My father, Dale S. Albee, was in the light tank company of the 712th tank battalion, which landed in Normandy in late June '44. They were attached to the 90th infantry division and fought through to the end of the war. My dad served the entire time in an M5A1 Stuart, which most folks will know was a light tank packing only a 37mm gun, and dad predictably had strong feelings about the Panther. He stated that the only way they could knock one out was to get a flank shot targeting the space between the top of the track and the protruding armor above the track. This happened at least once, which he spoke of with pride for both the gunner and the 37mm gun. Two free bonuses about recon, which as a rule was preceding the advance and usually in no man's land and often behind enemy lines with a platoon of Stuart's ( usually four ) possibly reinforced with a few M8 armored cars and jeeps. 1) One night, ahead of friendlys, they laagered for the night, but soon heard the approach of a German tank unit which laagered as well to their front. They spent the night in terror as they could hear the Germans in their encampment. Their only chance was to wait for morning and enough light to fire up their engines to run like hell. Thankfully the Germans moved out before morning light, saving them. 2) My father once had the experience of driving over what he called an Italian box mine ( though not in Italy ) without setting it off. He knew this because the tank following him did set it off. The tank was literally blown over and was sitting on its turret, which killed the whole crew except one, I think the gunner. The spent the next several hours digging through the asphalt of the road to get him out, all the while with fuel dripping from the tank threatening a fireball. They were successful. Please excuse the length and probably off topic content, but I hope you and your viewers might find it interesting, and I wanted to share some of my father's experiences so they will live on now that he is gone.
I think you're misremembering the Panther and the Tiger. With Panther, the tank is vulnerable to 37mm from close to moderate range mostly all along its side - the side hull armor is really thin, the turret less so but still probably vulnerable
Those charts showing the combination of vulnerable aspect and range are excellent! It would be interesting to have side by side comparisons of those types of charts for the most common tanks / AT guns / TDs / SPGs / etc of the combatants on various fronts at various times (early, mid and late Eastern Front, North Africa before and after Torch, Normandy, etc). It was also interesting how the pamphlets talked about going for "mission kill" shots - aiming for the sprocket, idler and road wheels. Sensible if they couldn't pen the armor. Also the follow up with an HE after an AP to get the "brew up". Nuggets like this, quoted directly from primary sources, are what makes your channel so interesting. Great vid MHV.
The last part of the story where even the Brits were noticing the drop in crew quality rings so true. By 44 the Germans had lost so much of its experienced combat troops, Infantry, Armor, Pilots. The results being the decline in combat effectiveness across all fronts.
Stephen Zaloga's work often centers around the difference between June of 1944 and January of 1945, because while we so often talk about the bloodbath for the Germans in the East, we often glaze over just how costly the fighting against the Allies proved for the Germans. Something like 800,000 Germans surrendered between D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge, with maybe 300,000 more killed or wounded. Considering the Germans only had about 1,000,000 men in France to start with, it should be no surprise that very few "veterans" were left by December, hence raw recruits with just weeks of training representing the majority of soldiers for the Ardennes Offensive. The real marvel is how well the recruits performed despite it all.
While the Germans did lost quite a number of veterans in 42,43, the more important factor for the Germans inexperience in Normandy is that before DDay France was being used as a resting and training ground for battered divisions and troops, where a lot of new recruits sent as reinforcement were sent there to begin their field training. So when Allied invasion starts most of these recruits were caught up in combat despite only having begun their training, hence the absurd amount of "newbie" mistakes happening in Battle of Normandy. In contrast, in Market Garden, tried and tested Germans divisions were deployed and their performance's relatively better despite being caught off guard.
@@genericpersonx333 that tenacity is mirrored in any army fighting for its home turf, France WW 2 the exception. Shelby Foote the civil war historian noted, in Confederate Diarys that " The Yankees always fought much harder and shot much straighter North of the Mason Dixion line."
"The last part of the story where even the Brits were noticing the drop in crew quality" - as opposed to the Americans who were waiting for the cameras to arrive.
12:09 - no, you are not mistaken. The original text: _"7. Маска пушки. Попадание снарядов в область соприкосновения ствола и маски пушки, а также в бурт маски - заклинивает пушку"._ Approximate translation: "7. Mantlet of the gun. Hits of shells in the area of contact of the barrel and the mantlet, and also on _бурт_ [this thickened cast part on the mantlet around the barrel] lead to jamming of the gun".
I can very well imagine a slight deformation of this "bushing" will result in quite some friction which may not keep the gun from recoilling, but it will keep it from moving back forward. Fully retracted there probably isn´t enough room to load a new round to begin with, but even if, firing with a retracted barrel (no recoil dampening) will damage the turret beyond repair and the crew should better not be in it then. So one final shot may be possible, but not more.
2 questions here: 1 - My understanding of Soviet anti-tank rifles is that they were told to target tracks. This was countered by the use of skirts by the Wehrmacht. Is there a reason that few weapons discussed here talk about track kills? 2 - I have seen a number of videos recently on the Battle of Arracourt and the actions of the French 2nd Armored in 1944 in the same campaign. These groups did really well against Panthers and later model Panzer IVs apparently. Any idea if a study of these two battles adds to your video?
i saw some field manuals for AT rifle crews - it was about aiming at sides and weakspots like viewing slits / windows. I doubt that penetrating track ling would easily have effect except for punching one more hole. Unless you hit and destroy joint. But I read story by russian tankman (maybe Sherman crew) about pair tactics - one fired HE shell at the track of the approaching tank, and with successful hit, one track destroyed other moving would turn tank either left or right and exposed it side for the 2nd tank with AP round ready
Great stuff as always :D Just a tip to any of the commentariat that are in the area - there's a pair of Panthers over at Technik Museum Sinsheim that's always an awe-inspiring sight (especially the wrecked one, because you really get an appreciation for how tough a beast those really were)
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized it's worth a visit, definitely. Edit: They have a Panther Tank that has mobilized tracks and turret by electric motors, and it has a sound system to mimic its roar. You put a coin in a slot and you can rotate tracks and turret, and you can elevate the gun. The hull sits on pillars, it doesn't drive around. But you get a feeling of what a Panther might have been like. And they have lots of other tanks, cars, planes and everything. If you want to enjoy your visit, calculate two days.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Both it and the sister-museum at Speyer are definitely worth the visit - I've been to both twice with the family and it's always been fun (if a tad crowded on weekends... at least in the pre-pandemic days). In fact, the only "bad" thing I can say about the place is that some of the vehicles are a bit too bunched together, so you can discover that you've missed stuff when reviewing your photos (ie somehow I've walked past a Jagdpanther and not even noticing... while trying to snap some photos of a StuG :D )
@@bk109 I had a similar "criticism" of Bovington, there's so much to see that you sometimes can't see what you want clearly as there's too many other tanks around it. It's a nice problem to have though
@@iainj8514Yup, I wish all museums had that issue :D The good news is that I've got a work trip to Strasbourg, so I just may get the chance to pop by the museum to gawk at the cats (traffic/pandemic-permitting ofc) to use as reference/inspiration when I'm building some kits over the holidays
based on this excellent post I think you are more then correct in describing the Tiger as a breakthrough tank and the Panther as a Tank Destroyer. Tigers intended to break through in the attack followed closely by Mk IVs and Panzer Grenadiers while Panthers intended to be fast reaction TDs rather like the American Tank Destroyer doctrine of WW2. The realities of the German war never let that happen.
One thing this video highlights excellently is that just the dry comparison of technical specifications isn't enough. The training and experience of the crews is just as critical when comparing opposing units.
> One thing this video highlights excellently is that just the dry comparison of technical specifications isn't enough. it is a good start if one takes into account some qualitative factors as well, e.g., armor quality. > The training and experience of the crews is just as critical when comparing opposing units. yeah, but if compare tanks it does not really work too well, since as pointed out by Chieftain some US crews knew how to use the gyro stabilizer of the Sherman some didn't. In other words, it is complicated enough to just compare tanks if one guess beyond just the regular technical specifications, adding crew quality etc. especially considering the limited data in my opinion is just lead to far more guessing or a lot of work, assuming that the data can actually be found.
The nature of fighting in Normandy seems to be key in the British report. There was a great deal of attack/counter attack going on so whoever was defending at a given moment had a massive advantage, but very little ground was gained so it would have been difficult to recover/study knocked out panthers, so the British reports probably reflected after action reports. Germans deployed a lot of reconstituted divisions and then a massive number of replacements, so the 'inexperience' factor rings true. At this stage in panther development the final drive was very fragile - which possibly made drivers/commanders wary of reversing out of combat?
Also a lot of cover in hedgrows and lines of trees, probably much harder to spot where incoming fire was coming from, when compared with the steppe or N. Africa
@@colobossable Yes, that was a particular problem in the Bocage. A lot of armour was knocked out by infantry tank killer teams using weapons such as the Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust, bazooka and PIAT because they could easily hide in the hedgerows and bushes to ambush the enemy armoured spearheads. The Americans came up with an improvised solution to this ambush problem by taking sections of the Czech Hedgehog beach obstacles, cutting a pattern of teeth into them and welding them to the lower front of their Shermans so they could burst straight through hedgerows, thus avoiding choke points where they were likely to be ambushed -prior to this clever idea, they had been restricted to using the sunken lanes and trackways, so were very vulnerable to ambush.
A lot of German armour was knocked out in Normandy by naval gunfire - 15 and 16" shells didn't have to hit a panzer to disable it, the massive concussion from the muge shells exploding would cause damage to systems such as the optical sights, rendering it impossible to aim the gun, so without doing any major damage, you have effectively removed that panzer from the battle. The British had more difficulty when trying to push inland, beyond the range of this naval gunfire. One solutuon they tried was to use heavy bombers en masse to blast a path through the German defences, it didn't work.
Thanks for your informative videos. I have not yet completed a possibly foolhardy goal to read auto biographies of WWII veterans from each applicable country around the world. I read the memoirs of a Russian who drove a T-34 and later commanded a tank destroyer. He recorded detailed observations of the vulnerabilities of hatches on German tanks to jamming. (Which you described in the video.) I also read the memoir of a German tanker who described his fear of hatches jamming if damaged, and said that his crew kept the hatch open in numerous engagements on the Eastern Front. In addition, he said that many successful German tank commanders on the Eastern Front did this as situations allowed to gain every fraction of a second when spotting targets, and so they could evacuate more quickly.
Thanks for the video. I didn't know it was possible to get through Tiger armor with a T-34 76 from like 1.5 km. It needs to get almost exactly aligned with the side, but still, 1.5 km it's quite far. The question about optics remains quite relevant, then. Would a T-34 be able to aim at the Tiger appropriately from that distance? Those tanks in museums, Bernhard, do you know if they still keep their optics on them? Would it be possible to have a look in the lens and scopes of those things?
> Would it be possible to have a look in the lens and scopes of those things? not sure where you get 1,5 km free range in a museum, not to mention that the optics very old now, which might influence their quality.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized lol, you're right. But perhaps you could aim at a window, if there is any, and if you were able to turn the turret and the gun to do so, just so we could have a glimpse. Literature on such matters may be very hard to find, I have never seen a book talking about tank lenses, specially from early days of wwii and places like Soviet Union. My understanding of lenses is very poor, but trying to observe a small object to represent the distance wouldn't work, right? Those things don't work like a photographic camera. Would be out of focus anyway. And there's the problem of aging of the material as you said, since those glasses may be very delicate, they might be the first thing to break over the years.
@@colobossable I had have different ranges for penetration. The Basic Ammo and Gun need at least 600m or less to be dangerous for a Tiger-Front. Some other reports are talking about 1000m distance with luck...but never had read a report of 1500m. Thats a distance for a Tiger that shots accurate and penetrate the T34 easy like a hot knife in butter...
Craig Moore’s “How to kill a panther tank” really is a very good book to read on this one - it dispels a number of myths and shows the realities of fighting this beast in detail.
I think you should look into making books like unit tactics and formations, etc. Your videos are great references for many different things such as actually successfully using what I learn in these videos in games like men of war assault squad 2 and other close to reality games, keep it up man
The same observations of inexperienced crews were shown in the Tank Museum at Bovington concerning the Jagdtiger. It was noted that the vehicle was basically impervious to frontal fire but many were lost by panicking crews who turned the vehicle around instead of reversing out of sight.
Lmao the thumbnail image is so funny. It looks like the guy up top on the left was like “hey Vladimir could you lift up that turret so I can peak inside?”
My first thought: 76mm guns were pretty popular for this purpose, with 85mm guns being very successful as well. Is the "war winner" bren gun a reference to that Lindybeige video?
I am currently watching a recorded livestream from Military Aviation History and someone suggested to Chris that he market a NAFAZ (Not All Fighter Are Zeroes) t-shirt (I would buy that!) and that triggered a thought for you: a NAPAT (Not All Panzers Are Tigers) t-shirt (which I would also buy!).
This is incredibly interesting, and I love your videos. I just hope that this never becomes knowledge I need to know in some future dystopia or in a time-traveling cluster-f***. Still, very cool and thanks.
“Sorry i didn’t bring a banana but being in former east Germany that wouldn’t be appropriate” Oh…oh god…you’re a fucking legend^2 what I already believed
@@kimjanek646 I used to have a friend who lived in the USSR during the Cold War. She said one of the things she was most surprised about in America at first was being able to get any kind of fruit anytime of the year. She did say one thing that maybe was good about the way it was back in the USSR was that when you were able to get oranges for example, you really appreciated them, unlike just taking them for granted the way we do in the states. After WWII the US economy boomed for a very long time, so doing without is something a number of generations in the US have rarely experienced en masse. The drawback to this is that people in America have had it so cushy for so long that any inconvenience (wearing a mask ETC) is now regarded as an attack on "freedom" and "rights" by some folks and they caterwaul like you're flaying them alive when you ask them to make any kind of tiny sacrifice for the greater good. Those folks need some perspective IMO.
My father was in the light hellcats. M18. On recon. Third armored under Patton.was in the battle of the bulge. Upon finding a German tank, first shot had to hit him between the turent and the body that James the rotation so they had to turn the whole tank. Second a armor piercing where it did some good than a high explosive down the same hole and then he was done for. The German tank only had to hit you once.
Well of course it could destroy that M18 in one hit, TDs were not designed to take hits from the main guns of any German tank, Mark IVs or Mark Vs, thankfully your old man had a hell of a crew and saw and shot the enemy first. Oftentimes that's enough, regardless of the vehicle in question.
@@SirCheezersIII tin can you bet. Their only safety was speed. Heard laughter at this before but on a good road they could top 65 - after the boys who grew up on a farm messed with the governor on the engine.
And believe it or not...none of any gunner in any country is able to shot the same point twice in row in about 10 seconds. U aim for the target and hope the best. With luck, you get a second chance and all you will do is shot the targets weakspot. A AP Shell into the side if possible...otherwise frontally and cross the fingers. But none of them will try to shot a hole in the tank to shot a second load with HE INTO it...Robin Hood would have his issues. Stress, Heat, lag of time for aiming, gun accuracy, wind...temperatures and distance and last but not least: you will not remember exactly how u aimed the shot before to do it again. Long words Short: You wont hit the same Point in a real battle twice.
I think the purpose of aiming at the Panther mantlet was because if you hit toward the bottom of it, you can get a ricochet into the thin top armor below it.
The Panther in the photo surrounded by Red army troops is obviously one of the early Panthers at Kursk, most probably immobilized by mechanical failure and destroyed as according to Wehrmacht orders to place an explosive charge in the gun's breach forced the turret up off it's turret by the detonation! According to Walter J Spielberger who commanded Panthers and Jagdpanthers both the gun breach and the engine block should be blown up with explosive charges if the tank could not be recovered from enemy controlled areas. Since the engines were already ruined (overheating) it was probably thought only necessary to destroy this Panther's gun?
Well yes your video confirms what actually happened. I have read many accounts of German tanks crews in 44-45 making that mistake of turning their tanks and getting destroyed. Just off the top of my head- One was Otto Carius' friend who under attack turned his Hunting Tiger side on and was knocked out. Another was during the Bulge when a group of Panthers advancing where taken under fire front on by Shermans who were on the reverse side of a slope with just their turrets visible. After the first Panther was hit the others instead of just going in reverse and keeping their fronts towards the Americans turned to drive back and thats when disaster happened. Also the failure of any reconnaissance where Michael Wittmann and three other Tigers at Cintheax just blindly drove into destruction
@@Lykyk Well yes you are correct. I guess the correct term would be tank comrade. I had to go find the account and the action where the entire crew was killed is on page 221 of Tigers in The Mud.
That again, sounds like the crew members of german tanks panicked because they were scared and unaware of things. Turning the tanks. Big mistake. It would probably be hilarious to see german tanks turn tail and run away from russian tank crew members missing the first shot the first chance they get like they usually do.
Off-topic, but I heard a good one recently concerning "cats." "My kids said they wanted a cat for Christmas. I WAS planning on making a turkey, but hey, whatever keeps 'em happy!" Sorry, couldn't resist.
Military History Visualized You should make a video on WW2 german tank school (Panzertruppenschule) What did they learn? how did the education look like?
Another fascinating video Bernhard, full credit to your research, time and effort which are highly appreciated. It would be interesting to see a video on what we are up against in Eastern Europe today. Assuming we face Russia, what are their tanks capabilities, without giving any of ours away ?
The Russians arent worried about our tanks at all. Thats not to say Western tanks are bad. Their tanks are very good; some might not be new but those in the front have all been upgraded. Such still have some deficiencies but almost inconsequential because it would never come down to a straight tank-on-tank battle.
@@Internetbutthurt Completely agree. The biggest threat to the Russian tanks would come from Western Allies' excellent gunships (i.e. attack helicopters) and air power, not from anything on tracks.
14:15 This may be true however. If you look at Chieftain's video on the Panther interior, their commander cupola hatch is very hard and time consuming to open and close unlike previous medium tanks. So maybe Panther commanders were less inclined to open cupola and look outside with binoculars in combat conditions since they knew they'd have no time to close the hatch if combat started. Can anybody check if it's true?
I don't know of any definitive answer but from photos of Panthers in combat it seems it was the other way around -- Panther commander's just left the hatch open. Cheiftain thinks they probably kept the hatch cranked up to the pivot position (a few inches above the cupola top) all the time, allowing the commander to open and "close" the hatch fairly easily.
@@calessel3139 makes sense. Though that opens up another potential can of worms. But yeah, I guess the problem then indeed was in inexperienced crews(after all Normandy was sort of a "safe space" for training and rest) combined with lack of proper infantry support(though here I am not sure how easy it was for Panther commander to communicate to infantry outside the tank).
@@TheArklyte Of note: 12SS was in training. 1st SS was rebuilding. 17SS was in training. 116th Panzer was forming. 10th and 9th SS arrived by train from operations in Russia with one of the divisions without its Panther battalion. Panzer Lehr had half-tracks for all of its infantry, which were useless in the bocage. 21st Panzer had been rebuilt with a lot of French equipment. Although every division had veterans 12th SS, 116th, 17th SS and 21st Panzer had a lot of men who hadn't seen the elephant. Training was restricted by fuel shortages and missing equipment.
Every battle tank is vulnerable from above and behind. Unfortunately, the Wehrmacht had to take note of this at the battle of Kursk when the Jlyushin Il 2 deployed the very effective PTAB shaped charge bomb.
I'm a bit late to this, but I've been pondering the apparently large number of late war Panthers which turned to expose their sides. The Panther had a problem with the final drives. If one failed under panicked acceleration whilst reversing, wouldn't this turn the tank? Maybe the some of the turns were unintended.
My understanding is that very few penetrations were documented by ricochet off the mantlet. That it was done accidentally by an anti-tank crew firing at very close range and a slight upward angle. Have you seen this documented?
Is detonating a shell within 12 inches above the tank something that could be done reliably with WWII era shells?? It seems like an incredibly high level of accuracy and ranging would be needed to pull a shot like that off
What happened to Disclaimers C and B, and was there a Disclaimer E? Interesting news to me. I had not realized how thoroughly the Brits and Russians tested captured tanks that way. Any documentation on the Germans doing the same for Allied tanks?
> What happened to Disclaimers C and B, and was there a Disclaimer E? That is an inside joke, the Panther Variants in chronological order are: D, A, G and F. On regular videos I have Disclaimer I & II, etc. on Panther D, A, etc. > Any documentation on the Germans doing the same for Allied tanks? I haven't seen any so far, but I did not really look.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanks . I know a lot of weird esoterica like that about ships, a little about airplanes, and nothing about tanks; I didin't even know there was a Panther until a couple of weeks ago. Tanks don't really interest me much (heretic!) but I learn too much from your videos to skip them. Maybe I'll start to learn in spite of myself.
Depending which tank in you are. If an american/british, you will out of fuel before him. In soviet: Before 1944 april, after 30-40 km you have to stop or your transmission will be melted as a good cheese. Then you can say to the german photographer: Cheeese :DDDDD
I recall that the reverse speed of the Panther was very slow? Something like 3 kph or something? That might explain why the tanks were seen to try to turn around rather than backing away from a given contact!
I would love to hear more first hand battle accounts from the Eastern Front, both from German and Soviet accounts. Being ignorant in both German And Russian languages I feel I’m missing so much history. Thank you for your content, it’s much appreciated.
well, from what I know nobody has found an answer to that, see also Tiger I is Ausf. E and Tiger II is Ausf. B. From what I know, this was not common with other German vehicles. Although there are some oddities like the Ju-87 R, although there is at least one explanation that makes sense.
How about the phosphorus and smoke grenades? If I recall correctly, it was noticed by Allies that some Panther crews were bailout because of inside unbearable air after hits with that type of ammo. US tankers also were instructed to fire smoke grenades on enemy tanks, probably to blind them at least.
@ Military History Visualized Ich mag deinen informativen, tief gehenden Content . Kannst du Mal ein Video zu folgenden, eher unbekannten, aber bemerkenswerten Themen machen? Die größte militärische Niederlage einer deutschen Armee in der Geschichte: -Operation Bagration, und der Zusammenbruch der Heeresgruppe Mitte 1944 Der einzige , gelungene "wandernde Kessel" der Militärgeschichte: -Kesselschlacht von Kamenez-Podolski 25. März 1944 - 15. Apr. 1944
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Sauber. Das Thema ist sicher ein Video wert. Immerhin war es wie gesagt die größte Niederlage der deutschen Militär-Geschichte mit enormen Verlusten (im letzten Kriegsjahr starben mehr deutsche Soldaten als alle Kriegsjahre zuvor). Interessant sind auch die Erfahrungberichte der sogenannten "Rückkämpfer", im Feindesland zurück gebliebene Landser , die sich nach dem Überrennen der deutschen Front durch die Rote Armee und deren anschließenden vorwärts-drängen eigenständig den Weg zu den eigenen Linien zurück bahnen mussten. Nach der Operation Bagration stand die Rote Armee praktisch vor der Haustür des Deutschen Reiches. Auch im Gesamtkontex des Krieges ist es interessant , da kurze Zeit später an der Westfront die Amerikaner aufs europäische Festland gingen. MfG
Another scientifically researched video. Ausgezeichnet! FYI: "louvre" is pronounced "louver" in EN, unless you mean the museum in Paris, in which case "louvre" is pronounced as you spoke it.
Re the air burst HE just above the decks or the turret roof, the Allies may have been considering prox fused ammo. It also seems to me that if: a. the armor of turret and deck is the same; and b. a 25 pounder exploding above the turret cracked the armor; then c. a 25 pounder aimed at the turret front would be a worthwhile shot. If the shell exploded against the mantlet it would be only a few inches above the deck over the driver and radio operator.
sorry aber wurden die panzerplatten für die lüftung nicht hauptsächlich wegen den steigenden ausfällen durch flieger bzw tiefflieger angriffe nachgerüstet ???
If WarThunder has taught me anything about this (Especially from attempting to use one) when the tanks actually work; from the front aim for the Gun Mantlet or possibly the lower glacis plate and avoid the upper glacis at all costs! Unless you have a Super Pershing at bare minimum or a potent HEAT round you ain't getting through that sloped 80mm plate. The side hull armor is however paper thin by comparison and the ammo racks litter this area; a hit here might cause a K-kill with the whole tank exploding in a fireball.
In WT the Panther turret is not accurate modeled , the turret has still a plate behind the mantlet . There's only the 100mm mantlet and thats it , maybe a balanced weak spot .
Really only fear the panther if I'm facing head on and close. I generally use smaller faster tanks so sneaking around to find myself 500m away from the side of a panther happens regularly.
The 85mm is in fact better in every single way except pure armor penetration. And the T34 85 is a better tank. The Firefly was really cramped inside the turret too.
I'm reading "Spearhead" about the US 3rd Armored Division in WW2. Interestingly, they used an M7 Priest mobile howitzer in the direct fire role to disable the Panther which forced the crew to abandon it. An artillery barrage took care of the German infantry and dismounted tank crews. 40 Shermans vs. 12 Panthers. 2 Shermans lost, 6 Panthers. A .50 cal air attack by P-47s did nothing to the Panther company, though. 🙁
Is it possible that defective armor plating could skew results of an Allied or Soviet shell’s being fired on a tank. The risk of sabotage in the armor plate in plants using slaves, POW’s, Concentration camp inmates or other otherwise problematic labor has to be considered. If only one defective plate is hit by any type of shell it will inflict more damage upon than it would have had the plate been up to specifications. And, since the Soviets had slave or convict labor working on armor production, they may have been firing shells at an enemy tank just on the likelihood of hitting a defective plate.
yes, there are more aspects than slave labor as well, e.g., late-war the Germans had lost access to certain ores, which had a severe impact on quality from what I know. Likely there were also changes in production methods as well, etc.
Even if you use good skilled people Germany was running out of critical materials to make alloys so armor, parts etc were not as good. Not only that , due to the shortage of manpower. A lot of people working in factories etc were old people, women, boys etc who probably were not highly trained with years of experience with welding and stuff Then as already pointed out, you have untrained and very unhappy slave workers who probably tried to sabotage stuff or at the least did a minimum effort.
The thing with the rounded Panther mantlet is that even if the shot doesn't bounce down, the mantlet simply wasn't thick enough so any hit that's straight on, not at a large angle, is going to get through provided the gun has a penetration of ~130mm or so. Supposing that the ballistic modelling in War Thunder is okay. A Panther hull with a Tiger turret would be far more formidable.
9:00, another weak point was the area of the Panther's turret under the gun mantlet. I read in Craig Moore's book that both US 76 mm and 3 inch guns and British 17 pounders could punch through that armor from at least 1200 yards (1000 meters) based on various tests. Combined with the fact that the Allies had no shortage of well trained and experienced crews and that 76 mm and 17 pounders had enough accuracy to have a good chance at nailing them at the aforementioned range (as shown in the Chieftain's video: th-cam.com/video/kM74wlQongo/w-d-xo.html), this gives Allied tankers another good shot at dealing with the cats. And then there's the hot ammo: HVAP and APDS. As also seen in Mr. Moore's book, Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt, and a document from the Chieftain's Hatch, 76 mm and 3 inch HVAP rounds could pierce the front turret and gun mantlet armor ranging from 800-2500 yards (700-2200 meters) and at 200 yards (100 meters) had a 25% chance of piercing the upper front hull of the Panther. 17 Pounder APDS was even better as it could penetrate the upper front hull armor at 1150-1500 yards (1000-1300 meters), albeit with greatly decreased accuracy. And we haven't even gotten into the US 90 mm, with T33 AP (IT WILL PENETRATE THE GLACIS PLATE OF THE "PANTHER" TANK UP TO 1,100 YARDS RANGE.), M82 APC (PENETRATIONS CAN BE OBTAINED ON ALL PLATES OF THE "PANTHER" AND "KING TIGER" TANKS EXCEPT FOR THE GLACIS PLATE AND THE GUN MANTLET), and T30E16 HVAP ( IT WILL DEFEAT THE GLACIS PLATE OF THE "PANTHER" AT RANGES UP TO 450 YARDS AND OF THE "KING TIGER" AT 100 YARDS RANGE. UP TO RANGES OF 800 YARDS THE SHOT WILL PENETRATE THE GUN MANTLET AND TURRET FRONT OF BOTH THE "PANTHER" AND "KING TIGER" TANKS.): www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/index.html
the reality is that it's the initial engagement range which determined how dangerous the Panther and Tiger were. They had powerful guns that could penetrate the allied tanks long before the allies could get within range of successfully killing the german tanks. A 76mm Sherman or a 85mm equipped T-34 could easily penetrate those German vehicles provided they were close enough (probably about 500 meters ) the problem was of course getting that close lol
The thing is not all tank fights were long range frontal engagements that favoured german heavy tanks, no were tanks the only way of disabling german heavy tanks. Nor did you had to penetrate a tank from the front at long range with another tank ( which was the only strenght of german cats ). And lets not forget just how rare big cats were, how tank on tank engagements were also rare. Tank fights did not happen how people imagine : 2 lines of tanks sniping at one another at long range on an open plane without any other supporting arms also engaging...So the situations were big cats could truly shine were rare ( if they managed to get to the fight without braking down first ) and even then they were ways around it. Oh and you had tanks like IS2's ISU152's, SU100, M36, Pershings, Fireflies. 76mm Shermans... that could and did knocked out big cats frontally. So yeah...
@@Vlad_-_-_ You forget that Germany fought the Allies in the open featureless desert in North Africa and fought the Soviets in the open featureless tundra in the Soviet Union. MHV explained in his video about the Hetzer [1] that enemy tanks remained stationary on long ranges thus having long range capabilities is preferable. Deutsches Panzermuseum Director Ralf Raths said in an interview [2] that the Panther did well in the Eastern front if they respected it's limitation. Neither the IS 2 and the ISU-152 are designed to destroy tanks, the Pershing, Firefly, Sherman 76 were designed specifically to counter the Panther, so obviously they did work. [1] th-cam.com/video/LyVyFGLX1TY/w-d-xo.html [2] th-cam.com/video/Jw_gutZZXnc/w-d-xo.html
They could deploy smoke artillery or shoot smok rounds. Also you dont need to penetrate at all, simply hitting the tank at 15-10° can make the armour crack or creat some spalling
@@musicmaster417 >fought the Soviets in the open featureless tundra in the Soviet Union ...and these goddamned Santa`s reindeers were everywhere! :D Obviously you talking about steppe and it occupies only a third of front length, so you should not overestimate it.
Simple clear and effective diagrams. Were the overhead bursts conducted using VT shells? If these were available that certainly could have been very dangerous to any WW2 tank. Otherwise getting that spot on with a single HE shell with a conventional time fuse does not seem a very good strategy.
@@billwilson3609 Except they were, at least in Winter 1944. The US Army heavily used them during the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge during the Battle of the Bulge.
@@AldanFerrox That's right. I forgot about that. Ike had to get permission from Washington D.C. to use those in land based artillery. The Army already was using the proximity fuse in their 90mm AA guns to shoot down V-1's approaching Britain and Antwerp. Odd fact is that the Germans were working on one in 1938 and Hitler cancelled further research due to costing too much.
@@billwilson3609 Well, it was not just one design, though. It was between 30 and 50. And they tested many possible variants. Radio frequency, magnetic capacitance, acoustic fuses triggered by engine sounds, electrostatic fuses etc. But did Hitler really personally cancel the project?
@@billwilson3609 Yep, just like we didnt use them on land in the pacific. The history of shrapnel shells though is just not very indicative of being able to pull off that kind of thing. There is a tale of a group of technicians that were on the range when a shrapnel shell was fired who were peppered by the balls without injury, the shells were rarely used by WW2. Might be interesting to use now days when we could pretty much guarantee that the shell would explode at the correct distance.
what about the poor steel and alloy quality especially at the end of the war which made the armor and tanks worse then they should be!? also the penetrators with the lack of tungsten. no matter if panther, tiger or any other German tank!?
Read a book during lockdown on the Allied bombing campaign, it mentioned that one of the results of the Schweinfurt ball bearing factory raids was that cupolas weren't able to repaired/replaced as readily, which led to an increase in wounded/dead commanders, and a subsequent drop-off in crew experience and efficiency. Wonder if that was partly to blame for the Panther crews making tactical mistakes withdrawing? Book probably had sources, but that was a while ago and it's moved on now.
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
My father, Dale S. Albee, was in the light tank company of the 712th tank battalion, which landed in Normandy in late June '44. They were attached to the 90th infantry division and fought through to the end of the war.
My dad served the entire time in an M5A1 Stuart, which most folks will know was a light tank packing only a 37mm gun, and dad predictably had strong feelings about the Panther. He stated that the only way they could knock one out was to get a flank shot targeting the space between the top of the track and the protruding armor above the track. This happened at least once, which he spoke of with pride for both the gunner and the 37mm gun.
Two free bonuses about recon, which as a rule was preceding the advance and usually in no man's land and often behind enemy lines with a platoon of Stuart's ( usually four ) possibly reinforced with a few M8 armored cars and jeeps.
1) One night, ahead of friendlys, they laagered for the night, but soon heard the approach of a German tank unit which laagered as well to their front. They spent the night in terror as they could hear the Germans in their encampment. Their only chance was to wait for morning and enough light to fire up their engines to run like hell. Thankfully the Germans moved out before morning light, saving them.
2) My father once had the experience of driving over what he called an Italian box mine ( though not in Italy ) without setting it off. He knew this because the tank following him did set it off. The tank was literally blown over and was sitting on its turret, which killed the whole crew except one, I think the gunner. The spent the next several hours digging through the asphalt of the road to get him out, all the while with fuel dripping from the tank threatening a fireball. They were successful.
Please excuse the length and probably off topic content, but I hope you and your viewers might find it interesting, and I wanted to share some of my father's experiences so they will live on now that he is gone.
thank you for interesting post 🙂
war is hell ... but i believe sometimes very adrenaline kicking too
I think you're misremembering the Panther and the Tiger. With Panther, the tank is vulnerable to 37mm from close to moderate range mostly all along its side - the side hull armor is really thin, the turret less so but still probably vulnerable
Thank you for this post. Can we imagine the hell of that surviving gunner trapped hours in a steel coffin with his dead friends and crew mates?
you should make article about this in internet i want read full story about it 👍🏻
Please hurry up and tell me how to kill the tank this is kinda time urgent
lol
I think bro died
Those charts showing the combination of vulnerable aspect and range are excellent! It would be interesting to have side by side comparisons of those types of charts for the most common tanks / AT guns / TDs / SPGs / etc of the combatants on various fronts at various times (early, mid and late Eastern Front, North Africa before and after Torch, Normandy, etc). It was also interesting how the pamphlets talked about going for "mission kill" shots - aiming for the sprocket, idler and road wheels. Sensible if they couldn't pen the armor. Also the follow up with an HE after an AP to get the "brew up". Nuggets like this, quoted directly from primary sources, are what makes your channel so interesting. Great vid MHV.
The last part of the story where even the Brits were noticing the drop in crew quality rings so true. By 44 the Germans had lost so much of its experienced combat troops, Infantry, Armor, Pilots. The results being the decline in combat effectiveness across all fronts.
Stephen Zaloga's work often centers around the difference between June of 1944 and January of 1945, because while we so often talk about the bloodbath for the Germans in the East, we often glaze over just how costly the fighting against the Allies proved for the Germans. Something like 800,000 Germans surrendered between D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge, with maybe 300,000 more killed or wounded. Considering the Germans only had about 1,000,000 men in France to start with, it should be no surprise that very few "veterans" were left by December, hence raw recruits with just weeks of training representing the majority of soldiers for the Ardennes Offensive. The real marvel is how well the recruits performed despite it all.
While the Germans did lost quite a number of veterans in 42,43, the more important factor for the Germans inexperience in Normandy is that before DDay France was being used as a resting and training ground for battered divisions and troops, where a lot of new recruits sent as reinforcement were sent there to begin their field training. So when Allied invasion starts most of these recruits were caught up in combat despite only having begun their training, hence the absurd amount of "newbie" mistakes happening in Battle of Normandy. In contrast, in Market Garden, tried and tested Germans divisions were deployed and their performance's relatively better despite being caught off guard.
@@genericpersonx333 that tenacity is mirrored in any army fighting for its home turf, France WW 2 the exception. Shelby Foote the civil war historian noted, in Confederate Diarys that " The Yankees always fought much harder and shot much straighter North of the Mason Dixion line."
"The last part of the story where even the Brits were noticing the drop in crew quality" - as opposed to the Americans who were waiting for the cameras to arrive.
Which applied to the Americans and Brits as well, hence the reason the Battle of the Bulge occurred, so many green troops on the allied front lines.
3:28 "There are many ways to skin a cat"
That was cruel. She is so young, just recently arrived from the factory.
Life's a bitch, and I need the fur.
@@RonJohn63 Deadly car crash from the vlogger Said Gubkinsky and his friend Zaur Ibragimov.
th-cam.com/video/HMk0-CmN-dc/w-d-xo.html
If we dont skin it it would break down and catch fire and be abandoned shortly after anyways
4:15 “I got his radiator, he’s sure to slowly overheat!”
0:00 'Disclaimer D' comes before 'Disclaimer A' on a video about Panthers. Very good!
:)
Excellent! I was looking to see if someone had commented on this!
12:09 - no, you are not mistaken. The original text: _"7. Маска пушки. Попадание снарядов в область соприкосновения ствола и маски пушки, а также в бурт маски - заклинивает пушку"._ Approximate translation: "7. Mantlet of the gun. Hits of shells in the area of contact of the barrel and the mantlet, and also on _бурт_ [this thickened cast part on the mantlet around the barrel] lead to jamming of the gun".
I can very well imagine a slight deformation of this "bushing" will result in quite some friction which may not keep the gun from recoilling, but it will keep it from moving back forward. Fully retracted there probably isn´t enough room to load a new round to begin with, but even if, firing with a retracted barrel (no recoil dampening) will damage the turret beyond repair and the crew should better not be in it then.
So one final shot may be possible, but not more.
@@sthenzel Deadly car crash from the vlogger Said Gubkinsky and his friend Zaur Ibragimov.
th-cam.com/video/HMk0-CmN-dc/w-d-xo.html
All WoT players: TAKE NOTE lol.
2 questions here:
1 - My understanding of Soviet anti-tank rifles is that they were told to target tracks. This was countered by the use of skirts by the Wehrmacht. Is there a reason that few weapons discussed here talk about track kills?
2 - I have seen a number of videos recently on the Battle of Arracourt and the actions of the French 2nd Armored in 1944 in the same campaign. These groups did really well against Panthers and later model Panzer IVs apparently. Any idea if a study of these two battles adds to your video?
1) no, they aimed at the side armor of the Panzer III & IV which could be penetrated, the skirts prevented that.
i saw some field manuals for AT rifle crews - it was about aiming at sides and weakspots like viewing slits / windows. I doubt that penetrating track ling would easily have effect except for punching one more hole. Unless you hit and destroy joint.
But I read story by russian tankman (maybe Sherman crew) about pair tactics - one fired HE shell at the track of the approaching tank, and with successful hit, one track destroyed other moving would turn tank either left or right and exposed it side for the 2nd tank with AP round ready
Great stuff as always :D Just a tip to any of the commentariat that are in the area - there's a pair of Panthers over at Technik Museum Sinsheim that's always an awe-inspiring sight (especially the wrecked one, because you really get an appreciation for how tough a beast those really were)
thanks! I wanted to visit Sinsheim for a while, but so far it hadn't worked out yet.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized it's worth a visit, definitely.
Edit: They have a Panther Tank that has mobilized tracks and turret by electric motors, and it has a sound system to mimic its roar. You put a coin in a slot and you can rotate tracks and turret, and you can elevate the gun. The hull sits on pillars, it doesn't drive around. But you get a feeling of what a Panther might have been like. And they have lots of other tanks, cars, planes and everything. If you want to enjoy your visit, calculate two days.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Both it and the sister-museum at Speyer are definitely worth the visit - I've been to both twice with the family and it's always been fun (if a tad crowded on weekends... at least in the pre-pandemic days). In fact, the only "bad" thing I can say about the place is that some of the vehicles are a bit too bunched together, so you can discover that you've missed stuff when reviewing your photos (ie somehow I've walked past a Jagdpanther and not even noticing... while trying to snap some photos of a StuG :D )
@@bk109 I had a similar "criticism" of Bovington, there's so much to see that you sometimes can't see what you want clearly as there's too many other tanks around it. It's a nice problem to have though
@@iainj8514Yup, I wish all museums had that issue :D The good news is that I've got a work trip to Strasbourg, so I just may get the chance to pop by the museum to gawk at the cats (traffic/pandemic-permitting ofc) to use as reference/inspiration when I'm building some kits over the holidays
based on this excellent post I think you are more then correct in describing the Tiger as a breakthrough tank and the Panther as a Tank Destroyer. Tigers intended to break through in the attack followed closely by Mk IVs and Panzer Grenadiers while Panthers intended to be fast reaction TDs rather like the American Tank Destroyer doctrine of WW2. The realities of the German war never let that happen.
The years pass, but the "Bren vs Spandau" references live on.
There is a German proverb: "Historiker haben ein langes Gedächtnis." Literally, "Historians have a long memory."
One thing this video highlights excellently is that just the dry comparison of technical specifications isn't enough. The training and experience of the crews is just as critical when comparing opposing units.
> One thing this video highlights excellently is that just the dry comparison of technical specifications isn't enough.
it is a good start if one takes into account some qualitative factors as well, e.g., armor quality.
> The training and experience of the crews is just as critical when comparing opposing units.
yeah, but if compare tanks it does not really work too well, since as pointed out by Chieftain some US crews knew how to use the gyro stabilizer of the Sherman some didn't.
In other words, it is complicated enough to just compare tanks if one guess beyond just the regular technical specifications, adding crew quality etc. especially considering the limited data in my opinion is just lead to far more guessing or a lot of work, assuming that the data can actually be found.
Seriously! The amount of work and research put into your videos is just insane
The nature of fighting in Normandy seems to be key in the British report. There was a great deal of attack/counter attack going on so whoever was defending at a given moment had a massive advantage, but very little ground was gained so it would have been difficult to recover/study knocked out panthers, so the British reports probably reflected after action reports. Germans deployed a lot of reconstituted divisions and then a massive number of replacements, so the 'inexperience' factor rings true. At this stage in panther development the final drive was very fragile - which possibly made drivers/commanders wary of reversing out of combat?
Also a lot of cover in hedgrows and lines of trees, probably much harder to spot where incoming fire was coming from, when compared with the steppe or N. Africa
@@colobossable Yes, that was a particular problem in the Bocage. A lot of armour was knocked out by infantry tank killer teams using weapons such as the Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust, bazooka and PIAT because they could easily hide in the hedgerows and bushes to ambush the enemy armoured spearheads. The Americans came up with an improvised solution to this ambush problem by taking sections of the Czech Hedgehog beach obstacles, cutting a pattern of teeth into them and welding them to the lower front of their Shermans so they could burst straight through hedgerows, thus avoiding choke points where they were likely to be ambushed -prior to this clever idea, they had been restricted to using the sunken lanes and trackways, so were very vulnerable to ambush.
A lot of German armour was knocked out in Normandy by naval gunfire - 15 and 16" shells didn't have to hit a panzer to disable it, the massive concussion from the muge shells exploding would cause damage to systems such as the optical sights, rendering it impossible to aim the gun, so without doing any major damage, you have effectively removed that panzer from the battle. The British had more difficulty when trying to push inland, beyond the range of this naval gunfire. One solutuon they tried was to use heavy bombers en masse to blast a path through the German defences, it didn't work.
Thanks for your informative videos. I have not yet completed a possibly foolhardy goal to read auto biographies of WWII veterans from each applicable country around the world.
I read the memoirs of a Russian who drove a T-34 and later commanded a tank destroyer. He recorded detailed observations of the vulnerabilities of hatches on German tanks to jamming. (Which you described in the video.) I also read the memoir of a German tanker who described his fear of hatches jamming if damaged, and said that his crew kept the hatch open in numerous engagements on the Eastern Front. In addition, he said that many successful German tank commanders on the Eastern Front did this as situations allowed to gain every fraction of a second when spotting targets, and so they could evacuate more quickly.
Always filled with facts and really informative. Thanks.
Bernhard is the greatest expert on German tanks who’s ever lived!!! The best!!!
thanks, although I disagree.
Military History Visualized it’s true Bernhard! You’re the best of all time!!!
@@thebigone6071 Than you would be better off with doing more reading and look to the people that Bernhard often quotes, Jentz and Doyle.
Another outstanding video and presentation.
Thanks again!
Plan A : Use explosives . Plan B: Use twice as much explosives. , Plans C & beyond : Keep doubling the amount of explosives until you succeed.
Interesting Video. As always. Wasnt aware of the effects of Artillery on the cooling systems.
I dont know how one man can do what history channels fail to do. Danke :)
As usual you have produced an excellent video.
Thanks for the video. I didn't know it was possible to get through Tiger armor with a T-34 76 from like 1.5 km. It needs to get almost exactly aligned with the side, but still, 1.5 km it's quite far. The question about optics remains quite relevant, then. Would a T-34 be able to aim at the Tiger appropriately from that distance?
Those tanks in museums, Bernhard, do you know if they still keep their optics on them? Would it be possible to have a look in the lens and scopes of those things?
> Would it be possible to have a look in the lens and scopes of those things?
not sure where you get 1,5 km free range in a museum, not to mention that the optics very old now, which might influence their quality.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized lol, you're right. But perhaps you could aim at a window, if there is any, and if you were able to turn the turret and the gun to do so, just so we could have a glimpse.
Literature on such matters may be very hard to find, I have never seen a book talking about tank lenses, specially from early days of wwii and places like Soviet Union.
My understanding of lenses is very poor, but trying to observe a small object to represent the distance wouldn't work, right? Those things don't work like a photographic camera. Would be out of focus anyway. And there's the problem of aging of the material as you said, since those glasses may be very delicate, they might be the first thing to break over the years.
Yeah I can't believe that a T34/76 could pen 80mm at 2000 or even 1500 metres, that diagram seemed a bit off
@@colobossable I had have different ranges for penetration. The Basic Ammo and Gun need at least 600m or less to be dangerous for a Tiger-Front. Some other reports are talking about 1000m distance with luck...but never had read a report of 1500m. Thats a distance for a Tiger that shots accurate and penetrate the T34 easy like a hot knife in butter...
Craig Moore’s “How to kill a panther tank” really is a very good book to read on this one - it dispels a number of myths and shows the realities of fighting this beast in detail.
It don't seem like a beast.
I think you should look into making books like unit tactics and formations, etc. Your videos are great references for many different things such as actually successfully using what I learn in these videos in games like men of war assault squad 2 and other close to reality games, keep it up man
Fascinating video. Thank you. 👍🏻
The same observations of inexperienced crews were shown in the Tank Museum at Bovington concerning the Jagdtiger. It was noted that the vehicle was basically impervious to frontal fire but many were lost by panicking crews who turned the vehicle around instead of reversing out of sight.
Deadly car crash from the vlogger Said Gubkinsky and his friend Zaur Ibragimov.
th-cam.com/video/HMk0-CmN-dc/w-d-xo.html
A Jadgtiger would probably break down if you tried to reverse it
@@mathewkelly9968 The well trained german crews seem to not have noticed that problem overly much
@@ABCKorpi Which was quite rare later on in the war
the crew is having a significant emotional event
Lmao the thumbnail image is so funny. It looks like the guy up top on the left was like “hey Vladimir could you lift up that turret so I can peak inside?”
Nice to see John Buckley's name! He's one of the lecturers on my war studies course, runs an incredibly good module on the Normandy campaign!
My first thought: 76mm guns were pretty popular for this purpose, with 85mm guns being very successful as well. Is the "war winner" bren gun a reference to that Lindybeige video?
yes
best military history channel i hope u will get 1 million subs :)
I am currently watching a recorded livestream from Military Aviation History and someone suggested to Chris that he market a NAFAZ (Not All Fighter Are Zeroes) t-shirt (I would buy that!) and that triggered a thought for you: a NAPAT (Not All Panzers Are Tigers) t-shirt (which I would also buy!).
Top Video wieder! Der Bananenwitz hat mich doch nochmal stärker zum Schmunzeln gebracht. XD
danke! :)
Didn't even need to watch this to say "just splash some water on that transmission lmao" but this was still worth watching!
This is incredibly interesting, and I love your videos.
I just hope that this never becomes knowledge I need to know in some future dystopia or in a time-traveling cluster-f***.
Still, very cool and thanks.
I hope so too!
thank you so much for this, german tanks have been showing up at my neighborhood recently, this video will be very helpfull, thank you👍💪
“Sorry i didn’t bring a banana but being in former east Germany that wouldn’t be appropriate”
Oh…oh god…you’re a fucking legend^2 what I already believed
thanks!
I didn’t get that 🤔
Because they didn’t have bananas in East Germany? 😵
@@kimjanek646 because communism and starvation/famine are synonymous
@@kimjanek646
I used to have a friend who lived in the USSR during the Cold War. She said one of the things she was most surprised about in America at first was being able to get any kind of fruit anytime of the year. She did say one thing that maybe was good about the way it was back in the USSR was that when you were able to get oranges for example, you really appreciated them, unlike just taking them for granted the way we do in the states.
After WWII the US economy boomed for a very long time, so doing without is something a number of generations in the US have rarely experienced en masse.
The drawback to this is that people in America have had it so cushy for so long that any inconvenience (wearing a mask ETC) is now regarded as an attack on "freedom" and "rights" by some folks and they caterwaul like you're flaying them alive when you ask them to make any kind of tiny sacrifice for the greater good. Those folks need some perspective IMO.
@@looinrims but doesnt make it fact
You should make this a series!
My father was in the light hellcats. M18. On recon. Third armored under Patton.was in the battle of the bulge. Upon finding a German tank, first shot had to hit him between the turent and the body that James the rotation so they had to turn the whole tank. Second a armor piercing where it did some good than a high explosive down the same hole and then he was done for. The German tank only had to hit you once.
Well of course it could destroy that M18 in one hit, TDs were not designed to take hits from the main guns of any German tank, Mark IVs or Mark Vs, thankfully your old man had a hell of a crew and saw and shot the enemy first. Oftentimes that's enough, regardless of the vehicle in question.
@@SirCheezersIII tin can you bet. Their only safety was speed. Heard laughter at this before but on a good road they could top 65 - after the boys who grew up on a farm messed with the governor on the engine.
And believe it or not...none of any gunner in any country is able to shot the same point twice in row in about 10 seconds. U aim for the target and hope the best. With luck, you get a second chance and all you will do is shot the targets weakspot. A AP Shell into the side if possible...otherwise frontally and cross the fingers.
But none of them will try to shot a hole in the tank to shot a second load with HE INTO it...Robin Hood would have his issues.
Stress, Heat, lag of time for aiming, gun accuracy, wind...temperatures and distance and last but not least: you will not remember exactly how u aimed the shot before to do it again.
Long words Short: You wont hit the same Point in a real battle twice.
I think the purpose of aiming at the Panther mantlet was because if you hit toward the bottom of it, you can get a ricochet into the thin top armor below it.
The Panther in the photo surrounded by Red army troops is obviously one of the early Panthers at Kursk, most probably immobilized by mechanical failure and destroyed as according to Wehrmacht orders to place an explosive charge in the gun's breach forced the turret up off it's turret by the detonation! According to Walter J Spielberger who commanded Panthers and Jagdpanthers both the gun breach and the engine block should be blown up with explosive charges if the tank could not be recovered from enemy controlled areas. Since the engines were already ruined (overheating) it was probably thought only necessary to destroy this Panther's gun?
Well yes your video confirms what actually happened. I have read many accounts of German tanks crews in 44-45 making that mistake of turning their tanks and getting destroyed. Just off the top of my head- One was Otto Carius' friend who under attack turned his Hunting Tiger side on and was knocked out. Another was during the Bulge when a group of Panthers advancing where taken under fire front on by Shermans who were on the reverse side of a slope with just their turrets visible. After the first Panther was hit the others instead of just going in reverse and keeping their fronts towards the Americans turned to drive back and thats when disaster happened. Also the failure of any reconnaissance where Michael Wittmann and three other Tigers at Cintheax just blindly drove into destruction
I remember the Carius story you're talking about, but I don't remember him describing the guy as a friend.
@@Lykyk Well yes you are correct. I guess the correct term would be tank comrade. I had to go find the account and the action where the entire crew was killed is on page 221 of Tigers in The Mud.
@@Lykyk Deadly car crash from the vlogger Said Gubkinsky and his friend Zaur Ibragimov.
th-cam.com/video/HMk0-CmN-dc/w-d-xo.html
@@Gabrieljoseph129 Deadly car crash from the vlogger Said Gubkinsky and his friend Zaur Ibragimov.
th-cam.com/video/HMk0-CmN-dc/w-d-xo.html
That again, sounds like the crew members of german tanks panicked because they were scared and unaware of things. Turning the tanks. Big mistake. It would probably be hilarious to see german tanks turn tail and run away from russian tank crew members missing the first shot the first chance they get like they usually do.
Off-topic, but I heard a good one recently concerning "cats."
"My kids said they wanted a cat for Christmas. I WAS planning on making a turkey, but hey, whatever keeps 'em happy!"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Military History Visualized
You should make a video on WW2 german tank school (Panzertruppenschule)
What did they learn? how did the education look like?
might come at one point, but I am not sure if anyone has written anything substantial about it yet.
Another fascinating video Bernhard, full credit to your research, time and effort which are highly appreciated. It would be interesting to see a video on what we are up against in Eastern Europe today. Assuming we face Russia, what are their tanks capabilities, without giving any of ours away ?
The Russians arent worried about our tanks at all. Thats not to say Western tanks are bad. Their tanks are very good; some might not be new but those in the front have all been upgraded. Such still have some deficiencies but almost inconsequential because it would never come down to a straight tank-on-tank battle.
@@Internetbutthurt Completely agree.
The biggest threat to the Russian tanks would come from Western Allies' excellent gunships (i.e. attack helicopters) and air power, not from anything on tracks.
14:15
This may be true however. If you look at Chieftain's video on the Panther interior, their commander cupola hatch is very hard and time consuming to open and close unlike previous medium tanks. So maybe Panther commanders were less inclined to open cupola and look outside with binoculars in combat conditions since they knew they'd have no time to close the hatch if combat started.
Can anybody check if it's true?
I don't know of any definitive answer but from photos of Panthers in combat it seems it was the other way around -- Panther commander's just left the hatch open. Cheiftain thinks they probably kept the hatch cranked up to the pivot position (a few inches above the cupola top) all the time, allowing the commander to open and "close" the hatch fairly easily.
@@calessel3139 makes sense. Though that opens up another potential can of worms.
But yeah, I guess the problem then indeed was in inexperienced crews(after all Normandy was sort of a "safe space" for training and rest) combined with lack of proper infantry support(though here I am not sure how easy it was for Panther commander to communicate to infantry outside the tank).
@@TheArklyte Of note: 12SS was in training. 1st SS was rebuilding. 17SS was in training. 116th Panzer was forming. 10th and 9th SS arrived by train from operations in Russia with one of the divisions without its Panther battalion. Panzer Lehr had half-tracks for all of its infantry, which were useless in the bocage. 21st Panzer had been rebuilt with a lot of French equipment. Although every division had veterans 12th SS, 116th, 17th SS and 21st Panzer had a lot of men who hadn't seen the elephant. Training was restricted by fuel shortages and missing equipment.
Wow, I totally got that banana reference you slipped in there. Oh, your work is excellent!
Awesome! Thank you!
Every battle tank is vulnerable from above and behind. Unfortunately, the Wehrmacht had to take note of this at the battle of Kursk when the Jlyushin Il 2 deployed the very effective PTAB shaped charge bomb.
I’m glad to see that the Bren joke is still going strong
After all it won the war 😅
I'm a bit late to this, but I've been pondering the apparently large number of late war Panthers which turned to expose their sides. The Panther had a problem with the final drives. If one failed under panicked acceleration whilst reversing, wouldn't this turn the tank? Maybe the some of the turns were unintended.
My understanding is that very few penetrations were documented by ricochet off the mantlet. That it was done accidentally by an anti-tank crew firing at very close range and a slight upward angle. Have you seen this documented?
Is detonating a shell within 12 inches above the tank something that could be done reliably with WWII era shells?? It seems like an incredibly high level of accuracy and ranging would be needed to pull a shot like that off
Read about the havoc Allied proximity fused shells caused to the Germans during the later part of the Battle of the Bulge..
@@johanneduardschnorr3733 will do. Thanks :)
Good video! Good work!
Merry xmas Bernhard
Is there any reference of 75mm HE hitting a Panther turret with the burst into or deflected, the radiators.
This is really useful to us.
What happened to Disclaimers C and B, and was there a Disclaimer E?
Interesting news to me. I had not realized how thoroughly the Brits and Russians tested captured tanks that way. Any documentation on the Germans doing the same for Allied tanks?
> What happened to Disclaimers C and B, and was there a Disclaimer E?
That is an inside joke, the Panther Variants in chronological order are: D, A, G and F.
On regular videos I have Disclaimer I & II, etc. on Panther D, A, etc.
> Any documentation on the Germans doing the same for Allied tanks?
I haven't seen any so far, but I did not really look.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanks . I know a lot of weird esoterica like that about ships, a little about airplanes, and nothing about tanks; I didin't even know there was a Panther until a couple of weeks ago. Tanks don't really interest me much (heretic!) but I learn too much from your videos to skip them. Maybe I'll start to learn in spite of myself.
Step 1: Have an IS-2.
Step 2: Fire! (should penetrate even the frontal armor)
Step 3: Enjoy!
I Love your videos, and your German language and accent goes Very Nicely with them.
Glad you like them!
Simplest Way to kill a Panther: Make it follow you and wait for it to break down
Or plow through its front plate with an IS2. Blow its turret off with an ISU152. Flank it...
Depending which tank in you are. If an american/british, you will out of fuel before him.
In soviet:
Before 1944 april, after 30-40 km you have to stop or your transmission will be melted as a good cheese.
Then you can say to the german photographer: Cheeese :DDDDD
@@rolandhunter But you have very skilled driver: *Evil laugh*
Panther crews didnt follow after other tanks they took them out at almost twice the range of the allied weapons so there was no need to follow.
@@Vlad_-_-_ Deadly car crash from the vlogger Said Gubkinsky and his friend Zaur Ibragimov.
th-cam.com/video/HMk0-CmN-dc/w-d-xo.html
Very interesting.
Excellent!
Neat jab at Lindybeige at 4:05 even after all this time lol
Interesting facts, my great grandfather served under general pattons 3rd armor division.
I recall that the reverse speed of the Panther was very slow? Something like 3 kph or something? That might explain why the tanks were seen to try to turn around rather than backing away from a given contact!
Thank you Sir!
You are welcome!
Love your comment about the banana :)) being a former East German as well
I would love to hear more first hand battle accounts from the Eastern Front, both from German and Soviet accounts. Being ignorant in both German And Russian languages I feel I’m missing so much history. Thank you for your content, it’s much appreciated.
so what confuses me is why is the Ausführung D older than the Ausführung A?
well, from what I know nobody has found an answer to that, see also Tiger I is Ausf. E and Tiger II is Ausf. B.
From what I know, this was not common with other German vehicles. Although there are some oddities like the Ju-87 R, although there is at least one explanation that makes sense.
This is really good info. If I'm ever in a Russian tank and come across a Tiger tank I'll know what to do!
;)
How about the phosphorus and smoke grenades? If I recall correctly, it was noticed by Allies that some Panther crews were bailout because of inside unbearable air after hits with that type of ammo.
US tankers also were instructed to fire smoke grenades on enemy tanks, probably to blind them at least.
Interesting vid!!!
Thanks for the info. It might come in useful
Is it just 'wait until they break down'?
@
Military History Visualized
Ich mag deinen informativen, tief gehenden Content . Kannst du Mal ein Video zu folgenden, eher unbekannten, aber bemerkenswerten Themen machen?
Die größte militärische Niederlage einer deutschen Armee in der Geschichte:
-Operation Bagration, und der Zusammenbruch der Heeresgruppe Mitte 1944
Der einzige , gelungene "wandernde Kessel" der Militärgeschichte:
-Kesselschlacht von Kamenez-Podolski
25. März 1944 - 15. Apr. 1944
Bagration ist seit 2017 oder 2016 geplant, kam noch nicht dazu.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Sauber. Das Thema ist sicher ein Video wert. Immerhin war es wie gesagt die größte Niederlage der deutschen Militär-Geschichte mit enormen Verlusten (im letzten Kriegsjahr starben mehr deutsche Soldaten als alle Kriegsjahre zuvor). Interessant sind auch die Erfahrungberichte der sogenannten "Rückkämpfer", im Feindesland zurück gebliebene Landser , die sich nach dem Überrennen der deutschen Front durch die Rote Armee und deren anschließenden vorwärts-drängen eigenständig den Weg zu den eigenen Linien zurück bahnen mussten.
Nach der Operation Bagration stand die Rote Armee praktisch vor der Haustür des Deutschen Reiches.
Auch im Gesamtkontex des Krieges ist es interessant , da kurze Zeit später an der Westfront die Amerikaner aufs europäische Festland gingen. MfG
Another scientifically researched video. Ausgezeichnet! FYI: "louvre" is pronounced "louver" in EN, unless you mean the museum in Paris, in which case "louvre" is pronounced as you spoke it.
I am guessing the pamphlet for the ISU-152 just had a 2000m circle with the directions to "shoot the circle and all will die"...
Nah, that was the ISU-100.
Re the air burst HE just above the decks or the turret roof, the Allies may have been considering prox fused ammo. It also seems to me that if:
a. the armor of turret and deck is the same; and
b. a 25 pounder exploding above the turret cracked the armor;
then
c. a 25 pounder aimed at the turret front would be a worthwhile shot. If the shell exploded against the mantlet it would be only a few inches above the deck over the driver and radio operator.
Finnaly a guide how to kill panther tank in the new Post Scriptum patch
sorry aber wurden die panzerplatten für die lüftung nicht hauptsächlich wegen den steigenden ausfällen durch flieger bzw tiefflieger angriffe nachgerüstet ???
geht nicht klar hervor, Jentz schreibt wegen beiden. Hast du eine weitere Quelle?
Even though i don't have tanks, but this is kinda helpful
If WarThunder has taught me anything about this (Especially from attempting to use one) when the tanks actually work; from the front aim for the Gun Mantlet or possibly the lower glacis plate and avoid the upper glacis at all costs!
Unless you have a Super Pershing at bare minimum or a potent HEAT round you ain't getting through that sloped 80mm plate. The side hull armor is however paper thin by comparison and the ammo racks litter this area; a hit here might cause a K-kill with the whole tank exploding in a fireball.
seems to be mostly consistent with what I read so far.
Or just use IS-2 and the Panther has a severely reduced life expectancy.
The Challenger, Comet, and centurion's APDS can pen the front in WT
In WT the Panther turret is not accurate modeled , the turret has still a plate behind the mantlet . There's only the 100mm mantlet and thats it , maybe a balanced weak spot .
Really only fear the panther if I'm facing head on and close. I generally use smaller faster tanks so sneaking around to find myself 500m away from the side of a panther happens regularly.
3:10 It must be noted that the T-34 is a T-34/85, with the gun on par with the 17 pdr.
The 85mm is in fact better in every single way except pure armor penetration. And the T34 85 is a better tank. The Firefly was really cramped inside the turret too.
> 3:10 It must be noted that the T-34 is a T-34/85, with the gun on par with the 17 pdr.
no, that was for the T-34/76 as clearly stated.
17 pdr has higher penetration ability than D-5T, D-5S, ZIS S-53. It`s rather slightly better than American 76-mm M1 / M5.
I'm reading "Spearhead" about the US 3rd Armored Division in WW2. Interestingly, they used an M7 Priest mobile howitzer in the direct fire role to disable the Panther which forced the crew to abandon it. An artillery barrage took care of the German infantry and dismounted tank crews. 40 Shermans vs. 12 Panthers. 2 Shermans lost, 6 Panthers. A .50 cal air attack by P-47s did nothing to the Panther company, though. 🙁
Is it possible that defective armor plating could skew results of an Allied or Soviet shell’s being fired on a tank. The risk of sabotage in the armor plate in plants using slaves, POW’s, Concentration camp inmates or other otherwise problematic labor has to be considered. If only one defective plate is hit by any type of shell it will inflict more damage upon than it would have had the plate been up to specifications. And, since the Soviets had slave or convict labor working on armor production, they may have been firing shells at an enemy tank just on the likelihood of hitting a defective plate.
yes, there are more aspects than slave labor as well, e.g., late-war the Germans had lost access to certain ores, which had a severe impact on quality from what I know. Likely there were also changes in production methods as well, etc.
Even if you use good skilled people Germany was running out of critical materials to make alloys so armor, parts etc were not as good.
Not only that , due to the shortage of manpower. A lot of people working in factories etc were old people, women, boys etc who probably were not highly trained with years of experience with welding and stuff
Then as already pointed out, you have untrained and very unhappy slave workers who probably tried to sabotage stuff or at the least did a minimum effort.
how to kill a panther: cough on it slightly and it'll burst into flames
Targets on tank are assigned as best, such as the Cupola on the German tanks hard to hit but a good place to hit.
The thing with the rounded Panther mantlet is that even if the shot doesn't bounce down, the mantlet simply wasn't thick enough so any hit that's straight on, not at a large angle, is going to get through provided the gun has a penetration of ~130mm or so.
Supposing that the ballistic modelling in War Thunder is okay.
A Panther hull with a Tiger turret would be far more formidable.
Would?That is basically what the Tiger 2 H is.
Super. Now I know what to do when I'm assaulted by panthers.
"And if gun don't work. Use more gun"
Nice video
9:00, another weak point was the area of the Panther's turret under the gun mantlet. I read in Craig Moore's book that both US 76 mm and 3 inch guns and British 17 pounders could punch through that armor from at least 1200 yards (1000 meters) based on various tests. Combined with the fact that the Allies had no shortage of well trained and experienced crews and that 76 mm and 17 pounders had enough accuracy to have a good chance at nailing them at the aforementioned range (as shown in the Chieftain's video: th-cam.com/video/kM74wlQongo/w-d-xo.html), this gives Allied tankers another good shot at dealing with the cats.
And then there's the hot ammo: HVAP and APDS. As also seen in Mr. Moore's book, Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt, and a document from the Chieftain's Hatch, 76 mm and 3 inch HVAP rounds could pierce the front turret and gun mantlet armor ranging from 800-2500 yards (700-2200 meters) and at 200 yards (100 meters) had a 25% chance of piercing the upper front hull of the Panther. 17 Pounder APDS was even better as it could penetrate the upper front hull armor at 1150-1500 yards (1000-1300 meters), albeit with greatly decreased accuracy. And we haven't even gotten into the US 90 mm, with T33 AP (IT WILL PENETRATE THE GLACIS PLATE OF THE "PANTHER" TANK UP TO 1,100 YARDS RANGE.), M82 APC (PENETRATIONS CAN BE OBTAINED ON ALL PLATES OF THE "PANTHER" AND "KING TIGER" TANKS EXCEPT FOR THE GLACIS PLATE AND THE GUN MANTLET), and T30E16 HVAP ( IT WILL DEFEAT THE GLACIS PLATE OF THE "PANTHER" AT RANGES UP TO 450 YARDS AND OF THE "KING TIGER" AT 100 YARDS RANGE. UP TO RANGES OF 800 YARDS THE SHOT WILL PENETRATE THE GUN MANTLET AND TURRET FRONT OF BOTH THE "PANTHER" AND "KING TIGER" TANKS.): www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/index.html
the reality is that it's the initial engagement range which determined how dangerous the Panther and Tiger were. They had powerful guns that could penetrate the allied tanks long before the allies could get within range of successfully killing the german tanks. A 76mm Sherman or a 85mm equipped T-34 could easily penetrate those German vehicles provided they were close enough (probably about 500 meters ) the problem was of course getting that close lol
The thing is not all tank fights were long range frontal engagements that favoured german heavy tanks, no were tanks the only way of disabling german heavy tanks. Nor did you had to penetrate a tank from the front at long range with another tank ( which was the only strenght of german cats ). And lets not forget just how rare big cats were, how tank on tank engagements were also rare. Tank fights did not happen how people imagine : 2 lines of tanks sniping at one another at long range on an open plane without any other supporting arms also engaging...So the situations were big cats could truly shine were rare ( if they managed to get to the fight without braking down first ) and even then they were ways around it. Oh and you had tanks like IS2's ISU152's, SU100, M36, Pershings, Fireflies. 76mm Shermans... that could and did knocked out big cats frontally. So yeah...
Bravery will only get you so far.
@@Vlad_-_-_ You forget that Germany fought the Allies in the open featureless desert in North Africa and fought the Soviets in the open featureless tundra in the Soviet Union. MHV explained in his video about the Hetzer [1] that enemy tanks remained stationary on long ranges thus having long range capabilities is preferable. Deutsches Panzermuseum Director Ralf Raths said in an interview [2] that the Panther did well in the Eastern front if they respected it's limitation.
Neither the IS 2 and the ISU-152 are designed to destroy tanks, the Pershing, Firefly, Sherman 76 were designed specifically to counter the Panther, so obviously they did work.
[1] th-cam.com/video/LyVyFGLX1TY/w-d-xo.html
[2] th-cam.com/video/Jw_gutZZXnc/w-d-xo.html
They could deploy smoke artillery or shoot smok rounds. Also you dont need to penetrate at all, simply hitting the tank at 15-10° can make the armour crack or creat some spalling
@@musicmaster417
>fought the Soviets in the open featureless tundra in the Soviet Union
...and these goddamned Santa`s reindeers were everywhere! :D
Obviously you talking about steppe and it occupies only a third of front length, so you should not overestimate it.
Simple clear and effective diagrams. Were the overhead bursts conducted using VT shells? If these were available that certainly could have been very dangerous to any WW2 tank. Otherwise getting that spot on with a single HE shell with a conventional time fuse does not seem a very good strategy.
Proximity fuses weren't use in Europe out of fears that the Germans would find duds and copy the design.
@@billwilson3609 Except they were, at least in Winter 1944. The US Army heavily used them during the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge during the Battle of the Bulge.
@@AldanFerrox That's right. I forgot about that. Ike had to get permission from Washington D.C. to use those in land based artillery. The Army already was using the proximity fuse in their 90mm AA guns to shoot down V-1's approaching Britain and Antwerp. Odd fact is that the Germans were working on one in 1938 and Hitler cancelled further research due to costing too much.
@@billwilson3609 Well, it was not just one design, though. It was between 30 and 50. And they tested many possible variants. Radio frequency, magnetic capacitance, acoustic fuses triggered by engine sounds, electrostatic fuses etc. But did Hitler really personally cancel the project?
@@billwilson3609 Yep, just like we didnt use them on land in the pacific. The history of shrapnel shells though is just not very indicative of being able to pull off that kind of thing. There is a tale of a group of technicians that were on the range when a shrapnel shell was fired who were peppered by the balls without injury, the shells were rarely used by WW2. Might be interesting to use now days when we could pretty much guarantee that the shell would explode at the correct distance.
what about the poor steel and alloy quality especially at the end of the war which made the armor and tanks worse then they should be!? also the penetrators with the lack of tungsten. no matter if panther, tiger or any other German tank!?
can you do a video about spoons.
Are you a follower of Angus Wallace's WW2 podcast? This exact topic was covered very recently.
No, I generally don’t listen to historical podcasts or videos. I prefer books.
Read a book during lockdown on the Allied bombing campaign, it mentioned that one of the results of the Schweinfurt ball bearing factory raids was that cupolas weren't able to repaired/replaced as readily, which led to an increase in wounded/dead commanders, and a subsequent drop-off in crew experience and efficiency.
Wonder if that was partly to blame for the Panther crews making tactical mistakes withdrawing?
Book probably had sources, but that was a while ago and it's moved on now.