Admiral Beez
Major
A Panther with a reliable gearbox and engine along with long wearing suspension and tracks.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeWV-9s7az8
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeWV-9s7az8
Last edited:
Imagine if the Germans had Panthers of this quality of components and construction
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Definitely an interesting thought and what if, but I doubt it have made much of a difference because they would have been outproduced. The German's could not produce the Panther, Tiger, or King Tiger in enough numbers to be too much of a factor. It was a war of attrition and they took up huge amounts of resources.
- Thread starter
- #3
Admiral Beez
Major
True. But it must have benefited the Soviets that so many of the Panthers and Tigers they encountered had broken down.
IIRC the French who were using Panthers after the war weren't particularly impressed, and actually preferred the Sherman. The gun was good, yes, but apparently the ergonomics were terrible, so except for long range sniping they thought the Sherman was the superior tank.
But sure, throw in a reliable diesel engine, fix the transmission and final drive issues, lose the interleaved road wheels, and the worst of the ergonomics issues, and the Panther would have been a lot more formidable than it already was.
Oh yes, and produce it in numbers instead of all these Tigers, Elefants, and whatnot. Not that it would have changed the end result in any appreciable way, but still.
Oh yes, and produce it in numbers instead of all these Tigers, Elefants, and whatnot. Not that it would have changed the end result in any appreciable way, but still.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,972
- Mar 26, 2007
Love to see a source of that. So against many books etc
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,972
- Mar 26, 2007
They did. Germany could not out produce so went for excellence. The did not have time to field test for years. There were problems but solved them. Except building enough.
Possibly not, if you are not fighting an actual war something very reliable is attractive. Even if you are fighting a war, tanks that take themselves out of the fight arent much use. With less than 2,000 Tiger I and IIs made and around 6,000 Panthers there is no way quality could overcome quantity. There were 10s of thousands of T-34s and Shermans made plus many other types.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,972
- Mar 26, 2007
not the point op made.
I thought it was, the French werent fighting a war with it. After Kursk the Germans were in a defensive war, long range sniping from dug in prepared positions is what the Panther and Tiger frequently did.
Probably the source is the french report from 1947 "Le Panther 1947" It has been in the net but the site from which I copied it years ago seems to be now dead. Here is one part of it:
"The turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more than 20 degrees. The Panther is therefore not capable of firing when driving cross-country.
Combat reports from WW2 indicated that Sherman tanks often were able to obtain the first shot in combat with Panther tanks. This limitation in turret action may well be one of the contributing factors.
Elevating the gun is normally simple, but made difficult if the stabilizer operated by compressed nitrogen has lost pressure.
Here the French are describing a pneumatic elevation assist to help hold the great weight of the KwK 42 gun. The gun had no "stabilizer" in the sense of the gyro-stabilization unit of the Sherman tank.
The commander's cupola with its 7 periscopes provides a nearly perfect all -round visibility. Periscopes damaged by shells can be replaced very quickly.
A scissors periscope with large magnification power was affixed to a bracket in the commander's cupola.
Later model Sherman tanks also had commanders' cupolas with 360-degree visibility. But this feature did not appear commonly in US tanks until 1944 production. Several allied reports give high credit to the visibility of German tank cupolas from as early as 1940.
Aside from his periscope gun sight ( which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind, one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther.
The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3000 meters.
Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner.
The French have identified a key aspect that is missing from American comparisons and criticisms of the gunsights in Sherman tanks as compared to Panther (and other German) tanks. Yes the German optics were good. Clarity was excellent, and ranging reticles were more effective. Yet it was observed in combat reports that US gunners were able to find and get their sights on target faster."
There are excerpts from it in Spielberger's Panther and its Variants on pp. 160-1
wrathofatlantis
Airman
- 39
- Oct 2, 2023
The complaint about not turning or holding the turret on an incline "over 20 degrees" is really getting borderline for a tank of this size and vintage... This is like half a 45 degree slope. This is looking for a way to fail it, rather than any kind of proper use of a tank.
The reason for the overhanging weight being an impediment could only be from the gun barrel overhang, which means the crew would have to put the tank on a huge lateral slope while perpendicular to the gun... No crews with any sense would put the tank into such a position... Would you rather have a better gun, or a gun that pirouettes sideways pointing at the sky?
Because of its regenerative steering, the Panther was one of the few tanks that could actually turn into a lateral slope and climb it. Many smaller tanks, including Stug IIIs with their 11:1 kill ratios, would fail to turn sideways into an uphill. Unlike the Tigers, the Panther steering was coupled to the transmission itself, so unfortunately one gear equalled only one single turn radius, and this did mean the third gear and the reverse gears were often worn out... This was probably a limitation of reducing production tooling wear by using square cut gearing: It was an intentional production compromise.
"The Panther is therefore not capable of firing when driving cross-country."
This is just laughable. Because of its suspension, German tests found the Panther was practically the only tank of WWII that could fire accurately while moving... I fact, those German tests found the Panther was something like 90% more accurate than even the Tiger I itself, while moving on moderately rough ground... It was one of the major advantages of the Panther, and it was widely used in combat: In a typical encounter with a mixed group of Tigers and Panthers, the Tigers would remain static in the center, while the Panthers would maneuver to attack from the sides.
"The gun had no "stabilizer" in the sense of the gyro-stabilization unit of the Sherman tank."
The Sherman could still not fire accurately while moving, at least not on a level with the Panther.
The lack of periscope for the gunner would seem to be a serious issue, but not mentioned is that the field of view of German gunsights in the Tiger IIs was 25 degrees at 2.5X or 14 degrees at 5X, with the Panther D stuck at 2.5X /28 degrees, and the Panzer IV 2.5X /25 degrees.
The Typical Sherman sight was 3X at 12 degrees, and A1s and A2 76 mm were 5X at a similar 12 degrees.
I cannot say how important was the lack of periscope for the gunner, and how this interacted with a wider gunner field of view, but the Germans had a fair amount of time to refine what they though mattered more. I'll quote this poster:
"This would need evidence to show it helped significantly that the gunner had a periscope. I know that the Sherman gunners had a periscope with a much wider FOV, but I also don't see any evidence that this elevated their chances to acquire a target faster. German tank designers certainly knew about this possibility but opted against it. The German system of commander acquiring target and then guiding the gunner seemed to have worked fine.
I know the following evidence is rather weak and circumstantial but the overall outcome of armored battles does not in the slightest suggest the Western Allies were acquiring targets faster, quite the opposite."
"German gun sights also had an implemented stadiametric rangefinding, which allowed German tankers to range the enemy target without a ranging shot, which made it possible to get first shot kills. Being able to kill the enemy tank without wasting time on ranging is a significant advantage in combat."
In the video linked above it is stated 2:13: "The final drives on the Panther were a weakness." This is certainly true.
2;20 "The materials they were made from was an issue." This contradicts a spectrographic analysis made by the Saumur tank museum, in 2013, of a 1945 gear from their running Panther G's final drive: The lab's conclusion? Allowing for the design limitations, the part could not be made better today...
This certainly puts into perspective the claims of lowered quality output on parts... They did cut corners, but mostly where it did not matter.
The same argument of lowered quality is then applied to the German armour itself, pointing out missing alloys as examples of declining quality. But then a September 1944 British test of a late Tiger I shows significant improvements in heat-treatment that allowed 80% penetration with the last 20% holding out. Rear face cracking and spalling of German armour is often invoked as examples of declining and brittle German armour, when in fact German armour was optimized for the first shot by being rear-face hardened, at the deliberate cost of making it weaker for subsequent hits... The reality was that heat treatment of steel mattered far more than its alloy composition.
Let's just say there is a widespread pattern of seizing upon misleading data to suggest the German tanks were inferior... Far more relevant data would be to consider that Nazi Germany fuel production was 2% of the US output...
The reason for the overhanging weight being an impediment could only be from the gun barrel overhang, which means the crew would have to put the tank on a huge lateral slope while perpendicular to the gun... No crews with any sense would put the tank into such a position... Would you rather have a better gun, or a gun that pirouettes sideways pointing at the sky?
Because of its regenerative steering, the Panther was one of the few tanks that could actually turn into a lateral slope and climb it. Many smaller tanks, including Stug IIIs with their 11:1 kill ratios, would fail to turn sideways into an uphill. Unlike the Tigers, the Panther steering was coupled to the transmission itself, so unfortunately one gear equalled only one single turn radius, and this did mean the third gear and the reverse gears were often worn out... This was probably a limitation of reducing production tooling wear by using square cut gearing: It was an intentional production compromise.
"The Panther is therefore not capable of firing when driving cross-country."
This is just laughable. Because of its suspension, German tests found the Panther was practically the only tank of WWII that could fire accurately while moving... I fact, those German tests found the Panther was something like 90% more accurate than even the Tiger I itself, while moving on moderately rough ground... It was one of the major advantages of the Panther, and it was widely used in combat: In a typical encounter with a mixed group of Tigers and Panthers, the Tigers would remain static in the center, while the Panthers would maneuver to attack from the sides.
"The gun had no "stabilizer" in the sense of the gyro-stabilization unit of the Sherman tank."
The Sherman could still not fire accurately while moving, at least not on a level with the Panther.
The lack of periscope for the gunner would seem to be a serious issue, but not mentioned is that the field of view of German gunsights in the Tiger IIs was 25 degrees at 2.5X or 14 degrees at 5X, with the Panther D stuck at 2.5X /28 degrees, and the Panzer IV 2.5X /25 degrees.
The Typical Sherman sight was 3X at 12 degrees, and A1s and A2 76 mm were 5X at a similar 12 degrees.
I cannot say how important was the lack of periscope for the gunner, and how this interacted with a wider gunner field of view, but the Germans had a fair amount of time to refine what they though mattered more. I'll quote this poster:
"This would need evidence to show it helped significantly that the gunner had a periscope. I know that the Sherman gunners had a periscope with a much wider FOV, but I also don't see any evidence that this elevated their chances to acquire a target faster. German tank designers certainly knew about this possibility but opted against it. The German system of commander acquiring target and then guiding the gunner seemed to have worked fine.
I know the following evidence is rather weak and circumstantial but the overall outcome of armored battles does not in the slightest suggest the Western Allies were acquiring targets faster, quite the opposite."
"German gun sights also had an implemented stadiametric rangefinding, which allowed German tankers to range the enemy target without a ranging shot, which made it possible to get first shot kills. Being able to kill the enemy tank without wasting time on ranging is a significant advantage in combat."
In the video linked above it is stated 2:13: "The final drives on the Panther were a weakness." This is certainly true.
2;20 "The materials they were made from was an issue." This contradicts a spectrographic analysis made by the Saumur tank museum, in 2013, of a 1945 gear from their running Panther G's final drive: The lab's conclusion? Allowing for the design limitations, the part could not be made better today...
This certainly puts into perspective the claims of lowered quality output on parts... They did cut corners, but mostly where it did not matter.
The same argument of lowered quality is then applied to the German armour itself, pointing out missing alloys as examples of declining quality. But then a September 1944 British test of a late Tiger I shows significant improvements in heat-treatment that allowed 80% penetration with the last 20% holding out. Rear face cracking and spalling of German armour is often invoked as examples of declining and brittle German armour, when in fact German armour was optimized for the first shot by being rear-face hardened, at the deliberate cost of making it weaker for subsequent hits... The reality was that heat treatment of steel mattered far more than its alloy composition.
Let's just say there is a widespread pattern of seizing upon misleading data to suggest the German tanks were inferior... Far more relevant data would be to consider that Nazi Germany fuel production was 2% of the US output...
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,972
- Mar 26, 2007
About that article. Look at the year. It the same story as with the NC900. But worse
The French Panther Tanks were used by the French Army for a limited evaluation period and were never regarded as a serving combat ready unit. They had 2 squadrons.
The german gun was better at range and there is were is would pick a fight. In same strength battle (wich was almost never and always in disadventage for the poor germans) it would be the better tank.
You can not take a french report dating from 1947 regarding german tank or airplane performance very serious. Those frenchies wanted the shiny new stuff and all that reminded them of defeat was a piece of krautsie crap.
But in reality it took a lot of allied tanks to kill a Panther in comperison. Shermans most defenitly included.
Here a Panther with in French service with some more information
The French Panther Tanks were used by the French Army for a limited evaluation period and were never regarded as a serving combat ready unit. They had 2 squadrons.
The german gun was better at range and there is were is would pick a fight. In same strength battle (wich was almost never and always in disadventage for the poor germans) it would be the better tank.
You can not take a french report dating from 1947 regarding german tank or airplane performance very serious. Those frenchies wanted the shiny new stuff and all that reminded them of defeat was a piece of krautsie crap.
But in reality it took a lot of allied tanks to kill a Panther in comperison. Shermans most defenitly included.
Here a Panther with in French service with some more information
Here is more on the French report:
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,972
- Mar 26, 2007
The gun was so bad the French copied it to make a 75 mm DEFA gun which armed their AMX-13 and their EBR 75 armoured car. Typical French.
The Panther was a good battle tank generally superior to Shermans and T-34. Even Pershing and T-44 albeit at range. It could take out a Stalin tank at 1000m using Pz.PGR. 40/42 ( this ammo had supply difficulties ( LT. Berger Gross Deutschland ) Further development was on its way to keep this advantage over other allied tanks.
War time fuel use wasn't good. Did not help that the fuel was coal based fuel +/_ 10% less effective.
Thats a reason i think it was not sent to indo china. The French could not get enough fuel to the Panther to keep it running so went a step back with the Prius of tanks The Sherman.
Of course the other tanks they used over there were far superior then the Panther. Wouldnt you choose a Type 95 Light Tank (Ha-Go) over that piece of Bosch shit? But that does not even matter . The French never had plans to use their Panter for any else that a bit of rolling around.
To quote myself:
And what Americans said about it:
Schiffer Military History Germany's Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy pg 154-156 Jentz / Doyle
The Soviets had even a manual for it made in 1944. So i do not think they regarded it as bad or mediocre
So no. i do not think that 1947 report gives a fair or even reasonable description of the Panther. They wanted USA tanks and fast and in the near future their own makes of tanks. They still do.
The Panther was a good battle tank generally superior to Shermans and T-34. Even Pershing and T-44 albeit at range. It could take out a Stalin tank at 1000m using Pz.PGR. 40/42 ( this ammo had supply difficulties ( LT. Berger Gross Deutschland ) Further development was on its way to keep this advantage over other allied tanks.
War time fuel use wasn't good. Did not help that the fuel was coal based fuel +/_ 10% less effective.
Thats a reason i think it was not sent to indo china. The French could not get enough fuel to the Panther to keep it running so went a step back with the Prius of tanks The Sherman.
Of course the other tanks they used over there were far superior then the Panther. Wouldnt you choose a Type 95 Light Tank (Ha-Go) over that piece of Bosch shit? But that does not even matter . The French never had plans to use their Panter for any else that a bit of rolling around.
To quote myself:
And what Americans said about it:
Schiffer Military History Germany's Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy pg 154-156 Jentz / Doyle
The Soviets had even a manual for it made in 1944. So i do not think they regarded it as bad or mediocre
So no. i do not think that 1947 report gives a fair or even reasonable description of the Panther. They wanted USA tanks and fast and in the near future their own makes of tanks. They still do.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 513
- Apr 23, 2007
The Swedes carried out trials in 1951 comparing a Churchill, a Panther, a Sherman (M4A2 'Firefly' model), and a Swedish Strv m/42. There is a video at
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lkAg6jZR3M but no subtitles. A longer version was at
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/434l4l/tank_crosscountry_capability_sherman_vs_panther/ but alas it has been removed. However, some comments remain including:
• 0:50 - 4:10 - The concept of ground pressure is explained, as is the difference between maximum and average ground pressure.
• 4:10 - 6:00: - The tanks try bogs. The m/42 and Sherman get stuck, whilst the Panther and Churchill have no difficulty.
• 6:00 - 10:43 - Wooded areas and rocky terrain are negotiated next. An Strv m/41 (a Swedish-built Pz 38(t)), a m/42, the Sherman, and the Panther are shown.
• 10:43 - 11:43 - Trench crossing.
• 11:43 - 13:03 - Low walls. The Sherman and m/42 fail to climb a 1 meter high wall, the Panther manages.
• 13:03 - 18:05 - A steep slope. All three tanks climb a 20 degree slope without difficulty, however a 25 degree slope defeats the Sherman. The Panther manages to climb a 40 degree slope.
• 18:05 - 21:14 - Snow. The Sherman gets stuck.
The clear conclusion is that the Panther is better than the Sherman over difficult terrain.
ps. Strv M/42 – Tank and AFV News lists more videos that may be relevant
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lkAg6jZR3M but no subtitles. A longer version was at
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/434l4l/tank_crosscountry_capability_sherman_vs_panther/ but alas it has been removed. However, some comments remain including:
• 0:50 - 4:10 - The concept of ground pressure is explained, as is the difference between maximum and average ground pressure.
• 4:10 - 6:00: - The tanks try bogs. The m/42 and Sherman get stuck, whilst the Panther and Churchill have no difficulty.
• 6:00 - 10:43 - Wooded areas and rocky terrain are negotiated next. An Strv m/41 (a Swedish-built Pz 38(t)), a m/42, the Sherman, and the Panther are shown.
• 10:43 - 11:43 - Trench crossing.
• 11:43 - 13:03 - Low walls. The Sherman and m/42 fail to climb a 1 meter high wall, the Panther manages.
• 13:03 - 18:05 - A steep slope. All three tanks climb a 20 degree slope without difficulty, however a 25 degree slope defeats the Sherman. The Panther manages to climb a 40 degree slope.
• 18:05 - 21:14 - Snow. The Sherman gets stuck.
The clear conclusion is that the Panther is better than the Sherman over difficult terrain.
ps. Strv M/42 – Tank and AFV News lists more videos that may be relevant
Last edited:
Although it is claimed that the report is from 1947, upon further investigation I suspect that this is not the case, perhaps Panther 1947 just means Panthers overhauled by the French. According to a short regimental history review, the 503rd was not re-established after the war until April 1, 1951, so it may be that a sub-unit that had already had Panthers was allocated to it, because according to one source, the 503rd got 17 Panthers in 1949/50. 6th RC had 8 Panthers already in 1945.
The 501st RCC existed throughout the war and beyond. Sometime in the 60's or early 70's I saw a short article in French about the Panthers of the French Army with a picture or two of them, it mentioned that they served in two regiments, the 501st and 503rd. I guess the intention was that each would have received 50 Panther battalions, but it seems to have remained a plan. The 503rd was equipped in 1951 with the new French ARL 44s and Panthers according to the history review.
The 501st RCC existed throughout the war and beyond. Sometime in the 60's or early 70's I saw a short article in French about the Panthers of the French Army with a picture or two of them, it mentioned that they served in two regiments, the 501st and 503rd. I guess the intention was that each would have received 50 Panther battalions, but it seems to have remained a plan. The 503rd was equipped in 1951 with the new French ARL 44s and Panthers according to the history review.
A couple comments, even if 1947 was the year when the report was made, it means that the French had two years of experience on Panthers by then, same that Germans got timewise.
How many Allied tanks were needed to kill a Panther? According to the US Army's Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) study in 1946, which covered every tank vs tank engagement fought by US 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions in 1944. The results ashows that the M4 Sherman, when fighting Panthers, notched a 3.6-1 kill rate in its favor. US Tank destroyers had a kill rate exceeding 10 to 1. Now how accurate the conclusions are I don't know, so I do not claim, that Germans needed 3.6 Panthers to kill a Sherman but maybe the internet literature is not always very reliable source nor even many popular books.
In the "Le Panther 47" report, the French did not criticize the Panther's cannon, but praised its range and sight, which enabled accurate shooting even at long distances. Although, in terms of penetration, it was similar to the 17-pounder, but more accurate at long distances.
Most of the tank battles on the Western Front were platoon or company-level battles, and having longer distance firepower was often not an advantage in battlegrounds with limited field of vision. The Panthers did not seem to have much more success in their counter-attacks in Normandy than the Allies tanks did in their own attacks. All were e.g. vulnerable to infantry A/T weapons. Already in 1943, the Russians wondered about the thin side armor of the Panther and stated that it was not really suitable for offensive operations because of that. Due to the circumstances, the Germans had to use the Panthers in a way that actually suited them best, defensively. Well positioned, they were able to utilize their excellent cannon at longer ranges and more easily keep their excellently protected front towards the enemy.
So the Panther was well suited for the Germans in 1944-45, the Comet for the British in 1945. The Cromwell would also have been a passable tank in 1944 if the Vickers 75mm HV cannon had fit in its turret, as planned. I've never seen a good explanation for how it was possible to suddenly find out that the designed cannon did not fit in the turret where it was intended. Just a sketch level thing.
