherman Tanks to knock out 1 Tiger or 1Panther. The real Tanks got nothing in common with the abilities and power they have in games like WOT, for example.
InViroTV - False the smallest platoon of Sherman’s was 5, you could never have less in US Army Doctrine, that’s how they traveled together. It is a disproven myth that it took 5 Sherman’s to kill a Tiger/ Panther.
John Cornell - I know they usually traveled in two or more, I never said they traveled in singles, I was trying to get rid of the myth of 5 Sherman’s to take out a cat.
John Cornell - Right but most of those kills were against the Soviets, where as the Americans after D-day only ran into the Tiger twice with Sherman’s and once with Pershing’s. Commonwealth and the British saw more Tigers in different battles comparatively.
Bruce MacAllan but u have to count this is a late Sherman Firefly Sherman firefly had the worst engines out of all Sherman's and this model had the very first suspension which was very bad if it was a later m4a3 76 or a m4a2 with better suspension and engine it will perform a lot better
Just because you were an MBT crewman does not mean you are an expert in WWII fighting vehicles. In fact I have to question you sensibilities to why you choose a tank based on a biased video.
Talvez a grande diferença entre o Panther e o Sherman, é que o Panther por ter esteiras mais largas que o concorrente, possui uma melhor mobilidade no terreno. P = F/A.
Brian Mattingly since german steel infrastructure was all over the place when Tiger IIs were coming out so I think yeah, maybe this panther won the the lottery of parts.
This video came from the Swedish Tank Trials, the winner is Tank Nr.3, the Sherman with rubber tracks with platypus/duckbill tracks and the Second place was another Sherman with an alternate grouser. What was not shown in the video was other Sherman's with alternate tracks while the Panther did not participate any further due to it's Gearbox being broken down while trying to cross over the field of plough. It came from Tank Archives: Shermans in the Mud.
To Alix, That's plain stupid, you can win by sheer numbers, like the Soviets did, the Germans should have concentrated all efforts on producing improved panzer 4 versions in large numbers, they still wouldn't win , judging from a 43/44 scenario, but the odds would be better
@Benny Anderson … And the Russians had better tanks. They were mechanically sound instead of overweight beasts with terrible engineering in their final drives… The Sherman had herringbone gears in its final drive meaning multiple teeth from the gears were always spreading the load evenly across the gear, while the Panther and Tiger had straight gears in thwir final drives putting all the drives pressure on a single tooth of the gear until it failed… Same with the transmissions..
@@CH-pv2rz the panther tank is considered to be the best tank of ww2 from what I have read, despite its flaws, the Soviets did not win because of better quality tanks , but because of total superiority in numbers
@@bennyandersen742 only by those that are uneducated about its design and engineering... It took a week to replace a final drive in the field on a Panther. On a Sherman you could do it in 4 hours. The design of the transmission and final drive used straight gears vs the Sherman's herringbone gears meaning the Sherman's drive load was even spread across multiple teeth on all the gears while the Panther's was carried by a single tooth of each gear until failure... Which happened much to often due to drivers having to over rev the engines to compensate for the excessive weight of the tank. Panthers also readily burned if penetrated in their side armor. Their ammunition was no better protected than early Sherman's were.
About the only area where German design was noticeably inferior was parachutes. The primitive German parachutes used in Crete probavly contributed to their high casualty rate....BUT they still managed to win.
You either love or hate the panther there is no inbetween the panther is like my mini cooper if it works it outclasses everything! But boy if it works it leaves a big smile on your face pure awesomeness
Perfeito! E... não bastam somente tanques. Leva-se em consideração quem pilota. E nós os pilotamos. hammm quem venceu a guerra mesmo..? Perfect! And ... not just tanks. Take into consideration who pilots. And we piloted them. Hammm who won the same war ..? From Brazil.
Los panther y los Tiger en el campo de batalla lo habrían como latas de conservas a los sherman!!!! El ejercicio alemán no perdió la guerra por sus tanques o sus soldados, no hay dudas que fueron el mejor ejército por lejos, perdieron la guerra por cantidad, los atacaban de todos lados.
....and then the transmission broke on the Panther and the Panther was done for. Meantime the mechanics replaced the narrow tracks on the Sherman with the later version wide tracks and the Sherman drove all over the obstacles on it's way to Berlin.
Ich war Panzerfahrer in der Bundeswehr - allein einen sich einen solchen Anstieg (oder auch in der umgekehrten Richtung - also man fährt einen steilen Berg abwärts, während einem nur die Gurte auf den Sitz halten) zu zumuten, erfordern viel Vertrauen in das Gerät.
the Sherman M4A4 Vc (firefly) was the heaviest of the shermans (bar the jumbo) weighing 35,200kg as well as having the 16" track and VVSS suspension and 400hp Chysler multibank engine made it the 2nd least mobile of all the sherman models with the2nd lowest Power to weight ratio and the 2nd Highest ground pressure (bar the jumbo). if this had been an HVSS sherman (in which 9,100 or so were made compared to 6,000 panthers, so that no-one calls those types of Shermans ultra rare) with the HVSS suspension and 23" track (and if m4a3 500hp ford GAA engine) would have been able to do everything the Panther did here. Infact the Panther G had an engine limiter on it limiting it's max revs to 2,500 rather than 3,000 (for reliablity reasons) also limiting it's max HP from 690hp to 590hp giving it about equal HP/tonne ratio than most Sherman's and less than the M4A3's. the Panther G has a hp/tonne ratio of 13.2 and a ground pressure of about 0.85, the M4A3 HVSS has a hp/tonne ratio of 15.3 and a ground pressure of about 0.75. i noticed in this video they didn't test to see how quickly the tanks could run off the road at high speed and behind cover, i'd imagine the Panther wouldn't do too well at that considering it doesn't have Regenerative steering.
Eh, isn't it actually using a mix of epicyclic geared steering double differential system which would in itself allow regenerative steering with 1 turn radius per gear? members.upc.nl/i.cerjak/Differential%20steering%20book%20of%20wisdom.htm
+KennumDB but the Panthers Double differential isn't a normal double differential, it is a unique simplified double differential that does have a turning radius per gear (so 7) but not regenerative steering (infact, the only of its kind in the world and only fitted to the Panther). It had to be cheaper than a normal Double differential like in the Tiger in order to be more easily mass-produced and thus Regenerative steering was the cost. www.scmec.us/pdfs/Tank_Steering_Systems.pdf go down to Maybach double differential and it says "The Average speed is not maintained when steering as one track slows down and the other does not speed up" that's NOT regenerative.
I have always read the German tanks were over engineered and so complex they were hard to fix so the Germans were always short on tanks, even if they were better machines.
It has nothing to do with it, the problem that the Germans had was the scarcity of resources, something that the Americans and Soviets never experienced.
@@rahmatjatmiko1794 Germany could easy defeated the Soviets the Russian Winters and USA supplying vital war materials to the Soviets played a big factor into Soviets defeating the Germans in the Eastern Front.
The US Army to Sherman crew members: One on one, you don’t have a chance against a German tank, but don’t worry, we have more tanks then they do. I am sure that was comforting to learn.
Some Tanker from the 3rd Armored Division: So General Patton wanted some M4A3E2's. But he told us to weld more armor on our Tanks and it works out against 88mm's.
I mean, The Sherman is made to be survivable, unlike the Panther who cooks up the crew when you hit it just in the right spot don't bring up the "Ronson" myth, it's already been disproved multiple times.
Panzer 3? You may be right. I was talking about a 5, Panther, or a 6, Tiger, or the 70 Ton-monster the King Tiger. Put one of those against a single Sherman and barring some miracle of a lucky shot, or fortuitous circumstance, like an ambush from behind or the panzer breaking down, or a an extremely poorly trained German crew and an extremely well trained Allies crew, the victor is in no doubt.
@@norsemankv6472 Only because the panther used in this competition broke down and could not complete the competition and the M4 Sherman was chosen as the winner. When will you poor butthurt nazi fanboys ever get over having your arses kicked? You want a crying towel?
And the final drive wouldn't last 160 km. A post war British tests showed the brakes wouldn't hold it still on an incline, the turret couldn't hold its position on an incline, & you had the rev the engine at redline so the PTO could rotate the turn at barely one revolution per minute. The Panther was a total piece of crap.
Max turret rotation speed was 18 seconds for 360° at 2500 Rpm. Red line would be 3000rpms. Thats only 2 seconds slower compared to a sherman. The idle speed was still good enough to track moving targets at regular combat distances. It's tank combat not tank dogfighting like in some BS Hollywood movies. T54s and Tigers had the same turret rotation speeds. they drove a 45 degree slope in this video. I did not see any problem, turret was still facing forward. Panthers could not move the turret beyond 25 degrees. But look at the video, in this case you can only launch the shells into space. The maximum elevation in modern mbts is 20 degrees at best and maximal depression ist minus 10 at best. They could not turn the turret at 25 degrees, when gunner could not see shit anyway. I don't think that this was a noticeable drawback during combat. If this was really a problem they would have put counterweights at the back of the turret like on some American tanks. But there was no need to do that. That's an overhyped issue, ignoring the proper context. How can some post war built panthers, out of an destroyed factory, and some french Panthers ,which were maintained with cannibalized spare parts from destroyed panthers, be a reliable testgroup to draw any conclusion about the performance of the 6000 panthers built by germany.
They used a firefly which was a clusterfuck variant made by the brits... A fair comparison would've been with the M1A2 sherman or any other late war american variant. Let's not forget the constant breakdowns the panther had and the full nightmare it was to repair it. Shermans were sustainable, and easy to repair or replace. While panthers and other tanks like Tigers, Jagdtigers, etc were built to sustain tons of damage, but couldn't be repaired easily nor be replaced quickly. The production time and cost of each german tank was too high, and the fact that reparing things like the transmision, engine, turret ring or gun was nearly impossible in the field there wasn't much the tankers could do. I'm not denying the success of the german tanks, they were really good but just too complex to sustain. I'm only commenting this because the descriptionsays "american sherman tank" which true, sherman is american and the brits only changed the gun and engine, giving a powerful punch with snail speed... Instead of a proper sherman variant. Plus all the posterboys going "omg sherman so bad it cant even climb a hill". Sorry to break it to you but... German tanks were way more flawed than american tanks when it comes to engineering.
Then again, another misinformation in the comment section and this video shows that the Sherman Firefly alone does not represent about other Sherman variants. This Sherman you see in this video is a British Firefly variant, which is heavier than an ordinary American M4A1 Sherman due to the weight of the gun, Shells with oversized propellant, old-type Continental Engines and no end-connectors, grousers and duckbills were used. The Panther, however, in the French tests were proven to be prone to mechanical failures and fire engines happened at random despite how they properly maintain the suspensions, gearbox and Engines before they drive that Tank through harsh terrain and failed miserably while the late-war Shermans with better equipment modifications can easily go through there.
The sherman was cheap, reliable and easy to produce/replace/fix, then yes, it is very very good. A tons of average tanks will beat a few very good tanks.
_But Sherman is still a good tank right?_ Oh, it most definitely is. Certainly better than what is poor reputation suggests. And here is a neat way of seeing it: the Soviet T-34, which has a much better reputation, is not near as good as the Sherman. Go ahead, just go, read a couple of hours about both of them and do a quick comparison. Ditch the preconceptions and you will surprise yourself.
Very much depends on what you expect from it and what you want it to do. The Tiger tank was brilliant on paper and brilliant when it worked. It was however very unreliable and only 1500 produced, approx 750 of those were lost due to breakdowns/destroyed by crews. The M4 (Sherman was the British designation) had decent reliability, average at best across rough terrain, only the late variants (76mm) had a decent-ish gun (US versions, British Firefly had the excellent 17pdr). But then the M4 was never designed to go head to head against opposition armour, it was more an infantry support tank. Was the M4 the best tank of WWII? Definitely not but, pound for pound, it was nowhere the worst either. As other have pointed out, the shear number produced is what puts it up there amongst the most talked about tanks
CB65810 over 1300 panthers built isn't shit compared to over 49 thousand Sherman's of different variants built. Numbers always play a huge factor. Doesn't matter how mighty the tank may be numbers will always triumph.
You are wrong, the T-34 had vastly better basic design qualities than the panther. The T-34 is arguably the tank that won the war and is the tank design of the century for sure. Front drive, interloped wheels and petrol engine just some of the atrocious designs and overengineering from the Germans including the panther. T-34 rear wheel drive, proper tracks and wheels and a diesel engine = as it should be. What the video doesn't show is the Panthers final drive WILL fail after only 60-100 miles of driving and that in the snowy terrain only the sherman would be mobile since the panthers interloping wheels will clog in the mud and snow then freeze and block, unless it travelled on the road only.
Hahaha low quality ? REALLY ! Being built in a factory 100 meters from the front line really makes you build some top quality tanks while dodging artillery shells. Wtf are you talking about ? :)
+slapnut1207 We are not talking about production quality or production issues. It's no secret the T-34 had lower quality materials etc. We are talking about basic design issues, the T-34 is a vastly superior design to that of the Panther, tonne for tonne the T-34 is a masterpiece to compare to the Panther. It wouldn't have mattered if the Panther had a proper final drive or the T-34 better metallurgy, the T-34 was still a better design. Yes the Panther was a better tank to be in vs a T-34, that is not the point, it was overengineered with many design flaws.
+slapnut1207 It wasn't ahead of it's time, if it was at least some of its design concepts would have been adopted after the war, instead every single piece of German tank design was dropped after the war, there was no continuation so no it was not ahead of it's time, it was simply over-engineered with several bad design concepts. To be clear I'd prefer to be in an over-engineered Panther in a battle, probably only because of the gun it had, still doesn't make it a better design overall than the T-34 ..and no it cannot be compared to an MBT.
this shows the superior design of the German tanks. but they did have there problems. the panther was the best all around tank of ww2. the king tiger was the best heavy tank of ww2. every country wanted one after the war to study and pick apart.
Only by those that are uneducated about its design and engineering... It took a week to replace a final drive in the field on a Panther. On a Sherman you could do it in 4 hours. The design of the transmission and final drive used straight gears vs the Sherman's herringbone gears meaning the Sherman's drive load was even spread across multiple teeth on all the gears while the Panther's was carried by a single tooth of each gear until failure... Which happened much to often due to drivers having to over rev the engines to compensate for the excessive weight of the tank. Panthers also readily burned if penetrated in their side armor. Their ammunition was no better protected than early Sherman's were.
Poor little Germans still cant get over the fact the Sherman kicked your asses inside out… That Sherman Firefly tank in the video was stopped by the driver on that hill, not stopped because it couldn't climb that grade as it was climbing fine… And I'm happy to say my Father knocked out multiple German panzers from his Sherman, and a lot more Stugs, halftracks, armored cars and other vehicles and artillery… He told me how easy it was to make a Panther burn if you hit it right. Often telling me how he preferred the 76mm over the 75 though… 4th Armored Division, 3rd Army under Patton…
W czasie wojny to podstawa. Ilość sprzętu. A jak wiadomo to u szkopów skupiano się na tym kto jakie dostanie kontrakty a nie na jakości. Czołgi nawet miały zapasowe gonsienice do transportu kolejowego i nakładki zimowe żeby dobrze po śniegu jechać. Strata materiałów na niepotrzebne rzeczy a potem nie było z czego sprzętu robić. Na szczęście oczywiście dla przeciwnika.
And the one where the Panther is climbing up the snow nearly vertical isn’t such a great thing…The entire underside is exposed and One hit would take it out..WW2 tank battles were mostly move, stop and then shoot..If that Panther was assaulting a dug in position it would have been deleted showing it’s underbelly against AT guns…Can’t use your super thick glacisis if it’s pointing in the wrong direction.
So you whould rather not be able to climb a steep hil in case of emergency because you could get shot? and just because more battles were fought on plane ground instead of hills doesnt mean there werent significant numbers of battles in other terrain. -Wolokolamsk -Stalingrad -Kursk -half of central russia consists out of big fireds that have lots of small steep inclimbs in them. -Wallonia -Southern germany-Italy -Southern and eastern france -Belgium -Parts of the saarland all are big areas that are mainly a arrangement of steep hills mixed between falt fields. hell look at the footage yourselfe, they are on an open field where there happened to be such a seep small hill. I personally whouldnt invent problems that the panther whould have in extremly situational events while the panther has more than enough problems already. Namely -the final drive wich only got a better reliability than a t34 with the g models -the unreliable fuellines that werent fixed untill the later A models -the problem with havng overlapping or even interleaving roadwheels. just to name a few. while the panther has lots of technical problems, that the sherman doesnt have, it has lots of advantages over the sherman. -Armor -guns -extremly good ground clearance and spring clearance (in that department the panther set a record that was only broken by the leo 2 trials in 1983) -Good mobility -stabil platform even on the move At the end of the day dont amke tanks worse than they are and dont invent problems that whouldnt even really exist. SIDE NOTE considering the average combat range for AT-guns at the time and the average hit probability during battle of allied crews on said AT-guns, actually hitting the lower glacis during comabt is less than unlikely (possible but unlikely). I wish you a Happy new year and a great day :)
@@marcelsinky1652 aww don't be so jealous because you line in a sh1thole... You want to 'look at the video" you might want to look at the ENTIRE video of the tank competition where the Panther broke down and could not be repaired. The M4A3 Sherman won the competition... So quit being so butthurt.
I knew that in Korea the Americans use to like being near the English with their Centurion tanks because the Centurions could climb the hills and give support the American tanks couldn't.
I hope you realize that they are comparing a British Firefly to a panther, the Firefly is way outdated to the panther. Not to mention the Americans had pershings and new Sherman's called easy 8s which had a wider track and upgraded suspension
John Cornell When you call us Alliedboo's, that means you're either on the side of the two most radical and politically genocidical factions such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
@@Romanov117 When speaking of the Soviet Union, the Alliedboos should remember that their existence today is due exclusively to their alliance with the "genocidical" communists, a conscious and multi-annual alliance (not of the type Ribbentrop-Molotov)
Sergio GREGORAT Why yes the Allied Forces were allied with the Soviet because Germany declared both the Allied Nations and Russia from both sides, which is very silly. But they weren't really Allies, before the Big Four can decide what's the best for Germany, Stalin never agreed to join the United Nations because it did not fit his views. After the War, the Allies soon remembers what Russia did since the Revolution and saw how powerful they become right after the Great Patriotic War (aka. Eastern Front), they become to realize that the Red Army will only permanently occupy their "Liberated" Countries which they become puppet states for the Soviet Union. And then there we have the red scare.
Says you Einstein???? Numbers is all they had against anybody. Until the British put the 17 pounder in them they were not a battle tank. They were infantry support.
Doesn't matter. Anything was better against German armor than the 75 mm low velocity gun on the Sherman. If they were within 800 yards they stood a chance. The German guns were good at 2000 yards and beyond. Stop defending the loser in a tank battle unless they were at close quarters.
But they never DID get the bugs out of it, the final drives would break after 150km which took atleast a full day to fix, it was never fixed. and the reason why the French who adopted the Panther after the war got rid of it were because they COULDN'T get the bugs out of it because it's design was flawed! it's entire drivetrain system is super underperforming because it was designed for 30-tonne tank(and even then it was weak) while the Panther ended up weighing 45 tonnes!
jerry one thing to think about is where were the germans going to get all of the fuel (after 43) for their mass produced panthers (or tigers for that matter)?? your concept is only valid if the germans had virtually unlimited fuel for larger numbers of any tanks (mkIV's or any other tank) as did the allies. lots of people miss this vital point when discussing how germans preferred quality over quantity. their preference did not matter. after Kursk they really had only one option.
Lets see, flaws with the panther. Pivot steering breaks the tank, tendency to catch fire while traersing an incline, no backup generator for the turret when the engine is dead, the turret drive could not keep the turret foward at a 20 degree slope, could be penetrated by 105mm m67 he shell, multiple hits from high explosive shells will break the welds on the side armor, multiple hits from high explosive shells will break the welds on the front armor or shatter the plate itself, traveling for 150km will break the transmission, putting it out of action for one or two days and it has two of them, any smoke grenades that land on the engine deck will set the engine on fire, and a tendency to catch fire in general. The panther was deadly tank but despite how advanced it was it still had its flaws. No tank was perfect
Most flaws were rectified by the time they were producing the G models, but it's true that the final drives remained a problem throughout. It should also be noted that being struck repeatedly by high explosives will logically do no good for any tank. It's not a fair claim to suggest that this is strictly a flaw with the Panther. Furthermore, white phosphorus (used in smoke shells) is pyrophoric, meaning it wouldn't be good for _any_ tank to have that spewing over an engine deck, so again not strictly an issue with the Panther. I understand that the Panther, and some other German WWII tanks, often get too much unfair praise for being "super tanks", but the recent trend for many -- usually US and UK tank fans -- to claim the opposite, that German WWII tanks were hot trash, is equally unfair.
The Sherman was developed and produced in 1941. The Panther didn’t make it to the battlefield until 1944. The apples to apples would be the Sherman compared to Panzer III and the panther to the Pershing. The Sherman was easily repaired and easily transported: both by ship and rail. The ergonomics of the crew was better and it had a much more rapid fire rate. It had more machine guns to defend itself from close assault infantry attacks. It was small enough for even the narrow bridges and roads of Europe. It was a great urban fighter. We produced 49,000 of them and drove most of them through Germany victoriously. Not one Panther touched American soil during the war. Most of the Sherman’s that went down were brought down by 88s, panzerfausts and panzerschreks not Panther or Tiger tanks.
@@JJosephS1 The Panther actually first saw combat during the Battle of Kursk in mid 1943, not 1944. The Sherman had two 7.62 mm machine guns, one in the bow, the other coaxial, and could mount a 12.7 mm Browning machine gun atop the turret. The Panther had the same number of machine guns in the hull and turret, and could also be equipped with a roof mounted machine gun.
You know i see so manny triggered people in the commentsektion but you are yust staying on the facts reeealy like that! Finally, finally one who knows what he is writing!
Cost of panther was less than 400 marks more than panzer iv. Issue for panther wasnt production cost or time, it was capacity. Just not enough factories left, and attempts to simplify it even further to boost production resulted in poor visibility and fragile parts, being crewed by cadets fresh out of training
Joekike1, They forget to tell you the Sherman was much more reliable, faster, lower maintenance, used much less fuel, was easy to repair in the field, had specialty rounds that made it much more effective, had a self leveling turret so you could shoot on the run much possible. The steel was excellent, and didn't scale off like T34's. + Americans had their Army Core of Engineers to deal with major obstacals + 100% mechanized support crews for supplies, and repairs. We had 55mph tank killers and air power to take on most tank to tank situations etc... Patton kicked the shit out of Germans, and killed many German tanks even though the defending Army statisticaly has twice the kill rate tank to tank etc....
considering that this compairison only focused on the comabt mobility, it whouldnt have been necessary to menshion that. besides everyone knows that by now
if the Nazis had known about the Sherman's poor characteristics they could have taken the war to difficult terrain and perhaps the war would have taken another path
We all know now why the panther was far better than sherman.And so when it comes to armor thicknes panther wons again and as for the gun and the penetration ability which panher had or manuvrability what can we say...o i forgot that panthers had a superiority in night combat because of the night vision was puted on later panthers.Of course sherman is not s bad tank but i believe that it is ecual with panzer iv and slitly better against pz iii last versions with 50 mm long gun.
teo tselek as far as ik there where night vision for panther 2 but they were never put into service that's the last time I've heard but I could be wrong and u could be right
The night vision didnt work on anything of the time. Did it have better front amour yes but vs the 76mm or 17 pounder the gun is not much better and the reliability is not even a contest. So even if its the best in the world if it cant get to the fight what good is it? Plus the Sherman won most fights against the panther
@@chadjustice8560 no sherman won any battle against panther ever.Shermans find it dificult to stand against pz iv tanks which was a far better tank than shermans.Only when they upgraded their main gun with the 76 they could fight ecual a pz iv.Against the panther only using mass numbers of shermans and tank destroyers were having chance.Sherman tanks lack of manuvrability for example the panther to turn around its self needs zero metres but the shermans need13 metres space.Of cource they fixed that with the easy 8 in the last monts of war.The firefly had a low shooting rythym because of the big gun to a small turet and the crew went blind for a few time after firing to a target and that is dangerous in batlle.As for the shermans with the 76 gun wasnt so effective against panthers thats why they had prodused later tank destroyers with the 90mm gun and tanks as persing witch was a bit slow but indeed had the skills to fight ecual a panther tank.
@@teotselek1536 The battle of arracourt where Shermans tore through panthers? Never heard of it i take it? Plenty of pics of panthers killed by 75mm shermans because they stopped face hardening the amour on the panther and amour quality went to hell. Yes the panther could neutral steer where the Sherman couldn't. But the reliability between the two is not even close and this video us nothing more than propaganda. Look for the french test with the panther. Not good. It had the stupid pto turret traverse setup on top of everything. There are reports out there that show how effective the Sherman was and especially against the panther
@@chadjustice8560 as i said before shermans with 75 gun could do anything against panthers and very few against pz iv.Now as for the battle that you said i that david take out goliath it is something that happens as an exeption.The rule is that goliath will always win david.For the specific battle and all the batlles that took place you forget that the allies had the uper hand to the skies so they were in place to watch every move from above and then bombing every thing on the ground.As i said 75 and 76 guns could do much to panthers.Shermans were easy pray for pz ivs and even Japs were in a position to light those rosons with their 47 main guns of their tanks.Reability?Yes for a lighter i agree.Panthers did nt have reability problems bigger than shermans but shermans have better techical support and even those shermans that had break down were easy to come back to the frontline since the field is in hands of the allied forces.Most of the loses of the americans were belong to those who fought with shermans against pzs.Now as for manuavrability as i said before there is no compare between them but panther was beter on ground pressure and the biger truck allowed panthers to move anywhere to the snow and to the ice to the mud and even inside a forest thing that m4 could nt do it because of those trees(!)Panthers were having beter armor beter gun beter manuvrability and less techical support.Panther tank had closed the gup between medium and heavy tanks because it could move like a medium and destroy as a heavy tank about 5 shermans for each panther.You see the production won the war and not the fighiting skills of tanks.
The transmission though flawed was still massively better than the Tiger 1's transmission. Its just that Americans tend to exaggerate the transmission problems whenever their beloved Sherman gets attacked
@@norsemankv6472 Only because it broke down during this competition and sat off by itself for years before being discovered and rebuilt, thus avoiding the junkyard salvager...
The difference in design is glaring in these tests, and so is the difference between the German vs American approach to tanks. The Germans were forced to strive for "the very best" in tank design and crew training due to inability to produce gobs of Panthers and Tigers. The Russian and Americans design motto was obviously "good enough - cheap enough - make them fast and make a whole bunch, by the thousands!".
Panther is just big t34
@@187Rajah Yes, if you only compare the shape ...
Honestly I disagree, Germans wanted the bare minimum and barely actually tested their tanks (Panther for example was rushed into service and was horrifically unreliable), while the Americans tested their tank many times to make sure it was the best they could make.
@@aletron4750 Maybe you compare the different situations: The germans were hard under pressure while the american had much more time until they decided to enter the almost won war :-)
Panther was kinda T-34 made the German way.
Are lot of you people forget one important part of the M4 Sherman that made it successful, the lifting hooks on the hull.
Thats a good one 😂😂😂😂
German tankers had a saying,"1 of ours is worth 10 of yours! Unfortunately you always bring 11!"
The most important part of the tank
Poor little Germans still cant get over the fact the Sherman kicked your asses inside out… And Im happy to say my Father knocked out multiple German panzers from his Sherman, and a lot more Stugs, halftracks, armored cars and other vehicles and artillery… He told me how easy it was to make a Panther burn if you hit it right. Often telling me how he preferred the 76mm over the 75… 4th Armored Division, 3rd Army under Patton…
@@CH-pv2rz it is still commander and gunner that made the fight. Talked to some US tank commanders of WW II which had the opportunity to command captured Panthers in battle and they were impressed. For them the Panther was the best tank they ever used. In the last stage of war it was easy for the Allies to destroy German tanks because most of the crews were young and hand no battle experience. 1942 with enough Panthers and experienced crews would have been a diffrent story. And due to oil and gasoline leaks every tanks have, it is easy to knock them out when you are experienced enough to know where to hit. You could easily knock out an Abrams with an cigarette lighter and 1/4 gallon of gasoline.
panther is considered the best medium tank of World War II
I dont agree and i hate to say that ( i am German) but the best medium tank of WWII was probably the T-34,especially the later version with its bigger gun,the 85mm main weapon. In addition of all of its abilities - speed,reliability,engine,weaponry,bevelled armor (the T-34 was the first tank with bevelled armor to increase protection) - this was a tank the russians really nailed. It inspired heavily the construction and the design of the panther tank.
The main flaw of the panther was its boxed drive gear which made maintenace very uneasy and difficult.
Sad but true.
bernisweltredsun t34s werent that reliable. their turret was extremely cramped and i’d say that all late war medium tanks are good in their own way
Panthers had amazing armor and guns
T34s had good mobility and firepower
Shermans were agile and had good fire power.
But they had pretty big problems as well.
Like the panther’s engine, bad armor design (could break after a few nonpenetrating hits) transmission, hand crank turret, and bad turret ring design.
The shermans trAcks were also pretty short and would get bogged down, and their armor wasn’t the best either.
T34s were only good due to the amount made, on the battlefield they were only effective in medium-close ranges, while german tanks could pick them off at a far distance. Their armor was also not well made and would break after a few HE hits. The crew were also extremely cramped inside the turret, with the loader sometimes getting injured during the turret traverse.
if the Nazis had known about the Sherman's poor characteristics they could have taken the war to difficult terrain and perhaps the war would have taken another path
@@bernisweltredsun1245 ignorant, the T-34 were good because they are too many of them. And stfu ignorant of shit.
Magnánimo Máximo they did take the war to difficult terrain. Ardennes, Hurgten, and west german terrain are all forest
The Virgin Sherman vs the Chad Panther
Yea, we can clearly see in these two videos how chad the Sherman is...
@@hansbauer6817
You misspelled German as 'Sherman'.
The Panther broke down and failed in the competition. The M4A3e8 won the competition but the channel owner failed to shows the clips of this Sherman nor disclose that the Panther failed... He is a pussy.
@@CH-pv2rz it's the Swedish post war tank trails. In the original video the Panther is superior in every category and it is still in running condition in a German tank museum today.
Crossing marshlands, trench crossing, climbing slop, climbing vertical obstical, passing through woodlands, plowing deep snow, driving on icy roads, driving over rocks and rubble. The sherman didn't won in a single category.
M4A3(76) HVSS vs Panther A/G:
Trench crossinge: 230cm vs 250cm
Ground clearance: 43cm vs 54cm
Suspension travel: 20cm vs 51cm
Max grade: 30° vs 35°
Max vertical obstacle: 60cm vs 90cm
Max fording depth: 91cm vs 190cm
Operational range (on road): 161 km vs 190km
The Panther beats the HVSS Sherman in every category.
@@hansbauer6817 64
A sherman had to be shipped over sea... that makes a huge logistic differnece, compared to something that was build on motherland already.
... yes, for example the factories (and the workers' houses) bombed night and day, the railway lines and assembly lines sabotaged by the heroic partisans, the petrol distributed with the dropper, the strategic materials blocked by the democratic Portuguese regime etc .etc. ... Here, these were the great advantages enjoyed by German industry during WW2
could have stayed home.
@@sergiogregorat1830 All of which argues against the construction of a complex, expensive, gas guzzling tank, even if it did offer some advantages.
Congratulations. You just identified why the Panther was a failure.
On the other hand, the Sherman's design allowed it to be built by the tens of thousands. It's size allowed it to be shipped all around the world. It was reliable and comparatively economical to operate in theaters where everything it needed to run had to be shipped in across vast oceans.
That's why the Sherman was a success, even if it suffered from some disadvantages.
But the ameican railrpads werent constantly bombed at least
@Sergio GREGORAT … Another brainiac… Panthers were built mostly by slave labor. Not by regular factory workers as at that late stage of the war most workers were already drafted into the German army.
Panzerkampfwagen V panther the legend tank
После т 34 85 ))))
@@DarmoeD88 no
@@bastianmanriquez6212 ахахахахаха
@@bastianmanriquez6212 да да да да))))
@@DarmoeD88 T 34 85 Inaccurate.
I would have thought the comparison should have been between the Sherman and the Panzer 4 and I'm sure Shermans made it all the way to Germany facing exactly the same obstacles as shown in this video so it cant be all that bad
Precisely. Its a misleading test. Coming soon, Panzer iv vs Challenger 2, who is best? 🤣🤣
Totally agree with you; its not a sound comparisson.
It wont change a lot...that german Panzer-4 will win the race too. German Tanks where build for a good performance in any terrain.
A tank that cant be handled under those conditions (watch part-1 too) are simply useless and makes it much harder to do fight.
German tanks are know as all-terrain tanks with great performance.
@@errolkim1334 Sherman and Panther where common tanks of its time. Panzer 4 would do the same like the Panther did. But srsly...comparing a Panther to a Challenger-2 to show a missleading of two WW-2 tanks? Srsly?
@@Mave242 It's okay, the Panther would have broken down long before any obstacles got in the way anyway.
God I really want a panther. Skip the traffic
Sir Lemming you would make it 50 feet and would break down
It would be a satisfying 50ft
Not really the problem were later fixed on the Panther tanks
The tanks aren’t made for long distances
Panther flats car and sherman, car flats sherman and sherman flats t34
There was no best tank of the war, each tank is good in certain areas and some operate different. In my opinion each tank has its faults, it all comes down to who operates the tank.
Ranger X76 without a crew a tank is useless
@@brute6896 Agreed
Полностью согласен. Каждый танк хорош по своему. Даже куча маусов не сможет изменить ход боя. И все же самыми универсальными и многочисленными танками будут дешевые средние танки
I would like to see 10 shermans against 10 panthers.
amiable attitude, but technically wrong.
There are a lot of tank failures from many perspective. True tank specialisations exist, but we try to compare tanks within the same group of specilisation - and planned battle scenario:
Sherman and Panther are comparable and fill the same roles - but one fills it better. Thats a simple fact.
There panther wins - provided an equally skilled driver is on the wheel.
But strategically it does not matter much, if you have 100 vs 1 number advantage in shermans, you will still kill the panthers. And this was how germany was defeated on all fronts.
Numbers, not engineering quality or ingenuity.
Now that we all (except the russkies) fight on the side of peace and freedom - we started to combine german ingenuity and engineering, with allied numbers.
(i think the abrams and challenger arent too shabby either and dont need to hide behind the leopard 2 , especially now that the challenger receives some upgrading)
Sherman not a tank he is tracktor:D
🤣🤣
tiger 1 was a turkey shoot for shermans with 76mm
You need to retake English Composition... Whoever taught you ripped you off.
2 things to point out, the second hill test the Sherman actually made it, but they cut it out, second is it made it to the other side just fine on the rough terrain test, but it still "failed"
You mean 1:50 ?
Well i must say i must agree but also he got very veeery slow at the end so its speculation if he barely made it or got stuck.
And the next one with the wedge surface youn clearly see that he slided sideways downhill so not gread that one he clearly failed.
"... the Sherman actually made it ..."
If it is really "cut out", wherefrom do you know that?
@@NitramrecJa, ja, mein freund! ☺👌
The Panther was an amazing piece of equipment. When it worked. Which was about half the time.
It was very reliable, so long as you did a maintenance check every 200km. Which when its post- D-day and its the only unit for 50 miles is... Not very realistic. They were ran into the ground.
@@ronaldthompson4989 lol shit reliability
Biggest surprise is the Panther not breaking down during the test nor running out of fuel.
Maybe because they were more reliable than we are led to believe. The Germans kept sending them back out from the repair shops relying on cannibalized parts cause they couldn't get new ones due to interdiction, yet more Panthers escaped the Falaise gap than pz ivs. This meant that without new parts arriving that the pzivs ran out of cannibalized parts and had to be written off more often than panthers.
The victors of a war tend to be the ones who write the history books. What country would want to admit that their enemy had better weapons than they had.
@@Hornet_Legion Why were they going to the repair shops in the first place? oh yeah they broke down.... During tests the Sherman was driven 2000 miles to check reliability, could a Panther do that?
@@douglasorr7799 when the tank gets shot up they tow them to the repair shop if salvageable. Many tanks that have knocked out could be repaired and sent back out. Maybe with some blood, a hole in the hull or a replaced road wheel or a damaged turret ring or gun barrel. So long as it didnt catch fire or blow up from an ammo rack hit.
when you are on the defensive this can be a problem and most tanks were destroyed by their crews to prevent the enemy from repairing them and using their own tanks against them.
This video camera from the Swedish Tank Trials, the final result you can read on the Tank Archives and it's called "Shermans in the Mud"
@@douglasorr7799 periodical maintetance........every tank even today have maintenance before after some amount of mileage.........btw Bergeb Panther (the towing one made 4200km without any damage on engine,transmission, final driv or gearbox even that from those 4200 km it did 1000km by towing another panther...................
The Sherman is an early type with narrow tracks. Let's see this again with the HVSS suspension Sherman with 24 inch tracks.
The M4A3e8 won the competition... but of course the channel owner forgot to mention that.
Then replace it with the latest version of Panthers too ... You're American aren't you? Making reasons
nothing better than the V12 growling
Sounds mean as hell
I love How half the comments are just "Sherman reliability this" and "ughh they used a firefly with a weaker engine that"
I mean seriusly. This film is from the 50s if not earlier. They didnt really have acces to all varients of shermans and just used that sherman that they had smh
Hey Brainiac... The entire film shows how superior the M4A3e8 version of the Sherman was and it was chosen as winner of the competition... This person who posted this video just picked the small segments of the film to fit his agenda... The truth hurts...
@@CH-pv2rz so tell me what about my comment was incorrect or are you just salty And dyslexic?
I said I love how everyone is mad that they used a firefly and how they probably used what they had for the film.
Never did I accord myself to any agenda, state anything that's incorrect or otherwise false in connection to this comment section.
You however saw a comment that is making fun of people getting mad over this and (here is the funny part) get mad over this yourself.
Lol
@@CH-pv2rzThe M4A3 "won" the test because the Panther's gearbox broke down before they could even be compared. The Swedes only had that single Panther, and it was using an early Ausf.D gearbox, lacking the later modifications as seen in the Ausf.A and Ausf.G which finally made it reliable. Finally there was no obstacle that the Panther couldn't negotiate during the Swedish tests, unlike the Sherman.
First time I've seen this doco' Panther leaves the poor old Sherman floundering in the snow an slush. Amazing mobility for a 45,ton tank. Read some-where that the Americans or the British did the same test and the Sherman failed, but in that trial they had a T-34, and the Panther and T-34 pasted with flying colors.
+takiri dixon
Depends on what terrain, what regards of mobility, and which variant of the _M4._
@@peterson7082 for Russia and Germany it's all terrain all version all day anyday.
We'll arrange special terrain for American tanks when next world war erupts
WARNING PEOPLE WITH ALL THE KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORLD ABOUT TANKS READY TO ARGUE YOU BELOW
4:09 Sherman: (forever alone) Don’t leave me senpai!😢😰
Panther 4ever!!!
Panther broke down and did not finish the competition.
The sherman was much more economical, greener and good enough to go from the new world to Berlin and the autobahn.
So here you see the reason why it normally needed 5 or 6 Sherman Tanks to knock out 1 Tiger or 1Panther. The real Tanks got nothing in common with the abilities and power they have in games like WOT, for example.
InViroTV - False the smallest platoon of Sherman’s was 5, you could never have less in US Army Doctrine, that’s how they traveled together. It is a disproven myth that it took 5 Sherman’s to kill a Tiger/ Panther.
John Cornell - I know they usually traveled in two or more, I never said they traveled in singles, I was trying to get rid of the myth of 5 Sherman’s to take out a cat.
John Cornell - Yes so we both agree that the 5 Sherman’s 1 Tiger/ Panther myth is wrong.
John Cornell - Right but most of those kills were against the Soviets, where as the Americans after D-day only ran into the Tiger twice with Sherman’s and once with Pershing’s. Commonwealth and the British saw more Tigers in different battles comparatively.
@@ToastablePie yup the tiger kdr came from the eastern front and those Cromwell kill
As an Ex-MBT crewman, I know which one I would prefer to fight in. I did not realise the Sherman was so bad.
Bruce MacAllan but u have to count this is a late Sherman Firefly Sherman firefly had the worst engines out of all Sherman's and this model had the very first suspension which was very bad if it was a later m4a3 76 or a m4a2 with better suspension and engine it will perform a lot better
Just because you were an MBT crewman does not mean you are an expert in WWII fighting vehicles. In fact I have to question you sensibilities to why you choose a tank based on a biased video.
@@ToastablePie I,d trust an ex tankie over some spotty Herbert crewing an armchair playing WOT
Steven Breach - By that same logic you would trust in what Nicolas Moran says about tanks because he was an ex M1A1 crewman
@@ToastablePie biased video its test recored and done by brits after the war......... lol biased
Talvez a grande diferença entre o Panther e o Sherman, é que o Panther por ter esteiras mais largas que o concorrente, possui uma melhor mobilidade no terreno. P = F/A.
Was this a special edition panther that wouldn’t break down on the road march to the battlefield?
Brian Mattingly since german steel infrastructure was all over the place when Tiger IIs were coming out so I think yeah, maybe this panther won the the lottery of parts.
This video came from the Swedish Tank Trials, the winner is Tank Nr.3, the Sherman with rubber tracks with platypus/duckbill tracks and the Second place was another Sherman with an alternate grouser.
What was not shown in the video was other Sherman's with alternate tracks while the Panther did not participate any further due to it's Gearbox being broken down while trying to cross over the field of plough.
It came from Tank Archives: Shermans in the Mud.
Who ever won the war in the end has best tank overall
To Alix, That's plain stupid, you can win by sheer numbers, like the Soviets did, the Germans should have concentrated all efforts on producing improved panzer 4 versions in large numbers, they still wouldn't win , judging from a 43/44 scenario, but the odds would be better
@Benny Anderson … And the Russians had better tanks. They were mechanically sound instead of overweight beasts with terrible engineering in their final drives… The Sherman had herringbone gears in its final drive meaning multiple teeth from the gears were always spreading the load evenly across the gear, while the Panther and Tiger had straight gears in thwir final drives putting all the drives pressure on a single tooth of the gear until it failed… Same with the transmissions..
@@CH-pv2rz the panther tank is considered to be the best tank of ww2 from what I have read, despite its flaws, the Soviets did not win because of better quality tanks , but because of total superiority in numbers
@@bennyandersen742 only by those that are uneducated about its design and engineering... It took a week to replace a final drive in the field on a Panther. On a Sherman you could do it in 4 hours. The design of the transmission and final drive used straight gears vs the Sherman's herringbone gears meaning the Sherman's drive load was even spread across multiple teeth on all the gears while the Panther's was carried by a single tooth of each gear until failure... Which happened much to often due to drivers having to over rev the engines to compensate for the excessive weight of the tank. Panthers also readily burned if penetrated in their side armor. Their ammunition was no better protected than early Sherman's were.
@@CH-pv2rz still, a better tank overall, not breaking down does not make a tank a good thank on its own, but superiority in numbers can do the job
About the only area where German design was noticeably inferior was parachutes.
The primitive German parachutes used in Crete probavly contributed to their high casualty rate....BUT they still managed to win.
I noticed that the Sherman's reduced power prior to those big "X's" across the screen and the Panther did not throttle back.
Watch the origninal Video, the sherman didnt made it. www.dailymotion.com/video/x31qqzl
You either love or hate the panther there is no inbetween the panther is like my mini cooper if it works it outclasses everything! But boy if it works it leaves a big smile on your face pure awesomeness
Perfeito! E... não bastam somente tanques. Leva-se em consideração quem pilota. E nós os pilotamos. hammm quem venceu a guerra mesmo..?
Perfect! And ... not just tanks. Take into consideration who pilots. And we piloted them. Hammm who won the same war ..?
From Brazil.
113 allied veterans disliked this video
Los panther y los Tiger en el campo de batalla lo habrían como latas de conservas a los sherman!!!!
El ejercicio alemán no perdió la guerra por sus tanques o sus soldados, no hay dudas que fueron el mejor ejército por lejos, perdieron la guerra por cantidad, los atacaban de todos lados.
Si pero se prepararon con mucha anticipación para la guerra los alemanes toda un logística de guerra relámpago con mucha planeación
La guerra la perdieron los alemanes, por la malas decisiones de Hitler.
....and then the transmission broke on the Panther and the Panther was done for. Meantime the mechanics replaced the narrow tracks on the Sherman with the later version wide tracks and the Sherman drove all over the obstacles on it's way to Berlin.
Leider ist nie ein Sherman nach Berlin gekommen, nur T34 und alle anderen Sowjetischen Truppen…..
😝
Понятно, что Шерман - это г по сравнению с немецкими и советскими танками. Немцы называли Шерманы - "сковородка для Томми")
Ich war Panzerfahrer in der Bundeswehr - allein einen sich einen solchen Anstieg (oder auch in der umgekehrten Richtung - also man fährt einen steilen Berg abwärts, während einem nur die Gurte auf den Sitz halten) zu zumuten, erfordern viel Vertrauen in das Gerät.
the Sherman M4A4 Vc (firefly) was the heaviest of the shermans (bar the jumbo) weighing 35,200kg as well as having the 16" track and VVSS suspension and 400hp Chysler multibank engine made it the 2nd least mobile of all the sherman models with the2nd lowest Power to weight ratio and the 2nd Highest ground pressure (bar the jumbo).
if this had been an HVSS sherman (in which 9,100 or so were made compared to 6,000 panthers, so that no-one calls those types of Shermans ultra rare) with the HVSS suspension and 23" track (and if m4a3 500hp ford GAA engine) would have been able to do everything the Panther did here.
Infact the Panther G had an engine limiter on it limiting it's max revs to 2,500 rather than 3,000 (for reliablity reasons) also limiting it's max HP from 690hp to 590hp giving it about equal HP/tonne ratio than most Sherman's and less than the M4A3's.
the Panther G has a hp/tonne ratio of 13.2 and a ground pressure of about 0.85, the
M4A3 HVSS has a hp/tonne ratio of 15.3 and a ground pressure of about 0.75.
i noticed in this video they didn't test to see how quickly the tanks could run off the road at high speed and behind cover, i'd imagine the Panther wouldn't do too well at that considering it doesn't have Regenerative steering.
Eh, isn't it actually using a mix of epicyclic geared steering double differential system which would in itself allow regenerative steering with 1 turn radius per gear?
members.upc.nl/i.cerjak/Differential%20steering%20book%20of%20wisdom.htm
+KennumDB
but the Panthers Double differential isn't a normal double differential, it is a unique simplified double differential that does have a turning radius per gear (so 7) but not regenerative steering (infact, the only of its kind in the world and only fitted to the Panther).
It had to be cheaper than a normal Double differential like in the Tiger in order to be more easily mass-produced and thus Regenerative steering was the cost.
www.scmec.us/pdfs/Tank_Steering_Systems.pdf
go down to Maybach double differential and it says
"The Average speed is not maintained when steering as one track slows down and the other does not speed up" that's NOT regenerative.
Robert H. Goddard Interesting reading. Haven't heard about that before.
You finally points out, you're my savior.
it was a Swedish test before you claim bias, the Panther was better in essentially every way.
Is thes video almost angold toowords the panther?
A Churchill would have got up that slope no problem.
Watch the full test where there was indeed a Churchill (though it did not take part in all sections of the test due to reliability issues IIRC).
Maybe it would. But the real churcswill? He couldnt make it across.
@@wolverine67044 neither would you.
I want to see an m4a3e8 on hard terrain
Oh yeah...german army was the First to use drug to implement soldier courage
....and the point regarding to the video is???
@@bernisweltredsun1245 drug Is a noce thing
@@bernisweltredsun1245 nice...ahahahahaha...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah
@@eugeniocamporato8427 are you okay?
I have always read the German tanks were over engineered and so complex they were hard to fix so the Germans were always short on tanks, even if they were better machines.
It has nothing to do with it, the problem that the Germans had was the scarcity of resources, something that the Americans and Soviets never experienced.
Can you imagine if the panther was built in the Sherman numbers.
And germany not attack russian
Can you imagine if worms had machine guns?
@@rahmatjatmiko1794 Germany could easy defeated the Soviets the Russian Winters and USA supplying vital war materials to the Soviets played a big factor into Soviets defeating the Germans in the Eastern Front.
@@lowtech41 Totally irrelevant.
In the documentary "When war came to Germany" you can see some Shermans sliding on black ice on a normal road...
Having a reliable transmission:
Sherman: ✅
Panther: Oopsie
As much to the drivers as to the tank. If you can't drive the thing, it's not going to matter.
The US Army to Sherman crew members: One on one, you don’t have a chance against a German tank, but don’t worry, we have more tanks then they do.
I am sure that was comforting to learn.
Some Tanker from the 3rd Armored Division: So General Patton wanted some M4A3E2's. But he told us to weld more armor on our Tanks and it works out against 88mm's.
I mean, The Sherman is made to be survivable, unlike the Panther who cooks up the crew when you hit it just in the right spot
don't bring up the "Ronson" myth, it's already been disproved multiple times.
Thay is hilariously false my good man. Tell that to a poor panzer 3 bouncing every shot off a sherman.
Panzer 3? You may be right. I was talking about a 5, Panther, or a 6, Tiger, or the 70 Ton-monster the King Tiger. Put one of those against a single Sherman and barring some miracle of a lucky shot, or fortuitous circumstance, like an ambush from behind or the panzer breaking down, or a an extremely poorly trained German crew and an extremely well trained Allies crew, the victor is in no doubt.
@@sdcoinshooter yeah if you can fin an instance of a 1 on 1 between any of these tanks ever I'll personally give you a medal lol.
I wonder how many times the Panther broke down during the filming of this piece?
Its still in running order th-cam.com/video/mrFm-KeIpTA/w-d-xo.html
@@norsemankv6472 Only because the panther used in this competition broke down and could not complete the competition and the M4 Sherman was chosen as the winner. When will you poor butthurt nazi fanboys ever get over having your arses kicked? You want a crying towel?
*engine erupts on fire after 20 degree incline*
watch the video
Someone getting confused w Porsche tieger and panther?
If U Look AT the Vid its an phanter auf. A they got the fire Problem in the panther D... (Model b4 pather A)
And the final drive wouldn't last 160 km. A post war British tests showed the brakes wouldn't hold it still on an incline, the turret couldn't hold its position on an incline, & you had the rev the engine at redline so the PTO could rotate the turn at barely one revolution per minute. The Panther was a total piece of crap.
Max turret rotation speed was 18 seconds for 360° at 2500 Rpm. Red line would be 3000rpms. Thats only 2 seconds slower compared to a sherman. The idle speed was still good enough to track moving targets at regular combat distances. It's tank combat not tank dogfighting like in some BS Hollywood movies. T54s and Tigers had the same turret rotation speeds.
they drove a 45 degree slope in this video. I did not see any problem, turret was still facing forward. Panthers could not move the turret beyond 25 degrees. But look at the video, in this case you can only launch the shells into space. The maximum elevation in modern mbts is 20 degrees at best and maximal depression ist minus 10 at best. They could not turn the turret at 25 degrees, when gunner could not see shit anyway. I don't think that this was a noticeable drawback during combat. If this was really a problem they would have put counterweights at the back of the turret like on some American tanks. But there was no need to do that. That's an overhyped issue, ignoring the proper context.
How can some post war built panthers, out of an destroyed factory, and some french Panthers ,which were maintained with cannibalized spare parts from destroyed panthers, be a reliable testgroup to draw any conclusion about the performance of the 6000 panthers built by germany.
They used a firefly which was a clusterfuck variant made by the brits...
A fair comparison would've been with the M1A2 sherman or any other late war american variant.
Let's not forget the constant breakdowns the panther had and the full nightmare it was to repair it.
Shermans were sustainable, and easy to repair or replace.
While panthers and other tanks like Tigers, Jagdtigers, etc were built to sustain tons of damage, but couldn't be repaired easily nor be replaced quickly. The production time and cost of each german tank was too high, and the fact that reparing things like the transmision, engine, turret ring or gun was nearly impossible in the field there wasn't much the tankers could do.
I'm not denying the success of the german tanks, they were really good but just too complex to sustain.
I'm only commenting this because the descriptionsays "american sherman tank" which true, sherman is american and the brits only changed the gun and engine, giving a powerful punch with snail speed... Instead of a proper sherman variant.
Plus all the posterboys going "omg sherman so bad it cant even climb a hill".
Sorry to break it to you but... German tanks were way more flawed than american tanks when it comes to engineering.
Then again, another misinformation in the comment section and this video shows that the Sherman Firefly alone does not represent about other Sherman variants.
This Sherman you see in this video is a British Firefly variant, which is heavier than an ordinary American M4A1 Sherman due to the weight of the gun, Shells with oversized propellant, old-type Continental Engines and no end-connectors, grousers and duckbills were used.
The Panther, however, in the French tests were proven to be prone to mechanical failures and fire engines happened at random despite how they properly maintain the suspensions, gearbox and Engines before they drive that Tank through harsh terrain and failed miserably while the late-war Shermans with better equipment modifications can easily go through there.
Germans brought the best tank...to an AIR WAR.
Smoooooth
Х... С пальцем ровнять,только время терять.Дойчланд юбер Аллес!
Which type Sherman? Firefly! 76 high velocity! Ooooo Yeaaaaa!
Panthers and Shermans were not comparable. The Sherman was in the class of a Panzer IV. This is not a fair comparison.
Every test was a function of the track design. Put the Panther tracks on the Sherman and try the Sherman then.
But Sherman is still a good tank right?
Red Noob if you produce like 50k of them and don't care about the tank crew theen yes it is
The sherman was cheap, reliable and easy to produce/replace/fix, then yes, it is very very good. A tons of average tanks will beat a few very good tanks.
_But Sherman is still a good tank right?_
Oh, it most definitely is. Certainly better than what is poor reputation suggests. And here is a neat way of seeing it: the Soviet T-34, which has a much better reputation, is not near as good as the Sherman. Go ahead, just go, read a couple of hours about both of them and do a quick comparison. Ditch the preconceptions and you will surprise yourself.
Very much depends on what you expect from it and what you want it to do. The Tiger tank was brilliant on paper and brilliant when it worked. It was however very unreliable and only 1500 produced, approx 750 of those were lost due to breakdowns/destroyed by crews. The M4 (Sherman was the British designation) had decent reliability, average at best across rough terrain, only the late variants (76mm) had a decent-ish gun (US versions, British Firefly had the excellent 17pdr). But then the M4 was never designed to go head to head against opposition armour, it was more an infantry support tank.
Was the M4 the best tank of WWII? Definitely not but, pound for pound, it was nowhere the worst either. As other have pointed out, the shear number produced is what puts it up there amongst the most talked about tanks
The Tiger I very unreliable? I strongly disagree. What sources state so?
Amazing that these wonder weapons still lost the war
CB65810 over 1300 panthers built isn't shit compared to over 49 thousand Sherman's of different variants built. Numbers always play a huge factor. Doesn't matter how mighty the tank may be numbers will always triumph.
So many enemies enough for them to lost the war including 3 giants USA,USSR,UK
Here's the result of the Swedish Tank Trials found at Tank Archives: Shermans in the Mud.
They got outnumberd ma dude..
They usually would ran out of ammo before the allies run out of Tanks..
Panther~✊!
There is something empowering about knocking down trees. Done it with dune buggies and with my MAX 6x6. smaller trees of course.
exelente tanque el pantera mis respetos
Gaijin: but not in my game
I like panther
Excellent video BUT why the frantic music?
because he was frantic to not show the part of the competition where the Panther actually broke down and could not be repaired...
Well, looks like der Panzer wins again. Now let's see a T-34 comparison to it.
?
It would beat the t34 too.
Panther broke down later that day and lost the competition... The M4A3e8 Sherman with HVSS and wider tracks and the 76mm gun won.
Wann wurden die Verleiche, im welchem Jahr, gedreht?
Leif Erikson 1945
I haven't a shadow of a doubt: the Panther was the best tank of the war. T-34? Give me a break.
tbyte The T-34 pioneered neither as well, so I fail to see your point.
You are wrong, the T-34 had vastly better basic design qualities than the panther. The T-34 is arguably the tank that won the war and is the tank design of the century for sure.
Front drive, interloped wheels and petrol engine just some of the atrocious designs and overengineering from the Germans including the panther. T-34 rear wheel drive, proper tracks and wheels and a diesel engine = as it should be.
What the video doesn't show is the Panthers final drive WILL fail after only 60-100 miles of driving and that in the snowy terrain only the sherman would be mobile since the panthers interloping wheels will clog in the mud and snow then freeze and block, unless it travelled on the road only.
Hahaha low quality ? REALLY ! Being built in a factory 100 meters from the front line really makes you build some top quality tanks while dodging artillery shells. Wtf are you talking about ? :)
+slapnut1207 We are not talking about production quality or production issues.
It's no secret the T-34 had lower quality materials etc.
We are talking about basic design issues, the T-34 is a vastly superior design to that of the Panther, tonne for tonne the T-34 is a masterpiece to compare to the Panther. It wouldn't have mattered if the Panther had a proper final drive or the T-34 better metallurgy, the T-34 was still a better design.
Yes the Panther was a better tank to be in vs a T-34, that is not the point, it was overengineered with many design flaws.
+slapnut1207 It wasn't ahead of it's time, if it was at least some of its design concepts would have been adopted after the war, instead every single piece of German tank design was dropped after the war, there was no continuation so no it was not ahead of it's time, it was simply over-engineered with several bad design concepts.
To be clear I'd prefer to be in an over-engineered Panther in a battle, probably only because of the gun it had, still doesn't make it a better design overall than the T-34
..and no it cannot be compared to an MBT.
Tell me, who has won the second world war? This film suggested that it was Panther tanks? Really...?
OK, lets have a look to the quality and services of the soldiers. Do you want to bet?
The banks who financed both sides won the war
luckely the Germans build the "Autobahn" so the Sherman could drive on a road.
well of course they would build it, just so their Panthers could drive on it without sinking in the mud.
You stopped the video the m4 was still moving
A Panther - Made in Germany!
It was made in France...
this shows the superior design of the German tanks. but they did have there problems. the panther was the best all around tank of ww2. the king tiger was the best heavy tank of ww2. every country wanted one after the war to study and pick apart.
The T-34 was the best overall tank of WW2 if one considers all of: lethality, cost, reliability, serviceability, weight, crew protection...
@@HaVoC117X 58,000 _T-34's_ and we know in excess of 25,000 were lost. The exact figure is still unknown
@@amfd5349 Not really no.
ups.... you are right. i took the number for medium and light tanks. That number includes many other tanks aswell.
Only by those that are uneducated about its design and engineering... It took a week to replace a final drive in the field on a Panther. On a Sherman you could do it in 4 hours. The design of the transmission and final drive used straight gears vs the Sherman's herringbone gears meaning the Sherman's drive load was even spread across multiple teeth on all the gears while the Panther's was carried by a single tooth of each gear until failure... Which happened much to often due to drivers having to over rev the engines to compensate for the excessive weight of the tank. Panthers also readily burned if penetrated in their side armor. Their ammunition was no better protected than early Sherman's were.
Who build the Panter ? Right ... the Germans ... 😍🤙🏽
Joe Kerr idk who built a panter tho
Made in germany
Slave labour*
That's why they were always setting themselves on fire lmao.
Poor little Germans still cant get over the fact the Sherman kicked your asses inside out… That Sherman Firefly tank in the video was stopped by the driver on that hill, not stopped because it couldn't climb that grade as it was climbing fine… And I'm happy to say my Father knocked out multiple German panzers from his Sherman, and a lot more Stugs, halftracks, armored cars and other vehicles and artillery… He told me how easy it was to make a Panther burn if you hit it right. Often telling me how he preferred the 76mm over the 75 though… 4th Armored Division, 3rd Army under Patton…
Sherman miał jedną zaletę. Po prostu było ich D U Ż O 💥
W czasie wojny to podstawa. Ilość sprzętu. A jak wiadomo to u szkopów skupiano się na tym kto jakie dostanie kontrakty a nie na jakości. Czołgi nawet miały zapasowe gonsienice do transportu kolejowego i nakładki zimowe żeby dobrze po śniegu jechać. Strata materiałów na niepotrzebne rzeczy a potem nie było z czego sprzętu robić. Na szczęście oczywiście dla przeciwnika.
Put browsers on the Sherman or the later HVSS with wider tracks and it would fine
deutsche ingenieurskunst
wem sagst du das 😍
Haaach... Hätt der Bart freak nicht so ne Meise gehabt haaach
And the one where the Panther is climbing up the snow nearly vertical isn’t such a great thing…The entire underside is exposed and One hit would take it out..WW2 tank battles were mostly move, stop and then shoot..If that Panther was assaulting a dug in position it would have been deleted showing it’s underbelly against AT guns…Can’t use your super thick glacisis if it’s pointing in the wrong direction.
"How americans try to use stupid excuses to justify the nothing" lesson #1
So you whould rather not be able to climb a steep hil in case of emergency because you could get shot?
and just because more battles were fought on plane ground instead of hills doesnt mean there werent significant numbers of battles in other terrain.
-Wolokolamsk
-Stalingrad
-Kursk
-half of central russia consists out of big fireds that have lots of small steep inclimbs in them.
-Wallonia
-Southern germany-Italy
-Southern and eastern france
-Belgium
-Parts of the saarland
all are big areas that are mainly a arrangement of steep hills mixed between falt fields.
hell look at the footage yourselfe, they are on an open field where there happened to be such a seep small hill.
I personally whouldnt invent problems that the panther whould have in extremly situational events while the panther has more than enough problems already.
Namely
-the final drive wich only got a better reliability than a t34 with the g models
-the unreliable fuellines that werent fixed untill the later A models
-the problem with havng overlapping or even interleaving roadwheels.
just to name a few.
while the panther has lots of technical problems, that the sherman doesnt have, it has lots of advantages over the sherman.
-Armor
-guns
-extremly good ground clearance and spring clearance (in that department the panther set a record that was only broken by the leo 2 trials in 1983)
-Good mobility
-stabil platform even on the move
At the end of the day dont amke tanks worse than they are and dont invent problems that whouldnt even really exist.
SIDE NOTE
considering the average combat range for AT-guns at the time and the average hit probability during battle of allied crews on said AT-guns, actually hitting the lower glacis during comabt is less than unlikely (possible but unlikely).
I wish you a Happy new year and a great day :)
If war was an offroad competition than Germany would win lol.
sherman nya sudah busuk tuh. di pasifik sherman mampu memanjat gunung, saya ada rekaman nya dalam pertempuran burma
Wah ada semangat cerita
@@martinluthervalentinosirai9318 biasa nyari video bro. hehe
すげえなこの映像
日本人いた！
Firefly was not a tank but a moving gun platform
Panther is really the best tank in ww2
How could this be?
i don't now :D
the tiger from germany me thumbnail -→↓
↑←
John Cornell the best thing about the sherman is that it was mass produced. It could eventually overrun panthers.
@@crazydiamondrequiem4236 "we ran out of shells before they ran out of tanks"
50,000 vs. 6,000. There's the numbers you need to know.
@Imperator Caesar Augustus Marionus
If the Pather is so shit then why is the Roman Empire dead.
british sherman firefly he has a weak engine
usa sherman is very good
USA is shit !
look at the video
@@marcelsinky1652
Is that why they won?
@@marcelsinky1652 aww don't be so jealous because you line in a sh1thole... You want to 'look at the video" you might want to look at the ENTIRE video of the tank competition where the Panther broke down and could not be repaired. The M4A3 Sherman won the competition... So quit being so butthurt.
I knew that in Korea the Americans use to like being near the English with their Centurion tanks because the Centurions could climb the hills and give support the American tanks couldn't.
I hope you realize that they are comparing a British Firefly to a panther, the Firefly is way outdated to the panther. Not to mention the Americans had pershings and new Sherman's called easy 8s which had a wider track and upgraded suspension
W E H R A B O O S
@John Cornell
Yes. More or less.
John Cornell When you call us Alliedboo's, that means you're either on the side of the two most radical and politically genocidical factions such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
@John Cornell No, opposite to J U N K A B O O S
@@Romanov117 When speaking of the Soviet Union, the Alliedboos should remember that their existence today is due exclusively to their alliance with the "genocidical" communists, a conscious and multi-annual alliance (not of the type Ribbentrop-Molotov)
Sergio GREGORAT Why yes the Allied Forces were allied with the Soviet because Germany declared both the Allied Nations and Russia from both sides, which is very silly. But they weren't really Allies, before the Big Four can decide what's the best for Germany, Stalin never agreed to join the United Nations because it did not fit his views.
After the War, the Allies soon remembers what Russia did since the Revolution and saw how powerful they become right after the Great Patriotic War (aka. Eastern Front), they become to realize that the Red Army will only permanently occupy their "Liberated" Countries which they become puppet states for the Soviet Union.
And then there we have the red scare.
They probably kept the Sherman and scraped the Panther... -_-
as it should be.
The Sherman's were a joke. Just easy to produce in great numbers
joekoke1 you clearly don't know anything either
Says you Einstein???? Numbers is all they had against anybody. Until the British put the 17 pounder in them they were not a battle tank. They were infantry support.
joekoke1 why was it a joke?
joekoke1 the 17 pounder was highly inaccurate
Doesn't matter. Anything was better against German armor than the 75 mm low velocity gun on the Sherman. If they were within 800 yards they stood a chance. The German guns were good at 2000 yards and beyond. Stop defending the loser in a tank battle unless they were at close quarters.
Who won the war?
Too bad they didn't mass produce Panthers when they got the bugs out of it.
They did mass produce Panthers and they never got the bugs out of it, that would require a completely newly designed tank.
But they never DID get the bugs out of it, the final drives would break after 150km which took atleast a full day to fix, it was never fixed.
and the reason why the French who adopted the Panther after the war got rid of it were because they COULDN'T get the bugs out of it because it's design was flawed!
it's entire drivetrain system is super underperforming because it was designed for 30-tonne tank(and even then it was weak) while the Panther ended up weighing 45 tonnes!
They should have thrown the tiger to the garbage and just stick with producing and improving the panther
jerry
one thing to think about is where were the germans going to get all of the fuel (after 43) for their mass produced panthers (or tigers for that matter)??
your concept is only valid if the germans had virtually unlimited fuel for larger numbers of any tanks (mkIV's or any other tank) as did the allies.
lots of people miss this vital point when discussing how germans preferred quality over quantity. their preference did not matter. after Kursk they really had only one option.
They did.
Ok next time try 50,000 Shermans vs 6,000 Panthers. Sound about right?
Lets see, flaws with the panther. Pivot steering breaks the tank, tendency to catch fire while traersing an incline, no backup generator for the turret when the engine is dead, the turret drive could not keep the turret foward at a 20 degree slope, could be penetrated by 105mm m67 he shell, multiple hits from high explosive shells will break the welds on the side armor, multiple hits from high explosive shells will break the welds on the front armor or shatter the plate itself, traveling for 150km will break the transmission, putting it out of action for one or two days and it has two of them, any smoke grenades that land on the engine deck will set the engine on fire, and a tendency to catch fire in general. The panther was deadly tank but despite how advanced it was it still had its flaws. No tank was perfect
Most flaws were rectified by the time they were producing the G models, but it's true that the final drives remained a problem throughout.
It should also be noted that being struck repeatedly by high explosives will logically do no good for any tank. It's not a fair claim to suggest that this is strictly a flaw with the Panther. Furthermore, white phosphorus (used in smoke shells) is pyrophoric, meaning it wouldn't be good for _any_ tank to have that spewing over an engine deck, so again not strictly an issue with the Panther.
I understand that the Panther, and some other German WWII tanks, often get too much unfair praise for being "super tanks", but the recent trend for many -- usually US and UK tank fans -- to claim the opposite, that German WWII tanks were hot trash, is equally unfair.
The Sherman was developed and produced in 1941. The Panther didn’t make it to the battlefield until 1944. The apples to apples would be the Sherman compared to Panzer III and the panther to the Pershing. The Sherman was easily repaired and easily transported: both by ship and rail. The ergonomics of the crew was better and it had a much more rapid fire rate. It had more machine guns to defend itself from close assault infantry attacks. It was small enough for even the narrow bridges and roads of Europe. It was a great urban fighter. We produced 49,000 of them and drove most of them through Germany victoriously. Not one Panther touched American soil during the war. Most of the Sherman’s that went down were brought down by 88s, panzerfausts and panzerschreks not Panther or Tiger tanks.
@@JJosephS1
The Panther actually first saw combat during the Battle of Kursk in mid 1943, not 1944.
The Sherman had two 7.62 mm machine guns, one in the bow, the other coaxial, and could mount a 12.7 mm Browning machine gun atop the turret. The Panther had the same number of machine guns in the hull and turret, and could also be equipped with a roof mounted machine gun.
@@thefitzthewitz Rarely was the AA machine gun another gun, it typically was the coaxial gun remounted
You know i see so manny triggered people in the commentsektion but you are yust staying on the facts reeealy like that! Finally, finally one who knows what he is writing!
Lo que le salvó el sherman fué su cantidad, ..... y la aviación.
German Tanks are best
If you doubled the cost per sherman to equal the cost of one panther you'd likely see a lot of difference too
Cost of panther was less than 400 marks more than panzer iv. Issue for panther wasnt production cost or time, it was capacity. Just not enough factories left, and attempts to simplify it even further to boost production resulted in poor visibility and fragile parts, being crewed by cadets fresh out of training
@@ronaldthompson4989 Exactly! there is no such thing as a *leveled playing field* its fucking war!
PANTHER THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!👍
Joekike1, They forget to tell you the Sherman was much more reliable, faster, lower maintenance, used much less fuel, was easy to repair in the field, had specialty rounds that made it much more effective, had a self leveling turret so you could shoot on the run much possible. The steel was excellent, and didn't scale off like T34's. + Americans had their Army Core of Engineers to deal with major obstacals + 100% mechanized support crews for supplies, and repairs. We had 55mph tank killers and air power to take on most tank to tank situations etc... Patton kicked the shit out of Germans, and killed many German tanks even though the defending Army statisticaly has twice the kill rate tank to tank etc....
considering that this compairison only focused on the comabt mobility, it whouldnt have been necessary to menshion that. besides everyone knows that by now
Panther, so geil!
if the Nazis had known about the Sherman's poor characteristics they could have taken the war to difficult terrain and perhaps the war would have taken another path
Because wasn't ardennes offensive a difficult terrain?
@@venetostato4822 wasnt, enough, dude...
Look up at Tank Archives: Shermans in the Mud.
We all know now why the panther was far better than sherman.And so when it comes to armor thicknes panther wons again and as for the gun and the penetration ability which panher had or manuvrability what can we say...o i forgot that panthers had a superiority in night combat because of the night vision was puted on later panthers.Of course sherman is not s bad tank but i believe that it is ecual with panzer iv and slitly better against pz iii last versions with 50 mm long gun.
teo tselek as far as ik there where night vision for panther 2 but they were never put into service that's the last time I've heard but I could be wrong and u could be right
The night vision didnt work on anything of the time. Did it have better front amour yes but vs the 76mm or 17 pounder the gun is not much better and the reliability is not even a contest. So even if its the best in the world if it cant get to the fight what good is it? Plus the Sherman won most fights against the panther
@@chadjustice8560 no sherman won any battle against panther ever.Shermans find it dificult to stand against pz iv tanks which was a far better tank than shermans.Only when they upgraded their main gun with the 76 they could fight ecual a pz iv.Against the panther only using mass numbers of shermans and tank destroyers were having chance.Sherman tanks lack of manuvrability for example the panther to turn around its self needs zero metres but the shermans need13 metres space.Of cource they fixed that with the easy 8 in the last monts of war.The firefly had a low shooting rythym because of the big gun to a small turet and the crew went blind for a few time after firing to a target and that is dangerous in batlle.As for the shermans with the 76 gun wasnt so effective against panthers thats why they had prodused later tank destroyers with the 90mm gun and tanks as persing witch was a bit slow but indeed had the skills to fight ecual a panther tank.
@@teotselek1536 The battle of arracourt where Shermans tore through panthers? Never heard of it i take it? Plenty of pics of panthers killed by 75mm shermans because they stopped face hardening the amour on the panther and amour quality went to hell. Yes the panther could neutral steer where the Sherman couldn't. But the reliability between the two is not even close and this video us nothing more than propaganda. Look for the french test with the panther. Not good. It had the stupid pto turret traverse setup on top of everything. There are reports out there that show how effective the Sherman was and especially against the panther
@@chadjustice8560 as i said before shermans with 75 gun could do anything against panthers and very few against pz iv.Now as for the battle that you said i that david take out goliath it is something that happens as an exeption.The rule is that goliath will always win david.For the specific battle and all the batlles that took place you forget that the allies had the uper hand to the skies so they were in place to watch every move from above and then bombing every thing on the ground.As i said 75 and 76 guns could do much to panthers.Shermans were easy pray for pz ivs and even Japs were in a position to light those rosons with their 47 main guns of their tanks.Reability?Yes for a lighter i agree.Panthers did nt have reability problems bigger than shermans but shermans have better techical support and even those shermans that had break down were easy to come back to the frontline since the field is in hands of the allied forces.Most of the loses of the americans were belong to those who fought with shermans against pzs.Now as for manuavrability as i said before there is no compare between them but panther was beter on ground pressure and the biger truck allowed panthers to move anywhere to the snow and to the ice to the mud and even inside a forest thing that m4 could nt do it because of those trees(!)Panthers were having beter armor beter gun beter manuvrability and less techical support.Panther tank had closed the gup between medium and heavy tanks because it could move like a medium and destroy as a heavy tank about 5 shermans for each panther.You see the production won the war and not the fighiting skills of tanks.
Wait... how is the transmission still working?
Actually it is.. the Panther is currently still running its in the Panzer Museum at Munster.
The transmission though flawed was still massively better than the Tiger 1's transmission. Its just that Americans tend to exaggerate the transmission problems whenever their beloved Sherman gets attacked
@@imperialguardsman5929 T'was a joke, noble guardsman.
@@norsemankv6472 I didn't know that, cool!
@@norsemankv6472 Only because it broke down during this competition and sat off by itself for years before being discovered and rebuilt, thus avoiding the junkyard salvager...