Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, the E-10 was a funny little tank. It could play Peak-a-boo from behind cover.

Well it was never built so it’s all speculation.

I know this is probably a very cliche answer but the Panther. IMO it was one of the best designs of the war let down by a shoddy war industry and substandard crew training. It also doesn't help that it is a sexy beast of a machine.

Wyrmalla wrote:
The Israelis were using Shermans to fight modern Soviet tanks, albeit Monkey Models of them (...which damn, I recall one Dakka Dakka user saying those didn't exist. Either you or the other guy Iron Captain ). To this day we still see 50 year old tanks serving and beating their modern counterparts. Israel's the big example for how training and tactics beat technology, i.e the 5-1 loss ratio of Jordanian tanks to Israeli ones at the Valley of Tears (though that particular battle ended where after 3 days of no supply the Israelis were about to be overrun, before they (apparently) threatened to nuke Jordan - that at least being the Jordanian reason for why they had to retreat).

Well, to be fair, those "Ishermans" were upgunned and upgraded. And against the T-62, they took some losses. It was when the T-72s (and in the case of Jordan, later marks of the M48 and the new M60) started entering Arab armouries that the so called "Super Shermans" had to be put to pasture. Even the "monkey" versions of the T-72 were considered superior to the upgraded Shermans and Centurions by the IDF's planners, despite the poor training on the part of Egypt and Syria.

.

.

 Pacific wrote:
If we're talking a lot about real tanks here, think it's a good time to mention the inspiration behind the Rhino, the M113

Yeah I figured that out awhile ago, its just that in the 40k universe, the regular Rhino is pretty... underpowered. I think the Razorback makes more sense.

The Rhino is awesome don't get me wrong. Its just that if you are going to give the best warriors humanity has to offer the best of the best, I am not sure how they got those tin cans.

And I like the M113. Especially the Hammerhead and the one with the Vulcan!

Yeah, the M163 20mm PIVADS. It served past it's prime due to the Sgt. York not panning out. But when I was in the service, it, the towed M167 version, and the Chaparral were what we had for low to mid level air defense in the field. They were fine for Hips and Hinds (and maybe SU-25s). But the PIVADS was lacking against fast movers like the MiG-27 and SU-17. That's why they started carrying Stingers onboard the 163s, to supplement the MIM-72s, which were getting a bit long in the tooth. Fortunately, we got the more modern Avenger in inventory and operational by 1990.

Was the Rhino based on the M113 or the Fv432? I man, the latter's British, so you might think so, but then it's not as famous, so maybe not. The Rhino in Nottingham is an FV432 in a dress, though. Mind you, the diesign of the Rhino is influenced by the fact that it was designed to be symmetrical so it can be made from two copies of two sprues, instead of four unique sprues.

For added fun, originally the Whirlwind retained its transport capacity, since the multi-launcher was a self-contained unit on the roof.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I just noticed the placement of the periscopes on that Stormhammer. They're above the guns. Right, bonus points for not knowing how tanks work - the periscopes are descending through the barrels of the guns, not counting wondering where the feth the crew are supposed to be seated (inside the guns?). Simarly the sponson guns wouldn't be able to move, as their rears would be obstructed by the tracks (and that's assuming that they're entirely remote controlled. If they had gunners then there's even more timey wimey space. Not to mention how anyone even accesses those sponsons in the field, unless you squeeze in between the roadwheels - and I mean literally lay on your stomach judging by their positions).

Ah, tangents. ...But Christ that is a badly designed model.

That one pictured is a conversion, I think. On the other hand, the "periscopes" are probably cameras., so nothing need interfere with the gun barrels. The heavy bolter sponsons look remote-operated, and the bolters will fit in them (although perhaps not the ammo ...). The lascannons? Yeah, probably right, but looking at the model Forge World actually make, that looks a little less impractical - there's just, if you squint a bit, room for the track to possibly run over the sponson compartments.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Was the Rhino based on the M113 or the Fv432? I man, the latter's British, so you might think so, but then it's not as famous, so maybe not. The Rhino in Nottingham is an FV432 in a dress, though. Mind you, the diesign of the Rhino is influenced by the fact that it was designed to be symmetrical so it can be made from two copies of two sprues, instead of four unique sprues.

For added fun, originally the Whirlwind retained its transport capacity, since the multi-launcher was a self-contained unit on the roof.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I just noticed the placement of the periscopes on that Stormhammer. They're above the guns. Right, bonus points for not knowing how tanks work - the periscopes are descending through the barrels of the guns, not counting wondering where the feth the crew are supposed to be seated (inside the guns?). Simarly the sponson guns wouldn't be able to move, as their rears would be obstructed by the tracks (and that's assuming that they're entirely remote controlled. If they had gunners then there's even more timey wimey space. Not to mention how anyone even accesses those sponsons in the field, unless you squeeze in between the roadwheels - and I mean literally lay on your stomach judging by their positions).

Ah, tangents. ...But Christ that is a badly designed model.

That one pictured is a conversion, I think. On the other hand, the "periscopes" are probably cameras., so nothing need interfere with the gun barrels. The heavy bolter sponsons look remote-operated, and the bolters will fit in them (although perhaps not the ammo ...). The lascannons? Yeah, probably right, but looking at the model Forge World actually make, that looks a little less impractical - there's just, if you squint a bit, room for the track to possibly run over the sponson compartments.

Servitors to crew the sponson during n, t need full bodies.

And you can always have a ammo feed built through the Hull say down a axle to hide a power cable away or a gap where the bolter feeds run down. A crew man inside loading belts etx can still maintain in battle. Outside the tank a hatch can be opened especially for deeper repairs.

GW tanks are also in Heroic scale just like the regular figures. So the guns are larger relative to the chassis then they actually would be. So imagine all non-weapon parts getting stretched an extra 20-30% and thats what the actual tank would look like.

The Interbellem era Vickers 6-ton Mark E



It's not just an armored vehicle. for most part of the world. this is THE FIRST combat tank.

And ... a developmental platform. not only itself the first to combine speeds with strenght and firepower. but also many innovations still present in modern tracked AFVs. like roadwheels with solid robber tyre. (permits faster speeds and elongates steel track lifetime. (and yet many to be tossed with the mechanized warfare evolutions... like bogie suspensions which later supplanted by things like T-bar mounted on each individual wheels and attached directly to the hull rather than bogie unit..). Many WW2-era tanks (British early cruiser tanks and some infantry tanks, American tanks in ww2 (anything before 1944. including the famous Grants and Shermans)) are all based on Vickers 6-ton Mark E.

No love for the Frenchie ?


Overall, some great choices in this thread, but I'm surprised to see some very early German pattern.
Very impressed by the Scandinavian turretlless tank !

 Lone Cat wrote:
The Interbellem era Vickers 6-ton Mark E



It's not just an armored vehicle. for most part of the world. this is THE FIRST combat tank.

And ... a developmental platform. not only itself the first to combine speeds with strenght and firepower. but also many innovations still present in modern tracked AFVs. like roadwheels with solid robber tyre. (permits faster speeds and elongates steel track lifetime. (and yet many to be tossed with the mechanized warfare evolutions... like bogie suspensions which later supplanted by things like T-bar mounted on each individual wheels and attached directly to the hull rather than bogie unit..). Many WW2-era tanks (British early cruiser tanks and some infantry tanks, American tanks in ww2 (anything before 1944. including the famous Grants and Shermans)) are all based on Vickers 6-ton Mark E.

T-26 (Vikkers 6 tonn). Was twice lighter and 4 times cheaper than previously developed Soviet own designs. So they decided to cancel and use Vikkers pattern. But at beginning of war it was too obsolete.

 Alpharius wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

omg! That was the worst mini they released for Epic! You are the first I have ever met who liked that thing. You get an award.

Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!

At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too:

M26 Pershing


and it's evolutions.

Pershings are cool. I climbed all around one at Camp Mabry. Up close, it really looks like an American Panther, especially when you look at a Sherman and an M 60 next to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XuQishi wrote:

And finally, the humble M48.

The Bundeswehr was pretty glad when the Leo1 was ready so we could ditch those, mostly because of the stupid fuel consumption. The Leo 1 consumed about 1/10th of the fuel per 100km. 80 Liters of diesel fuel vs over 800 of gasoline.

Also his review of the Panther is somewhat scathing

Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.

Two reasons. The gunner had no real view except the targeting scope making him late to the game in a who shoots first scenario vs. allied tankers (especially M4/Firefly gunners), and that the turret was so low and tight that the loader couldn't do his job. Multiple things but pragmatic things like that,and the placement of the transmissions drive train making it assured that a high percentage would be in the shop, in comparison to US/British tanks due to the length of time just to get clear things to get to it, vs. the US method of just pulling the whole thing off in a couple of hours.

His review of the T34 is not great either...

I'll tell you why I like the T34.

All tanks have tracks which are held together by heavy pins that run across the individual treads, joining one to the next. If the pin falls out the track breaks and the tank is immobilised.

The problem is that these pins work loose during movement, so they have to be clipped into place with a heavy duty split pin, or some kind of nut arrangement, which itself becomes an important maintenance item..

On the T34 they dumped these ideas. Instead the pin is floating and there is a cam on the armour which simply smacks the tread pins back into place as the track runs past.

Soviet engineering at its best!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'll tell you why I like the T34.

All tanks have tracks which are held together by heavy pins that run across the individual treads, joining one to the next. If the pin falls out the track breaks and the tank is immobilised.

The problem is that these pins work loose during movement, so they have to be clipped into place with a heavy duty split pin, or some kind of nut arrangement, which itself becomes an important maintenance item..

On the T34 they dumped these ideas. Instead the pin is floating and there is a cam on the armour which simply smacks the tread pins back into place as the track runs past.

Soviet engineering at its best!

It works just fine if you expect the vehicle to have a service life of about 150-200 miles without being destroyed or major division level overhaul. Note the Soviets kept the idea at least through the T55 series.

The Germans of course were the opposite, overengineering everything and trying a craftsmanship standard like these tanks were going to last ten years. They last only until Frazzled's relatives and 6mm of their best friends hit your tank 1,427 times with concentrated fire. Dosvadonia Comrade!

XuQishi wrote:
Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.

That's a misunderstanding. The Panther was conceived as a counter to the T-34. There was at one stage a plan to just copy the T-34, but I believe that didn't get very far. Instead the Germans made significant changes to the tank they'd been developing to replace the Mk IV (a project they began before the war). To that design they added some elements of the T-34, like the wide tracks and sloping armour (some other elements like the T-34's diesel engine were included but later dropped), but it was its own design, built not as a copy of the T-34 but as a T-34 killer. That's why it ended up about 70% heavier than the T-34 with a really good AT gun.

Thing is, what made the T-34 so good was its ability to exploit a breakthrough in the enemy lines - it could drive about 400km while using good all around armour and good HE round to screw with enemy lines of supply. The Panther had none of those abilities, it had half the range at best (less when you consider mechanical problem), its armour was much more focused at the front (something that's a problem when you're rolling around the enemy's backlines), and it's gun lacked a decent HE round. But the Panther was great at blowing up T-34s (and Shermans, and Churchills etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
It works just fine if you expect the vehicle to have a service life of about 150-200 miles without being destroyed or major division level overhaul. Note the Soviets kept the idea at least through the T55 series.

The Germans of course were the opposite, overengineering everything and trying a craftsmanship standard like these tanks were going to last ten years. They last only until Frazzled's relatives and 6mm of their best friends hit your tank 1,427 times with concentrated fire. Dosvadonia Comrade!

That's exactly what the Soviet philosophy was. Tanks had a life expectancy measured in months, so there's no point building components that'll last years.

The German concept wasn't really like what you said, though. There was a strong level of craftsmanship, but they were also a pushing a lot of this stuff way past its limits. The Panther, for instance, began design as a tank somewhere between 30 to 35 tons, but the need to dominate T-34s meant a gun and armour resulting in a final design of 45 tons. Lots of early reliability issues were due to rushed production, but even by the end of the war the suspension was over-engineered and the main drive was under so much strain you couldn't trust a Panther to go more than about 100km with significant chance of breakdown.

Outside of tanks the Germans actually started becoming more Russian than the Russians. The famous Stg-44, for instance, was built with basically no margin for wear at all. Same logic as the Soviets - no point building a rifle that'll last 12 months when the soldier carrying it and likely the country that built the gun won't last that long.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
[...] the Panther. IMO it was one of the best designs of the war

Yeah... but, it wasn't.

The Panther was a developmental dead end that had no lasting impact on tank design and nothing about it was really revolutionary when it debuted; it was a conventional German design (and when the "mighty" German engineers finally figured out slopped armor was a thing). There were some design cues lifted from them in the first generation of French post-war tanks (mainly due to their use of captured ones immediately following the war and the complete lack of modern armor), but there was a reason it was phased out rather rapidly after the war. There was nothing the Panther did well that tanks from other nations didn't do. Torsion bar suspension? Not unique to German armor. Rear mounted gasoline engine with front mounted transmission? American tanks throughout the war had that as well (along with Italian, Japanese, and others), and the following the war, the shift to the British layout of engine and drive in the rear became standard for all nations, along with diesel engines becoming the norm (something the Soviets did before the war). In terms of firepower, the KwK 42 wasn't revolutionary and the rounds it fired weren't special, unlike the the APDS rounds the British developed for the QF 17-pdr and 6-pdr guns and went on to be the primary kinetic penetrating round used by post war tank guns. Also, it featured the dumb interlocking road wheels that the Germans loved and no one (outside of the French AMX-50, of which only five were built) used post war.

Now, as far as aesthetics go, I'm not much of a fan but there's no accounting for taste.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yeah... but, it wasn't.

The Panther was a developmental dead end that had no lasting impact on tank design and nothing about it was really revolutionary when it debuted; it was a conventional German design (and when the "mighty" German engineers finally figured out slopped armor was a thing). There were some design cues lifted from them in the first generation of French post-war tanks (mainly due to their use of captured ones immediately following the war and the complete lack of modern armor), but there was a reason it was phased out rather rapidly after the war. There was nothing the Panther did well that tanks from other nations didn't do. Torsion bar suspension? Not unique to German armor. Rear mounted gasoline engine with front mounted transmission? American tanks throughout the war had that as well (along with Italian, Japanese, and others), and the following the war, the shift to the British layout of engine and drive in the rear became standard for all nations, along with diesel engines becoming the norm (something the Soviets did before the war). In terms of firepower, the KwK 42 wasn't revolutionary and the rounds it fired weren't special, unlike the the APDS rounds the British developed for the QF 17-pdr and 6-pdr guns and went on to be the primary kinetic penetrating round used by post war tank guns. Also, it featured the dumb interlocking road wheels that the Germans loved and no one (outside of the French AMX-50, of which only five were built) used post war.

I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.

Thing is, no military in peace time ever starts with those design goals 'what if I'm facing two years of slow retreat on two fronts against two opponents with superior troops and material that will slowly, inexorably roll towards my capital'... so I understand why no-one after the war was too interested in building something like the Panther

 sebster wrote:
I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.

You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).

Frazzled wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

omg! That was the worst mini they released for Epic! You are the first I have ever met who liked that thing. You get an award.

Asks for opinions on a topic, then derides and insults based on other's...opinions.

Well done!

At the risk of a repeat performance, I'm a fan of this tank too:

M26 Pershing


and it's evolutions.

Pershings are cool. I climbed all around one at Camp Mabry. Up close, it really looks like an American Panther, especially when you look at a Sherman and an M 60 next to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XuQishi wrote:

And finally, the humble M48.

The Bundeswehr was pretty glad when the Leo1 was ready so we could ditch those, mostly because of the stupid fuel consumption. The Leo 1 consumed about 1/10th of the fuel per 100km. 80 Liters of diesel fuel vs over 800 of gasoline.

Also his review of the Panther is somewhat scathing

Haven't watched it, but since the Panther was basically a copy of the T-34, there's really no reason for it to have been particularly good.

Two reasons. The gunner had no real view except the targeting scope making him late to the game in a who shoots first scenario vs. allied tankers (especially M4/Firefly gunners), and that the turret was so low and tight that the loader couldn't do his job. Multiple things but pragmatic things like that,and the placement of the transmissions drive train making it assured that a high percentage would be in the shop, in comparison to US/British tanks due to the length of time just to get clear things to get to it, vs. the US method of just pulling the whole thing off in a couple of hours.

His review of the T34 is not great either...

Which wasn't a major issue, considering that most Sherman variants couldn't breach the frontal glacis of a Panther at normal engagement ranges. Even the much vaunted 76mm armed variants, "Jumbo" Shermans, and Easy Eights. The Firefly was deadly to the German big cats, especially the Panthers. But it was a glass cannon with it's own set of issues, and was used because it was the only thing available at the time that could kill Panthers and Tigers at engagement ranges, and didn't require numbers to win a fight.

The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II. Sure the higher maintenance requirements were troublesome. But one Panther in a field shop is better than ten Sherman funeral pyres burning in the field, and you have to wait for more to be resupplied.

And most of your early war British tanks that were still in service (Chruchill, Matilda) were not as easy to perform basic maintenance on as some claim, even when compared to over-engineered German tanks. Not every British tank in the second half of the war was a Cromwell or Cromwell variant (which were a joy to work on compared to their older bretheren).

Kilkrazy wrote:I'll tell you why I like the T34.

All tanks have tracks which are held together by heavy pins that run across the individual treads, joining one to the next. If the pin falls out the track breaks and the tank is immobilised.

The problem is that these pins work loose during movement, so they have to be clipped into place with a heavy duty split pin, or some kind of nut arrangement, which itself becomes an important maintenance item..

On the T34 they dumped these ideas. Instead the pin is floating and there is a cam on the armour which simply smacks the tread pins back into place as the track runs past.

Soviet engineering at its best!

And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.

You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).

The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.

some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[


And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.

As overhyped as that poor sights mantra. When the Soviets sent a T-34 and a KV1 for evaluation to Britain in '42 their sights were specifically praised.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews. I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

Soviet tanks had sights adequate to the task at hand.

The German sights had an enlightened optics, which in books and articles often was described as superior to the Soviet ones. However, the Soviet commander's periscope allowed to continuously observe the battlefield, and the German commander's cupola consisted of a number of observation holes and while changing view on them caused the target can lost.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews

This was a known problem and plans for the creation of a 3-man turret were prevented by the hard beginning of the war, which made a lot of difficulties for the industry (it had to be evacuated). It is interesting that all countries came to the same principle of dividing the tasks of a crew of 5 man, which made it possible to effectively detect and destroy targets. In the USSR, the first tank of that concept was KV-1.

I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

The plant was evacuated along with the machinery and tank parts. However, when the Germans were almost there, the remaining workers discovered the unassembled tanks and were able to get them to move and shoot. Instead of sight, the crew targeted the gun through the barrel.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
[...] the Panther. IMO it was one of the best designs of the war

Yeah... but, it wasn't.

The Panther was a developmental dead end that had no lasting impact on tank design and nothing about it was really revolutionary when it debuted; it was a conventional German design (and when the "mighty" German engineers finally figured out slopped armor was a thing). There were some design cues lifted from them in the first generation of French post-war tanks (mainly due to their use of captured ones immediately following the war and the complete lack of modern armor), but there was a reason it was phased out rather rapidly after the war. There was nothing the Panther did well that tanks from other nations didn't do. Torsion bar suspension? Not unique to German armor. Rear mounted gasoline engine with front mounted transmission? American tanks throughout the war had that as well (along with Italian, Japanese, and others), and the following the war, the shift to the British layout of engine and drive in the rear became standard for all nations, along with diesel engines becoming the norm (something the Soviets did before the war). In terms of firepower, the KwK 42 wasn't revolutionary and the rounds it fired weren't special, unlike the the APDS rounds the British developed for the QF 17-pdr and 6-pdr guns and went on to be the primary kinetic penetrating round used by post war tank guns. Also, it featured the dumb interlocking road wheels that the Germans loved and no one (outside of the French AMX-50, of which only five were built) used post war.

Now, as far as aesthetics go, I'm not much of a fan but there's no accounting for taste.

The Panther was revolutionary in the sense that it had the defensive capabilities/ weaponry of a heavy tank with medium tank mobility and, more importantly, cost. The Panther was much cheaper to produce than the tiger so they could make a whole lot more of them. In the defensive role it excelled. It was a tank that Germany needed at the time and it certainly outpaced allied main tanks until the introduction of very late war designs.

If you want really revolutionary designs I would argue the Soviets are likely the top dogs in this regard. The T34 was a revolutionary tank for its time and it had a distinguished lineage that lead into the famous T55. Though, some pedants would point out that the T55 is more of a successor to the T44 but I would argue that the T44 is a descendant of the T34. And that is not even getting into the KV series.

Lone Cat wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.

some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?

The Allies continued to differentiate tanks by role until the early post-war period, as did the Germans (despite the increased reliance on general purpose mediums after 1943). But the Panther, being a general purpose medium tank, played a role similar to modern MBTs. The M4 and T-34 were cut from the same cloth, but lacked the balance between armor, mobility, and effective main gun that the Panther enjoyed. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't get close until the M26 and T-44.

It was wasn't until 1944-45 that the Western allies had decent, all-round Big Cat killers with the Jackson and Archer TDs, and Pershing and Comet tanks. The Soviets upped their game with the IS heavy tanks, new SU assault guns, and late KVs

jouso wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[


And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.

As overhyped as that poor sights mantra. When the Soviets sent a T-34 and a KV1 for evaluation to Britain in '42 their sights were specifically praised.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews. I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

Soviet tanks had sights adequate to the task at hand.

Yeah. Adequate for the zerg tactics used in Red Army offensives, carried out by poorly trained peasant troops.


The T-34's crude TFMD-7 and PT4-7 were garbage when compared to German (and the Western Allies) gunsights. The two man turrets, poor training, and lack of modern communications in every vehicle was only part of the problem. And had little to do with the inability to engage at longer ranges that German tanks excelled at because of their crude optics, in addition to crap accuracy.

The "high praise" allegedly given to the gun sights of the T-34/KVsby the British was due more to diplomacy (to placate a touchy Stalin) and politics than being honest. German (and later American) assessments of Soviet tank optics of that era were far less kind.

It's not a "myth". It's documented fact.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:




The French used the Panther in small numbers until 1949-1950, when their military industries had recovered enough (mostly by stripping anything useful from the German countryside post-war) for mass production of the native ARL 44, which turned out to be inferior to the Panther. The French had to rely on wheeled AFVs (Panhard EBR) and light tanks (AMX-13) until the AMX-30 came online in the mid 1960's. Romania also used Panthers (known as the T-V) until around 1950, and Sweden used one as a test bed until the early 1960's Hell, the British Coldstream Guards used a captured Panther Ausf G (known as "Cuckoo') for some time after it was found in a Dutch barn, and was praised for it performance during the assault on the Geijsteren castle and the German town of Waldenrath.

As for whether it was revolutionary or not, that may or may not be true. But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.

some French Panthers did have 'Napoleonic' markings. some had this unusual markings



Didn't they also have British and American armors and tested against the Panthers? were these tanks considered the First MBT?

The Allies continued to differentiate tanks by role until the early post-war period, as did the Germans (despite the increased reliance on general purpose mediums after 1943). But the Panther, being a general purpose medium tank, played a role similar to modern MBTs. The M4 and T-34 were cut from the same cloth, but lacked the balance between armor, mobility, and effective main gun that the Panther enjoyed. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't get close until the M26 and T-44.

It was wasn't until 1944-45 that the Western allies had decent, all-round Big Cat killers with the Jackson and Archer TDs, and Pershing and Comet tanks. The Soviets upped their game with the IS heavy tanks, new SU assault guns, and late KVs

jouso wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[


And there is the issues of craptastic Soviet gun sights that remained inferior, when compared to German and the Western Alllies optics, throughout the war. The T-34 also had an unreliable gear box. Early T-34/76S also had issues with overheating engines.

The T-34 did what the Russians needed it to do. But it's a meme tank that has been overhyped.

As overhyped as that poor sights mantra. When the Soviets sent a T-34 and a KV1 for evaluation to Britain in '42 their sights were specifically praised.

Failure of early T34s to locate targets and fire accurately can be more easily explained by the 2 man turret, cramped interiors, lack of radios and green crews. I'm sure those T-34 in Stalingrad rolling to the front without sights installed also have their share of this myth carrying on this long.

Soviet tanks had sights adequate to the task at hand.

Yeah. Adequate for the zerg tactics used in Red Army offensives, carried out by poorly trained peasant troops.


The T-34's crude TFMD-7 and PT4-7 were garbage when compared to German (and the Western Allies) gunsights. The two man turrets, poor training, and lack of modern communications in every vehicle was only part of the problem. And had little to do with the inability to engage at longer ranges that German tanks excelled at because of their crude optics, in addition to crap accuracy.

The "high praise" allegedly given to the gun sights of the T-34/KVsby the British was due more to diplomacy (to placate a touchy Stalin) and politics than being honest. German (and later American) assessments of Soviet tank optics of that era were far less kind.

It's not a "myth". It's documented fact.

Politics... Diplomacy. A T34 was somewhat crude but effective at its job. The Russians needed a hammer, and it was there hammer. They had lots of hammers. Alot more than the Germans. They ground the Germans down tank by tank winning by attrition.

The T34 may not have been a good tank in some areas. It was a good tank at what they needed it to do.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Instead of sight, the crew targeted the gun through the barrel.

I adore you!

On Edit: I mean no offence. Really! Quite the contrary!

It's just that that one simple statement conjured in my mind a picture of some Orkish-strong Russian tank gunner grabbing the barrel of his tank's gun with his left hand, one eye bulging down the barrel until he finds the target, then slamming an AT round into the breech with his right hand (yes, his hands are HUGE in my narrative!) and - instead of some gun switch - PUNCHING the base of the shell to send it on its way ...


I know ... I need to get out more ...

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


The "high praise" allegedly given to the gun sights of the T-34/KVsby the British was due more to diplomacy (to placate a touchy Stalin) and politics than being honest. German (and later American) assessments of Soviet tank optics of that era were far less kind.

It's not a "myth". It's documented fact.

This is from the Aberdeen tests ran in the US in summer '43.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/aberdeen-t-34-and-kv-1-test.html?m=1

"Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America."

Flaws of the T-34 are thoroughly detailed there, just not the sights.

Soviet tank sights of the WW2 were very decent, if not really good. Even the Germans praised them. However, the factory that made the glass for them was originally located in Izyum (in Eastern Ukraine). When the Germans overran the area the factory had to evacuated and a lot of high-quality materials were lost. It was not until 1943 that Soviet gun sights could be manufactured to pre-war standards again. In the intermediate period, Soviet gun sights were of much poorer quality. Maybe this is what some people are referring to when they say Soviet gun sights were very poor while others say they were really good.
And it was not just gun sights who were poorly made in 1942. A lot of factories were in the process of evacuation, which led to a lot of deficiencies in all kinds of equipment. For example, T-34s built in 1942 also often lacked ventilation fans, which led to crews passing out from sniffing too much fumes in long engagements.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Soviet tank sights of the WW2 were very decent, if not really good. Even the Germans praised them. However, the factory that made the glass for them was originally located in Izyum (in Eastern Ukraine). When the Germans overran the area the factory had to evacuated and a lot of high-quality materials were lost. It was not until 1943 that Soviet gun sights could be manufactured to pre-war standards again. In the intermediate period, Soviet gun sights were of much poorer quality. Maybe this is what some people are referring to when they say Soviet gun sights were very poor while others say they were really good.

Also a lot of the common wisdom on tanks are down to post war rationalisation. Just like tigers being disproportionately feared early on, massive Soviet losses would be blamed on faulty equipment rather than inadequate tactics or poor crew qualifications.

The German concept wasn't really like what you said, though. There was a strong level of craftsmanship, but they were also a pushing a lot of this stuff way past its limits. The Panther, for instance, began design as a tank somewhere between 30 to 35 tons, but the need to dominate T-34s meant a gun and armour resulting in a final design of 45 tons. Lots of early reliability issues were due to rushed production, but even by the end of the war the suspension was over-engineered and the main drive was under so much strain you couldn't trust a Panther to go more than about 100km with significant chance of breakdown.

I mean actual production design. Lets exclude late 1944 on as they were disintegrating at that point. Prior to that manhours associated with construction of German armor, artillery, etc. were typically substantially higher than comparable US, much less Soviet versions. Just the welding on German tanks took substantially longer, because the tolerances and quality level standards they used were much higher than needed. The designs themselves were overly complex vs. their competitors. Compare the transmission layout vs. US armor and its striking-not only the initial manufacturing time, but the intensiveness of the maintenance required was horrendous. Its not that US tanks were better made (ok well they were assemblywise) but that the layout to get to the machinery that needed maintenance was horrific.

Outside of tanks the Germans actually started becoming more Russian than the Russians. The famous Stg-44, for instance, was built with basically no margin for wear at all. Same logic as the Soviets - no point building a rifle that'll last 12 months when the soldier carrying it and likely the country that built the gun won't last that long.

STG were still over engineered vs. Soviet and US designs. Compare an STG vs. an M1 carbine, or AK.
Everything was like that. It took more effort to manufacture a German helmet than a Soviet one, MP vs. a PPSH43 etc.

oops sorry, went off topic. I think we're in agreement the Panther was overengineered and overextended from its original design, and we're in agreement on the Soviet methodology of manufacture for a limited life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I agree up to a point. I mean sure, the Panther wasn't a good tank as a universal tank design. As you rightly point out no-one bothered with Panthers after the war - meanwhile German kit that really was excellent like the MG-42 still have derivatives in use today. And sure, the Panther had plenty of issues, you mention the interlocking road wheels, and lots of parts were under way too much strain and broke frequently because many components weren't designed for a vehicle of that size, and others were actually downgraded to increase production rates. The main drive in particular was considered a breakdown chance past 100km of travel.

But... the flipside is that the Panther was really well suited to the war Germany fought from Kursk onwards. For blunting enemy armour offensives and undertaking limited counter attacks it was a very effective tank at that time.

You just contradicted yourself.

You agreed that the Panther wasn't revolutionary and had lots of reliability problems and then say it was an effective tank from Kursk onward... but it wasn't an effective tank because of its reliability issues. It's hard to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield when there are, one, not nearly enough of them to go around, and two, a majority of the ones that are available can't even make it to the battlefield (and when they breakdown, they have to hauled back to where they were built to be fixed).

I'd argue the Jagdpanthers and STGs were far more suited for the defensive warfare they went to in 1943 onwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II. Sure the higher maintenance requirements were troublesome. But one Panther in a field shop is better than ten Sherman funeral pyres burning in the field, and you have to wait for more to be resupplied.

Except of course, in reality, in every recorded instance of M4s vs. panthers, M4s came out ahead. You didn't have ten burning Shermans for every Panther. You had a burning Panther for every Sherman.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Panther had a higher maintance curve than most Allied tanks throughout the war. That much is true. But the idea that the Panther was unreliable is a myth that stems from problems with early production runs. Once those issues were ironed out, the Panther went on to become one of the best medium tanks of World War II. Sure the higher maintenance requirements were troublesome. But one Panther in a field shop is better than ten Sherman funeral pyres burning in the field, and you have to wait for more to be resupplied.

Except of course, in reality, in every recorded instance of M4s vs. panthers, M4s came out ahead. You didn't have ten burning Shermans for every Panther. You had a burning Panther for every Sherman.

Yeah, plus the Sherman was as good or better than the Panther at anything that wasn't shooting enemy tanks in the face. I think a lot of it's bad reputation comes from the fact that the allies, unlike the Germans, tended to be assaulting a defensive enemy, which always results in increased casualties.