Best/favorite WW2 medium tank

[Kurfürst]

It basically cost 2.5 times as much to produce a panther as it does a Sherman (of any description).

Given the Sherman cost roughly about 40 000 USD, the Panther in the rangeo of 160 000 RM IIRC, with the conversion ratio being something like 1USD/4RM, actually their final price was rather similiar - at least roughly, given that we cannot be sure what is included in the price, details etc.

 

[parsifal]

Given the Sherman cost roughly about 40 000 USD, the Panther in the rangeo of 160 000 RM IIRC, with the conversion ratio being something like 1USD/4RM, actually their final price was rather similiar - at least roughly, given that we cannot be sure what is included in the price, details etc.

No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000. Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1. This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.

At RM 3.05 for each dollar, the actual cost of a Panther, in USD is $62951 per unit, or 1.85 times the price of a Sherman. So, it appears that the Sherman was more than I had first assumed, but still a lot less than the panther tank.

However, it does make the Mk IV look a little more competitive. At RM 142000 (with armament and radio fitted), the dollar value of the Mk IV comes in at about US $ 46557, making it somewhat closer to the value of a Sherman.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware

 

[drgondog]

No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000. Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1. This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.

At RM 3.05 for each dollar, the actual cost of a Panther, in USD is $62951 per unit, or 1.85 times the price of a Sherman. So, it appears that the Sherman was more than I had first assumed, but still a lot less than the panther tank.

More difficult to c ompare once you start into discussion of Infantry support role where many M4s and T-34s made a huge difference when the 88's and Tiger/Panthers could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers

However, it does make the Mk IV look a little more competitive. At RM 142000 (with armament and radio fitted), the dollar value of the Mk IV comes in at about US $ 46557, making it somewhat closer to the value of a Sherman.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware

3;1 in contrast to cost of M-4 tanks/crews killed by Tigers seems cheap. I have no idea what the actual ratios were of Panther/Tiger kill ratios were but suspect that the M4 and all other Allied tanks performed miserably against the two German tanks,

One could just look to modern day effectiveness of F-15 to evrything else it has fought as a comparison ----> higher cost but much higher value in both crew expense (training) and airframe.

Maybe a different story when considering T-34 and M-4 in Infantry support where agility and speed and quantity were very important.

 

[parsifal]

3;1 in contrast to cost of M-4 tanks/crews killed by Tigers seems cheap. I have no idea what the actual ratios were of Panther/Tiger kill ratios were but suspect that the M4 and all other Allied tanks performed miserably against the two German tanks,

One could just look to modern day effectiveness of F-15 to evrything else it has fought as a comparison ----> higher cost but much higher value in both crew expense (training) and airframe.

Maybe a different story when considering T-34 and M-4 in Infantry support where agility and speed and quantity were very important.

In fact, in 1943-5, the Germans achieved a kill:loss ratio of 2.37:1 against their enemies. The Tiger equipped units achieved an impressive 5.74:1 kill ratio against the allies. I dont the specific breakdowns past that point

 

[Kurfürst]

No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000.

Spielberger`s definitieve book on the Panther gives the following prices (via Heereswaffenamt WuG 6):

Pz V Panther: 117 100 RM
7.5cm KwK 42 12 000 RM
HL 230 engine: 11 000 RM
AK 7-200 gearbox: 3500 RM
MG 34 : 312 RM

That works out roughly as 145 000 RM, complete with gunetc.

Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1.

Groehler. It may not be 100% accurate, but then again, we don`t know either what the Sherman prices include, wheter it is for the initial batch or later batches that would be obviously cheaper etc. I don`t buy that it was cheaper than the Pz IV, which was a very simple tank design with no fancy things on it, also much smaller.

I am not sure why Overy would be such an authority on WW2 economy - though I haven`t seen much from him in this subject - but he seems to an expert of all fields at the same time, writing numerous books on wildly different aspects of WW2, which makes me wonder how would that be possible for a mere human.

In any case, 145 000 RM figure Spielberger gives (you should really see that book.. its simply Teutonic thoroughness in its sickest form) it works out at roughly 47 500 USD a piece (or 36000, practically the same amount as a the figure claimed for the Sherman tank).

Considering the Panther was produced in a lesser production run (=> higher unit costs for the whole project) than the Sherman, and the uncertainity about the Sherman figures, I would say there was no particularly great difference in costs - and slightly higher costs were more than justified by the Panthers superior capabilities IMHO.

This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.

I don`t think this matters a lot to our current discussion IMHO - MAN had to pay the electric bill at the end of the month, its workers, and Krupp for the armored plates delivered; just like Chrysler, and also make some profit on it.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware

The Tiger saw only limited orders and limited production. Unit cost of any product that is produced in small series is going to be higher, regardless of what that product is, a Sherman, a Tiger or a hair-dryer.

In practice however a Tiger costed nowhere near 3 Shermans - what would actually matter in wartime conditions were the raw material needs to produce a single tank, and the time needed on actually producing it from these materials (ie. work hours needed to complete a single unit). In the field, 3 Shermans definietely needed at least twice the support and suplies (ie. 3 times the crews needed to be trained, two to three times the fuel consumed etc.).

It was also not a viable or sensible strategy for the Germans to try to match the sheer output of their enemies - a phyisical impossibilty - but to try to counter higher numbers with higher quality weapons. In an example if the Germans would simply copy the Sherman, they would be still vastly outproduced by the US.

Its an old numbers vs quality thing. NATO played that game against the WP in the cold war. NATO tried for superior quality (altough it did not achieve it IMHO until the Leo2/M1/Challanger came to the scene IMHO).

 

[DBII]

Magnocain, I like the M3 also but because it was a throw back to WWI when everyone wanted tanks to be the battleships of ground warefare. The multiple guns did not work for the reasons listed above.

DBII

 

[tomo pauk]

It's a race between M4 and T-34.
Panther weights 45+ tons, more then M-26 heavy tank.

 

[dennis420b]

Ok i said Panther, but only if its going to be my personal mount. If i am procuring them for an army? T-34.

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

Panther is a medium tank!!!?

It had the technical specifications of a heavy tank (heavier than the M26 Pershing and the JS-2 and a high velocity 75-mm. gun more powerful than the Tiger I's 88-mm.), but it was issued to the panzer divisions like a medium tank. (Tiger tanks were placed in independent companies that supplemented panzer division firepower, but Panthers made up an entire battalion of a panzer division, while the Panzerkampfwagen IV made up the other battalion.)