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.

I was in a Sherman with a 105mm howitzer. That was a big gun.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
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).

There's no contradiction, there's just a recognition that the Panther had both good and bad features. It had reliability issues, even after the early teething problems there were still significant problems throughout the war which produced a lot of maintenance issues and made the tanks ineffective in any real kind of offensive movement. But it also had an excellent gun and frontal armour which made it great at knocking out enemy tanks at range, stopping offensives flat.

Thing is, on a strategic level Germany was one the defensive for the entirety of the Panther's service, so the problems weren't as pronounced as they might have been in other circumstances. This explains why people who went up against the Panther rightly feared it, but after the war no army wanted anything like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
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.

This is pure myth making. The 17pdr wasn't a more potent gun than the 76mm. THere's a millions minor bits and bobs of detail about different ammo types at different ranges, but both guns can go through a Panther at 1,000 yards, and that's really what matters. The only other factor is the 17pdr's major issues with accuracy when placed on a Firefly (to make the gun work in a Sherman turret they needed a barrel brake, and those things can screw with the SABOT rounds you want to fire at enemy tanks).

The reason this myth developed is because the British brought Fireflys to Normandy, but US field commanders weren't interested in adding 76mm Shermans to their own forces. So there was a brief period where Fireflys were the one tank that could knock out a Panther at range. By September though you had all US field commanders taking supply of Shermans with 76mm guns.

But of course, no-one ever talks about anything other than Normandy, so people end up thinking it was all about the Firefly.

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.

Not true. While the rate of breakdown early on was comical, people have somehow decided once those issues were resolved and reliability improved, this somehow made the Panther reliable. This is not true. Throughout the war Panthers moving more than 100kms would start to suffer main drive breakdowns at such a rate as to significantly impact unit effectiveness. 100km. Tanks that can't go more than 100kms without breakdowns are not reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Yeah. Adequate for the zerg tactics used in Red Army offensives, carried out by poorly trained peasant troops.

The T-34 wasn't a zerg rush tank. It was often used in that role because of limited crew training and mediocre Soviet commanders, but assuming that's all the tank could do is false. It had excellent armour, great operational range and a good enough gun. It was everything you needed in a tank that could breakthrough and then exploit the breakthrough.

And that more than anything else is what a tank is meant to do. As Russian capability grew over the course of the war, they kept the T-34 as their primary tank, because it remained excellent in that primary job of breakthrough and exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Yeah, definitely. Germany was a nation of high craftsmanship entering a war of industrial production. The idea of a tank sitting in a single spot in the factory, for each technician to bring his gear over to that tank, do his bit, then take his tools to the next tank... that's laughable to us today but its how much of the German war industry operated. In terms of German production I agree with what you're staying.

Its just in terms of individual bits of kit the German stuff was highly engineered, but that didn't mean it had the features you'd normally think of as quality, like reliability and durability. The Germans were really pushing the limits of their designs in lots of ways, the Panther started as a 30 ton design to replace the MkIV, it ended up 44 tons, with all the problems that you'd expect that would produce.

STG were still over engineered vs. Soviet and US designs. Compare an STG vs. an M1 carbine, or AK.

STG was highly engineered, but it was also had really threadbare production standards. That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

Everything was like that. It took more effort to manufacture a German helmet than a Soviet one, MP vs. a PPSH43 etc.

PPSH43 was a very simple design, but the MP40 was also very simple, it was mostly stamped steel.

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.

Yep, definitely agree there.

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.

Especially in the tighter confines of Western Europe, the winner was almost always the guy who fired first.

It's the reason we saw a lot more Sherman lost - they were on the offensive, when engaged by German tanks the Germans would almost always get to fire first, from concealed, hull down positions. Where the Germans went on localised offensives and were met by Allied armour, like at Arracourt, the result was a great kill-loss ratio for the Shermans.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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.

Trying to fight the myth, you come up with another myth. Yes, the T-34 had problems with the engines and gearbox. Also, the commander played the role of a gunner and could not monitor the battlefield situation. The quality of the glasses was worse. However, the design of the sight and commander's periscope was good.

Lack-of-radio problem wasn't typical for T-34s and KVs. It was for T-26 and BT. But I guess that in 1941-1943 some T-34s could not put the radio on, if there were delays with their deliveries to the plants.

In general, phrases such as "T-34 is AK-47" are not true. Problems with the engine have never been completely eliminated, and switching speeds frightened the drivers with the possibility of breakage (same to KV-1). Also, from the beginning of the year 1941 to 1943 there was a regression in quality of products along with simplification and improvisation. However, the T-34 proved itself in combat as an adequate tank for most situations at that time.

 War Drone wrote:

 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 ...

Unfortunately, it was not so funny. The crews were civilian volunteers who knew they could not stop the avalanche of German tanks and most likely all died in these underequipped tanks at the very beginning of the battle of Stalingrad.

I don't know virtually anything about armor, so the "why" for all of my examples are "because they look awesome".


BMPT-2 "Terminator" - Russia



Bottom half tank, top half anti-infantry BMP; all urban combat monster.


M50 Ontos - USA


I know it got mentioned already but I don't care. Turn-ons include direct fire support, blowing holes in walls, and going where tanks cannot. Turn-offs include reloading and RPGS.

Replacement for Type 96 APC - Japan

Look at that fat feth. No vehicle has ever needed a scary mouth painted on it so badly before.

LAV-25 Piranha - Switzerland or maybe Canada

What if someone running away from you crosses a river? Better drive across the water.

Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - Japan

It's like the APC from Aliens had dirty sex with a tank, and it's perfect for fighting Kaiju in tight urban environments.

Mil-24 Hind D - Russia

Some conspiracy theorists claim this isn't actually a tank.

By the end of the war German armored efficacy had suffered greatly from poor crew training*. Arracourt was such a rout for the German forces because it was a bunch of badly trained newbies versus Patton's veteran tankers. Crew quality is often more important in determining the victor of a tank engagement than the technical merits of the vehicle.

(*As well as fuel shortages, allied air superiority, lack of supplies and mechanical breakdowns which resulted in more German tank losses than allied armor)

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.

Only by people who aren't aware that the Centurion exists.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.

Again, the concept of the Panther was not unique to Germany.

The M26 was in development at the same time in America and the T-44 shortly thereafter in Russia. The main difference, especially with American designs, is that we weren't stupid enough to field a tank with the problems that the Panther had, mainly because of Army standards and you know... winning the war. The idea that it "outpaced" Allied "main" tanks means what exactly? With only 6000 or so built, the Panther was never the backbone of the German armored forces so you can't call it a "main" tank and you certainly compare along those lines with things like the M4 (almost 50,000 built) or the T-34 (84,000 built). And on the battlefield, it didn't outpace Western Allied tanks. The kill-to-loss ration heavily favored the good guys.

It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.

And I never called it the German main tank. That was the Panzer IV.

I would also like to point out that the M26 Pershing came out later than the Panther and saw limited use.

For the record, I'm not saying the Panther was the best tank in WW2. I think the T34 was with the M4 Sherman as a close second.

 Ouze wrote:

Mil-24 Hind D - Russia

Spoiler:

Some conspiracy theorists claim this isn't actually a tank.

I wholeheartedly second this motion, gotta love the Hind.

Also, how could you not nominate the other aerial tank?

I don't know if it's good but the design of this new polish tank is ace!

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.

Just because the Nazis called it a "medium tank," doesn't mean it was one in reality; medium tanks didn't weigh 40+ tons. I mean, it weighed almost as much as an IS-2 (a heavy breakthrough tank) and outweighed the M26 and Churchill (both classed as heavy tanks). It had better armor than tank that weighed 14 tons less than it? Cool, I would hope so. Its gun was better than the 75mm of a Sherman and on par with the 76mm guns found on M18 Hellcats and M4 armed with 76mm M1 gun. But as I've said already in this thread, thick armor and big gun does not a great tank make. The Panther had some good qualities (when they worked), but as I've already pointed out, it contributed almost nothing to post-war tank design and nothing about its design was revolutionary.

And I never called it the German main tank. That was the Panzer IV.

Right, but you said it "outpaced" allied "main tanks" without defining any of those terms. Still, comparing an M4 Sherman to a Panther is comparing apples to oranges.

I would also like to point out that the M26 Pershing came out later than the Panther and saw limited use.

They were designed at the same time (1942) but we were smart enough not to field a tank that wasn't ready.

For the record, I'm not saying the Panther was the best tank in WW2. I think the T34 was with the M4 Sherman as a close second.

Okay, but that doesn't make your stroking of Panthers more accurate.

Every source I've seen has called the Panther a medium tank. Gross weight doesn't seem to be a determinant in the classification of a vehicle since the US reclassified the Pershing as a medium tank too after the war and they weighed as much as the Panther. I suppose using the term "main tank" was a mistake. I meant the tank vehicle that was available in significant numbers during which they could've reasonably fought the Panther. And by "outpace" i meant the technical capabilities in comparison. So, the Panther v. T34-85 v M4 Sherman v Cromwell. The Panther was superior to these vehicles in armament and armor while maintaining good mobility. I don't see how comparing a Panther to the Sherman is uncalled for since they are both medium tanks of their respective nations that were fielded in significant numbers.

They had a classification according to the caliber of the gun. 88mm Tiger - heavy, 75mm Panther and Panzer - medium. Before that, the 75mm Panzer-IV was called "heavy". 50mm, 37mm Panzers - medium and 20mm/machinegun - light tanks.

 Jadenim wrote:
Also, how could you not nominate the other aerial tank?

Spoiler:

It’s even in your avatar , come on!

It seems like spiking the football since the reasonable assumption that's already everyone's favorite tank.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.

Just because the Nazis called it a "medium tank," accurate.

Exactly. Italians called their P26 26-ton tank a heavy tank (pesante) but for all intents and purposes it was a medium tank no matter what they wanted it to be.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But the Panther is often credited as being the forerunner of the Main Battle Tank concept.

Only by people who aren't aware that the Centurion exists.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.

Again, the concept of the Panther was not unique to Germany.

The M26 was in development at the same time in America and the T-44 shortly thereafter in Russia. The main difference, especially with American designs, is that we weren't stupid enough to field a tank with the problems that the Panther had, mainly because of Army standards and you know... winning the war. The idea that it "outpaced" Allied "main" tanks means what exactly? With only 6000 or so built, the Panther was never the backbone of the German armored forces so you can't call it a "main" tank and you certainly compare along those lines with things like the M4 (almost 50,000 built) or the T-34 (84,000 built). And on the battlefield, it didn't outpace Western Allied tanks. The kill-to-loss ration heavily favored the good guys.

The T34 did everything the Panther did, but two years earlier.
The Panther could not have done what the M4 did, in every theater of war.
The Comet, a main production tank, was superior in every way.

People maybe interested in this rather good article from the Imperial War Museum on British tank design of WW2.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-struggle-to-build-effective-tanks-during-the-second-world-war

My favourite tank would have to be the Challenger 2.

Enough said

PS: Ignore my picture of a Victorian Water Tank. Just me being silly.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
By the end of the war German armored efficacy had suffered greatly from poor crew training*. Arracourt was such a rout for the German forces because it was a bunch of badly trained newbies versus Patton's veteran tankers. Crew quality is often more important in determining the victor of a tank engagement than the technical merits of the vehicle.

I agree having that crew training is really important, and want to repeat again that circumstance matters a lot as well (when you are in hull down, watch the enemy come towards you and so you can pick when you fire... that advantage is a much bigger deal than marginally higher AP at x yards or optics or anything like that).

But you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about the Panther's effectiveness, when it typically had very well trained and battle hardened crews, then turn around and excuse poor performances because the crew at those times wasn't as well trained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.

The Panther had a better gun and armour than the T-34 and Sherman 75mm. You'd hope so, it weighed more than 50% more than either of those designs.

The problem for the Panther comes when you see the Allied response, the 76mm Sherman and 85mm T-34 were both capable of taking out Panthers at normal combat ranges, and with Panthers being far heavier and more complex, ending up on par with those tanks was a terrible deal for the Germans. And while people try and dodge that by saying the upgunned Shermans and T-34s were variants... there were considerably more of each built than Panthers.

Its funny that people have argued the Panther was the first MBT. Its kind of maybe true in a technical sense, in that the tank managed to technically stay in the medium category and maintained mobility (theoretically), while having a cracking good gun that could penetrate just about anything at ordinary combat ranges. However, the core of the MBT design philosophy is that the cycle of heavier tanks with heavier guns was broken, because no matter how much armour you put on a tank the other side will be able to put a gun on their tank that will punch through.

The Panther was still part of the bigger tank with bigger gun philosophy. To kill the 26 ton T-34 the Germans built the 44 ton Panther. It was actually the response to the Panther, sticking an 85mm gun on the T-34, or a 76mm gun on the Sherman, that was a decision in line with that MBT philosophy.

For me it’s got to be the Centurion.



Probably one of the best tanks ever made. Possibly the first MBT? And it certainly lasted a long time, in different guises at least.

I'm enjoying a lot of this, but given that the topic is "Your favorite tank and why", there's really no reason to shred someone's choice.

Having said that, I am enjoying the tank history lessons!

Just keep in mind that there really isn't a wrong answer to the OP's Question.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
For me it’s got to be the Centurion.



Probably one of the best tanks ever made. Possibly the first MBT? And it certainly lasted a long time, in different guises at least.

I'd second that. A superb tank with a great pedigree. If only it had been introduced during the war. It would have given any tank fielded a run for its money, I believe.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't know virtually anything about armor, so the "why" for all of my examples are "because they look awesome".


Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - Japan

Spoiler:

It's like the APC from Aliens had dirty sex with a tank, and it's perfect for fighting Kaiju in tight urban environments.

Yet others did consider this similar concepts. while this thing might do the same thing MBT does (or... to many, believed that it will replace MBTs completely), Are you sure that this thing will supplant the real MBTs?
Armored cars with big guns did exists even in the early days of mechanized warfare itself. in Wonder Woman (2017 movie), Imperial German Army did have one AC armed with 37mm / 5cm cannon. and WW2 Germany also designed an 8-wheel AC with 50 or 75 mm main gun. which can still fights tanks, but not THAT good (comparable to light tanks which, even in 1944-45 hadn't been removed entirely).

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't know virtually anything about armor, so the "why" for all of my examples are "because they look awesome".


Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - Japan

Spoiler:

It's like the APC from Aliens had dirty sex with a tank, and it's perfect for fighting Kaiju in tight urban environments.

Yet others did consider this similar concepts. while this thing might do the same thing MBT does (or... to many, believed that it will replace MBTs completely), Are you sure that this thing will supplant the real MBTs?

I didn't say no one had considered the idea. I also didn't say that I thought it would replace MBTs. I don't think anyone said either of those things.

I think it's a tank destroyer and won't replace a MBT any more than older tank destroyers did, but as I said from my post I am totally unqualified to opine about anything other than how awesome it looks. I'm sure someone else ITT would know the answer though.

Another of my favourite tanks is the British Medium Mark A Whippet, of WW1 vintage.

A strange looking beast, armed with machine guns. A top speed of 8.3mph (13.4ph) is very slow by today's standards, but was fast for the time. Especially since the British tank MK IV tank could only manage half that.

A particularly deadly encounter involving these tanks happened on 24th April 1918, near Cachy, France. A single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.

ThunderCracker wrote:
A particularly deadly encounter involving these tanks happened on 24th April 1918, near Cachy, France. A single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.

So pretty much the last scene of Fury, but times 7.

 Ouze wrote:


I think it's a tank destroyer and won't replace a MBT any more than older tank destroyers did, but as I said from my post I am totally unqualified to opine about anything other than how awesome it looks.

As noted previously, ITT, that's all we need!

I adore the type 16, it'd a cool one. Nothing like an 105mm APFSDS and HEATFS loading gun on a vehicle going 60 mph.

Thr plans to make a WW1 APC seemed creative, and forward thinking..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IX_tank

Brutish, simple but seems a solid idea. Carries 30 men into battle with armour vs light arms fire, ports for rifle fire and could carry a limited amount of ammo or supplies.

Add a option to be a potential armoured ambulance and brave into machine gun fore a medic could not.

Though not advanced the first ever APC of modern age.

 sebster wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
By the end of the war German armored efficacy had suffered greatly from poor crew training*. Arracourt was such a rout for the German forces because it was a bunch of badly trained newbies versus Patton's veteran tankers. Crew quality is often more important in determining the victor of a tank engagement than the technical merits of the vehicle.

I agree having that crew training is really important, and want to repeat again that circumstance matters a lot as well (when you are in hull down, watch the enemy come towards you and so you can pick when you fire... that advantage is a much bigger deal than marginally higher AP at x yards or optics or anything like that).

But you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about the Panther's effectiveness, when it typically had very well trained and battle hardened crews, then turn around and excuse poor performances because the crew at those times wasn't as well trained.

As the Panther existed during the war you have a point. You can build the best tank ever (not the saying the Panther is) but if you crew it with conscripts it is not going to matter much against an enemy with well trained tankers. I wish I had more statistics of Panther performance when operated by quality such as the Panzer Lehr division but alas I can only speculate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It had better armor and a gun than the Sherman, better armor/gun than the T34, better armor/gun than the Cromwell. Later allied tank designs did beat it. And I most certainly can compare the designs as the Panther is a medium tank just like the Cromwell/Sherman/T34.

The Panther had a better gun and armour than the T-34 and Sherman 75mm. You'd hope so, it weighed more than 50% more than either of those designs.

The problem for the Panther comes when you see the Allied response, the 76mm Sherman and 85mm T-34 were both capable of taking out Panthers at normal combat ranges, and with Panthers being far heavier and more complex, ending up on par with those tanks was a terrible deal for the Germans. And while people try and dodge that by saying the upgunned Shermans and T-34s were variants... there were considerably more of each built than Panthers.

Its funny that people have argued the Panther was the first MBT. Its kind of maybe true in a technical sense, in that the tank managed to technically stay in the medium category and maintained mobility (theoretically), while having a cracking good gun that could penetrate just about anything at ordinary combat ranges. However, the core of the MBT design philosophy is that the cycle of heavier tanks with heavier guns was broken, because no matter how much armour you put on a tank the other side will be able to put a gun on their tank that will punch through.

The Panther was still part of the bigger tank with bigger gun philosophy. To kill the 26 ton T-34 the Germans built the 44 ton Panther. It was actually the response to the Panther, sticking an 85mm gun on the T-34, or a 76mm gun on the Sherman, that was a decision in line with that MBT philosophy.

The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.

Have you looked at their E series designs? These are also interesting in looking at German armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series
Their medium series to replace the Panther and Tiger II is interesting, if heavy at 50 to 75 tons.