Imagine if the Germans had Panthers of this quality of components and construction

It ok what you want to believe

Juha3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

that is why the copied and evolved it

Juha3 said:

US Army's Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) study in 1946,

Click to expand...

Like to see that.

Juha3 said:

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

Click to expand...

Care to mention the odds against German armoured forces? Not only terrain ( yes it works both ways) but also a thing called complete aerial superiority. Remember those funny vids with Germans looking up in stead of in front of them? Or the biggie shells coming of naval guns?

Juha3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yet the did put it in offensive operations And what is thin ? compared to what? IS2 or T34/76?

No, the panther was more then a decent tank

For how the French thoughta about armour and why the the really did not need a medium tank like Panther:



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K95T5d_xrk
have fun watching !

Snautzer01 said:

Like to see that.

Click to expand...

I also, I have seen only some quotes from it. But e.g. in the Lorraine in Sept 1944 Panthers did not shine against M4s and TDs.

Care to mention the odds against German armoured forces? Not only terrain ( yes it works both ways) but also a thing called complete aerial superiority. Remember those funny vids with Germans looking up in stead of in front of them? Or the biggie shells coming of naval guns?

Click to expand...

In fact from battlefield studies of the panzern wrecks it is clear that a/c did not wreck many of them, their main contribution was creating supply problems and hindering daytime movements. And even after the combat moved beyond the range of naval guns the balance did not chance much. Allied arty had its impact but after all that was the name of the game. Effective fighting is done with good co-operation between different combat arms.

Snautzer01 said:

Yet the did put it in offensive operations And what is thin ? compared to what? IS2 or T34/76?

Click to expand...

It was thin for a 44 tonnes tank, being practically the same than that of 26.5 tonnes T-34 and only half of that on 46 tonnes IS-2

It is said also in the video that French wanted also a MBT, AMX 50, but US killed it by refusing to fund its development and production. Maybe the story was a bit more complex but the fact is that the French wanted a light tank for colonies and a MBT for Europe, they definitely did not think to fight against T34-85s and T-54s and IS-3s with AMX 13 but much heavier and much more powerful AMX 50

One addition, French built 60 50 tonnes ARL 44 tanks 1949-51. It looked like a cross between a Char B1 and a Tiger II, the weight was also in the middle of theirs. It was not a success, especially the Char B1 type tracks seem to be outdated products. The suspension also was borrowed from the design of Char B1.

If your keen follow their channel as each week they put up a new workshop video..
Workshop Wednesdays