Military Review

Tank Pz.Kpfw.V Panther. Small quantity and big problems

195

The Red Army men study the captured Panther, July 1943. Photo by Waralbum.ru


In July 1943, Hitler's Germany for the first time sent into battle the latest medium Tanks Pz.Kpfw.V Panther. From the point of view of general characteristics, such machines were better than their predecessors, however, as it became clear later, the production volumes were insufficient to fully unleash the available potential. Until the end of the war, they managed to build less than 6 thousand tanks, and they could not turn the tide of the war.

Quantity problem


The promising Panther was initially considered as a replacement for the older medium tanks Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV. It had to be distinguished by higher tactical and technical characteristics and greater manufacturability, capable of simplifying production in wartime conditions. According to the plans, the monthly production of new tanks should have been increased to 600 units.

The Pz.Kpfw.V project was developed by the end of 1942, and serial production started at the beginning of 1943. In the first months, the production of equipment did not exceed several dozen, and since May, it was possible to cross the line of 100-130 units. In autumn and winter, records were set in the form of 257 and 267 tanks per month. A total of 1750 tanks had been built by the end of the first year.

Tank Pz.Kpfw.V Panther. Small quantity and big problems
Tanks Pz.Kpfw.V on the march. Photo of the Bundesarchive of the Federal Republic of Germany

In the first months of 1944, it was possible to maintain and gradually increase the obtained rates. In April, production reached 310 tanks per month, and then grew again. The absolute record was set in July - 379 tanks. After that, the rate of production began to decline. In total, a little less than 1944 armored vehicles were built in 3800. Then the tendency to reduce production continued, and in January-April 1945 the army transferred only 452 Panthers.

The total production of the Pz.Kpfw.V in three modifications was 5995 units. In addition, 427 Jagdpanther self-propelled guns and 339 Bergepanther recovery vehicles were built on the same chassis. Thus, the total number of serial armored vehicles of the family did not exceed 6,8 thousand units.

Production features


The first serial production of new tanks was mastered by the development company, MAN. In 1943, production documentation was transferred to other leading enterprises - Daimler-Benz, Henschel, etc. More than 130 small and medium-sized organizations participated in the production program as suppliers of individual parts and assemblies.


Production Line. Photo of the Bundesarchive of the Federal Republic of Germany

The development and launch of the series took place against the backdrop of the Allied bombing raids. In this regard, a rather complex system of industrial cooperation was developed, which distributed the output of units between different organizations and duplicated some production. Some of the program participants have already owned or built protected underground production sites.

The production of new tanks was quite complicated and expensive. The labor intensity of one Pz.Kpfw.V reached 150 thousand man-hours. The cost of a serial tank is approx. 130 thousand Reichsmarks. For comparison, no more than 88 thousand man-hours and 105 thousand Reichsmarks were spent on serial PzIV of late modifications. The heavy "Tiger" was produced for 300 thousand man-hours and 250 thousand marks.

Unfulfilled plans


The Panther tank was created as a promising replacement for the existing Pya.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV. According to calculations, the monthly production of 600 vehicles of this type made it possible to decommission the equipment of two old models within a reasonable time - and significantly increase the combat effectiveness of tank forces.


One of the disadvantages of the Panther is the overly complex chassis. Photo of the Bundesarchive of the Federal Republic of Germany

However, such plans turned out to be overly daring. For more than two years, the production program has not been able to come close to the established values. Most of the time, the monthly release of equipment remained below half of the required 600 pieces. Only within 7 months it was possible to overcome the border of 300 units.

With the advent of the new "Panthers", the German industry was able to abandon the production of outdated medium tanks Pz.Kpfw.III. However, insufficient production rates did not allow to stop the production of Pz.Kpfw.IV. The assembly of such tanks continued until the end of the war, and in 1943-45. more than 6,5 thousand cars were manufactured.

Thus, in the final stages of the war, the German army had to simultaneously use two medium tanks, which had serious differences in all basic characteristics and capabilities. This de-standardization was aggravated by the presence of several modifications of equipment with their own characteristics.


Damaged German tank in Normandy, June 1944. Photo by Imperial War Museum

Main reasons


Throughout its short stories the production of "Panthers" was constantly faced with various problems, as a result of which it could not reach the planned indicators and did not provide the desired rearmament of the army. In general, it all boiled down to several characteristic factors. Each of them introduced new difficulties, and together they led to certain results.

The technological part of the Pz.Kpfw.V project was worked out taking into account production at existing enterprises with minimal changes in assembly lines. As a result, the post construction method was retained, while the introduction of the conveyor was abandoned due to the complexity and possible downtime. This approach to construction, combined with the complexity and laboriousness of the tank, sharply limited even the theoretically possible rate of production.

The Panther tank as a whole and its individual units were quite complex. This was due to a curious concept underlying several projects. Due to limited resources, Germany could not compete with the enemy in terms of the number of armored vehicles, and a course was taken to increase quality indicators. At the same time, the increase in technical and combat characteristics led to the complication and rise in the cost of production.


MNH workshop after the bombing. The equipment for assembling the Panther and the incomplete body of the Jagdpanther self-propelled guns remained in their places. Photo Waralbum.ru

Another negative factor was the reduction in the number of skilled workers in production. Specialists were sent to the front, and their place was taken by workers with low qualifications. Slave labor was also widely used - also not the best solution for high-tech tank production.

The allied bombing had a significant impact on the production of Pz.Kpfw.V and other military products. British and American aviation regularly put out of action certain enterprises, including those employed in the production of "Panthers". Germany was rebuilding damaged facilities, but it took resources and time, which reduced the possible yield. A serious problem in 1944-45. there was a loss of access to various resources, incl. alloying additives for the manufacture of armor.

Ambiguous result


In general, the German Pz.Kpfw.V Panther medium tank was quite expensive and complex. In addition, its production faced various risks that did not allow it to reach the planned pace and carry out rearmament. The operation of equipment in the troops also faced problems directly related to difficulties in production.


Assembly point with damaged German armored vehicles - there are "Panthers" and other equipment. Hungary, 1945 Photo Waralbum.ru

Nevertheless, the resulting medium tank was distinguished by rather high tactical and technical characteristics and combat qualities. At the time of its appearance, "Panther" could successfully hit any serial enemy tanks at ranges of more than 1-1,5 km, without being exposed to the risk of penetration by return fire. Subsequently, the ratio of characteristics changed, both due to the appearance of improved foreign tanks and due to the weakening of German armor, but the Pz.Kpfw.V still remained a rather dangerous enemy.

Thus, from the design point of view, the Panther was a successful tank with good combat capabilities. However, to use its full potential, it was required to establish a truly mass production and ensure the proper reliability. It was not possible to solve both of these tasks. However, there is nothing wrong with that. With their failures and problems, the Pz.Kpfw.V tanks made a certain contribution to the future defeat of Germany.
Author:
195 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. nnm
    nnm April 26 2021 18: 11
    +17
    Colleague, I think, one can name another factor that influenced the combat use of this tank - its release mainly refers to the period when the Luftwaffe lost its dominant position and the Allied aviation made serious adjustments to the tactics and strategy of using German tank forces. This is especially evident in the example of Allied operations on the Western Front.
    And, of course, the increased skill of the commanders and soldiers of the Red Army, as shown by the "swan song of the panthers" - the Balaton operation.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 27 2021 11: 04
      +1
      A total of 1750 tanks had been built by the end of the first year.

      the author of the article wrote that so many
      but in reality, the panther only gave way to t4 a little and 5976 of them were released
      in addition, on the basis of the panther, about 350-400 different vehicles were also produced - from self-propelled guns to repair ones.
      and the release of the panther began in 42, in 43 there were no less than 3 hundred of them.
      And the Allied aviation began to seriously strain only in the middle of 44, and about half of the panthers were fired before the Allied aviation began to dominate.
      It is worth noting that the Allies bombed the production of tanks, otherwise the Germans could well have released 7-8 thousand. Why is it important? Because the doubling of the panthers in the western direction would have a very strong effect on the activity of the Americans, who relied on a huge number of Sherman-level armored vehicles.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 27 2021 15: 58
        -1
        "only in the middle of 44, and about half of the panthers were released before the Allied aircraft began to dominate" ////
        ----
        Since the beginning of 44. "Big week".

        "The attack on the Luftwaffe in the operation known as" Big Week "(February 20 - February 25, 1944) was successful - the losses of the German Air Force were such that Germany had to urgently deal with the distribution of industrial capacities, since German fighter aircraft could no longer defend the skies over Germany even during the day and with the support of a ground-based air defense system. "
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 27 2021 17: 27
          0
          big week
          The allies assessed the damage inflicted on them in six days as very sensitive, the losses of the 8th Air Army in February reached almost 20 percent, but the game was worth the candle, because the Germans were pushed back two months ago in terms of the rate of release of fighters

          the blow was sensitive, but it was still far from the fracture.
          the entire 44th year, the allies, taking advantage of the numerical superiority, knocked out the experienced flight personnel of the Germans
          and only towards the end of the year that advantageous situation developed and active ground attack flights began. And strategic showdowns had little effect on tank showdowns.
  2. Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown April 26 2021 18: 14
    +8
    The example of the Panther and the Tiger in WWII is an example of what will become of tanks around the world in the event of a hypothetical war without the use of nuclear weapons ... Not a single tank in the world today can rivet at such a pace as, for example, the T-34. .. According to my estimates, the total available fleet of tanks in the world will be enough nuuu ... a maximum of 3 months of a full-scale world war ... and then what ?! ))) to change horses again? )))
    1. Torins
      Torins April 26 2021 18: 33
      +9
      It is more logical to switch to the T-34)
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2021 19: 20
      +5
      Quote: Corona without virus
      According to my estimates, the total available fleet of tanks in the world will be enough nuuu ... maximum 3 months of a full-scale world war ... and then what ?! ))) to change horses again? )))
      And then "print the money box" - the created mobilization reserve and establish the production of tanks "according to a simplified scheme"
      1. Tochilka
        Tochilka April 26 2021 20: 18
        +2
        Like the brand NI-1?))
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 26 2021 20: 19
          +6
          Quote: Tochilka
          Like the brand NI-1?))

          It will completely squeeze and it will be applied ...
      2. squid
        squid April 27 2021 06: 00
        +2
        what else is "tank production" in 3 months of "full-scale world war"? by that time not a single significant city will remain, not to mention the Uralvagonzavody.
    3. Slon379
      Slon379 April 26 2021 22: 04
      0
      Who will solve this problem how. We will begin to rivet the T-34, the Americans will be the most thoughtful. They will unmake Saturn and reel on the moon.
    4. squid
      squid April 27 2021 05: 59
      +4
      how is it - a "full-scale world war" "without the use of nuclear weapons"?
    5. yehat2
      yehat2 April 27 2021 13: 22
      0
      you are wrong - the panther was staffed at a level worse than the first batch of tiger.
      and was, in fact, from the very beginning focused on mass production
      and the fact that the Germans were able to produce 6500 panther chassis suggests that mass production could well have been even more.
    6. vadim dok
      vadim dok April 27 2021 15: 01
      +3
      And it is necessary to "rivet" the crews in the same quantity!
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 April 27 2021 15: 34
        0
        Quote: vadim dok
        Moreover, it is necessary to "rivet" the crews in the same quantity

        this was a problem, but fine-tuned training, veterans and the experience of 6 years of war greatly helped the Germans in training crews. A good example is the actions of the Hitler Youth division.
        there 16-18 year old boys have coped quite well. Not 5, but better than the American warriors.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 27 2021 19: 53
          +2
          Quote: yehat2
          actions of the Hitler Youth division.
          there are 16-18 year old boys

          And who told you that the SS division of the Hitler Youth was staffed with 16-year-old boys?
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 28 2021 07: 09
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            And who told you that the SS division of the Hitler Youth was staffed with 16-year-old boys?

            Well, how old are these fighters of this division, in your opinion?







            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 28 2021 07: 20
              +3
              You see, determining age from a photograph is not a good idea. The division was formed from military units in the first half of the 26th year of birth. When she entered the battle, in the summer of 44, France, they were 18, and everything was fine with the preparation. Their adversary prepared for the standard 8 months from draft to sending to the front, and, unlike the HJ, the Americans also had draft officers, and not from the LSAH.

              Yes, they were young people by SS standards (usually at least 23 years old), but there were no children behind the levers.
          2. yehat2
            yehat2 April 28 2021 09: 34
            -1
            I saw the chronicle of the American battlefield after the battles with this division.
            it was full of dead boys, including tankers.
        2. kytx
          kytx April 27 2021 20: 36
          +2
          nirazu 18 year old boys with a panther could not cope normally
          in the most difficult times, the preparation time for the panther mechanic was brought to 2 months
          1 month to study materiel and 1 month to drive
          there was no time for tactical training
          and on a panther it is very easy to screw up the engine and transmission
          you need to manage to keep certain revolutions in each gear
          it was easier for the t34 mechanic - cut in the second and go
          an attempt to master the mass production of T5 at the height of the war IMHO a big mistake of the Germans
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 April 28 2021 09: 35
            0
            Quote: kytx
            nirazu 18 year old boys with a panther could not cope normally

            the Hitler Youth division was equipped with T4 and other not new equipment.
            yes, the panther is more difficult. But I think the Germans could have added 1 veteran to the crews.
      2. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich April 28 2021 06: 37
        0
        Quote: vadim dok
        And it is necessary to "rivet" the crews in the same quantity!

        as a rule, the consumption of equipment is greater than the consumption of teams.
      3. svp67
        svp67 April 28 2021 07: 02
        0
        Quote: vadim dok
        And it is necessary to "rivet" the crews in the same quantity!

        "Riveted", one division of the "Hitler Youth"
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 28 2021 09: 36
          0
          the Germans even had such weird units as a Luftwaffe tank battalion.
  3. paul3390
    paul3390 April 26 2021 18: 22
    +8
    But they say Aloizievich was offered a variant of the T-IV with a panther tower. And they even built a couple of copies. That is, to follow the path of the Soviet Union, with its T-34-85 ... IMHO - 10-12 thousand of such hybrids would cause us much more trouble than 5 thousand TV .. But Comrade Stalin seemed to understand significantly better the equations of modern war , that is why I did not go for an abrupt change of the serially produced and debugged model .. Only for modernization. And when it became clear that we were coping, the T-44 was already in use, albeit not in such quantities. The Fuehrer was always carried away by every wunderwaffe .. And thank God.

    Here's something like ..



    1. nnm
      nnm April 26 2021 18: 27
      +8
      That's right, colleague. How much the eternal struggle between Henschel and Porsche has cost Germany can no longer be counted. Plus the undercover struggle of these characters for the location (and therefore orders) of Hitler. And not only in terms of money, but also in terms of defense capability. Colleague, there was also an IS-3 on its way and literally did not have time for several weeks. It seems that the tank was even more promising and revolutionary for that time. And the Germans, with their fanatical stubbornness in relation to the e100 or the mouse, in fact, already had a dead end.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 April 28 2021 09: 51
        +1
        you have a strange understanding of those events. Maybe the Porsche and Henschel butted a year in 42, but then definitely not. And as for the IS-3, I would not have any unnecessary illusions.
        Yes, the tank is very cool, but its technical readiness in the spring of 45 was much worse than that of the Kingtiger or Mouse. Those. the tank was only conditionally combat-ready. At that time, a simple IS was better.
        In addition, the Germans did not have a fanatical tenacity in megaprojects. Almost all projects since 43 years have followed the path of unification and bringing performance characteristics to adequate ones.
        for example, a full-fledged heavy was made from a panther - it turned out a kingtiger, although he lacked the dvigla.
        And the projects e25, e50, e-75 were based on completely rational ideas.
        The best expression of the work of the Germans, in my opinion, is the jagdpanther.
        You shouldn't bother about jagdtigers and other monsters - yes, they were and sometimes even successfully fought, but the Germans did not stake on them.
        The same tiger, with all its drawbacks, turned out to be a successful project in the end. Maybe not the best possible, but quite successful. The Panther went the same way of upgrading and fixing problems as the T34 from 41 to 43, and in 44 it became a very formidable tank.
        In addition, in defense, having the presence of faust cartridges, it was no longer necessary to rely on super-powerful vehicles - the infantry could hold back a quick swoop of tanks.
    2. lucul
      lucul April 26 2021 18: 39
      +7
      But they say Aloizievich was offered a variant of the T-IV with a panther tower.

      Are you kidding me ?
      On paper, everything is beautiful, but in reality, the towers on the Panther and on the Tigris were unbalanced. And if this did not affect the Tiger so much, then on the Panther, even a slight longitudinal tilt of the tank's hull made it impossible to rotate the turret at all, that is, in fact, the Panther is a tank only on a flat surface.
      By the way, on the T-34, the turret rotated freely under the much more aggressive slopes of the tank hull.
      And they like to show videos of how tanks are fighting in the folds of the terrain, but on tanks of the Second World War, with an unbalanced turret, such tilt angles of the tank hull are extremely critical.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 April 26 2021 18: 56
        -1
        Are you kidding me ?
        Everything is beautiful on paper
        I've posted a photo for whom? As you can see, they have quite real vehicles in a combat situation .. Besides, the tower could have been altered. The main thing is that it was quite suitable for the pursuit. On the T-34-85, the tower is also not entirely original from the T-43-II ...
        1. lucul
          lucul April 26 2021 19: 17
          +4
          I've posted a photo for whom? As you can see, they have quite real vehicles in a combat situation.

          Uh-huh, only the tower is not rotated and, it stands strictly in the middle, like a tank destroyer.
          In addition, the tower could have been altered.

          Armor = weight. The turret drive capabilities were exhausted even on the native Pz.4 turret, the turret from the Panther would have been too heavy to drive.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 26 2021 19: 28
          +8
          Quote: paul3390
          I've posted a photo for whom?

          This is not a photo. This was the fun of the altistorians.
          Quote: paul3390
          The main thing is that she was quite suitable for the pursuit.

          Didn't fit.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 27 2021 10: 11
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        By the way, on the T-34, the turret rotated freely under the much more aggressive slopes of the tank hull.

        This is after all the modifications.
        And at first everything was not very good on the T-34 with the turret.
        Tests of serial T-34s in December 1940:
        During the simultaneous operation of the rotary mechanism and observation in the PT-6 device, the flywheel and the control handle rest against the chest, making it difficult to quickly rotate the tower. The efforts on the handle of the slewing mechanism greatly increase with an increase in the roll angle of the tower and greatly complicates the work ...

        April 1941:
        In the first days of April this month, when checking in accordance with the specifications, the force on the handle of the turning mechanism on machines with mounted F-34 cannons that arrived in March, it was found that the force on the handle required to turn the tower reaches 30-32 kg ... In view of the fact that the increase in the load on the handle is obviously associated with the heavier F-34 cannon compared to the L-11, I decided to lengthen the handle arm ... To produce machines with a force on the handle of the turret swing mechanism equal to 32 kg, I consider unacceptable, since even with two hands, due to inconvenience, it is not possible for a person to turn the tower with an average effort even by 3-4 divisions ...
        Art. military representative of the GABTU KA at the STZ military engineer of the II rank Levin
        © Ulanov / Shein
    3. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav April 26 2021 18: 40
      +2
      yes, there even a t-4 with a kvk40 cannon was enough to defeat the t-34, there were not so many isov, the more tiger-1 could butt with them, but the release of the jagdpanther is better than the panthers themselves, these are serious machines
      1. lucul
        lucul April 26 2021 19: 22
        0
        Yes, even a T-4 with a KVK40 cannon was enough to defeat a T-34

        Like the T-34, the cannon was enough to defeat the Pz.4.
        the more tiger-1 could butt with them

        Even the Is-1 was an extremely serious enemy for the Tiger, I remind the armor penetration of the 8.8 KwK-36 tank gun was 150mm.
      2. Tima62
        Tima62 April 26 2021 22: 19
        +6
        Considering that some of the Panthers fought in the west, there were quite enough ISs for them (almost 3500 IS 2 were produced). And quite butting Tigers were released in total 1300, and of them in the east there were no more than 800. Tired of these comparisons of the Tiger and 34ki.
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 April 28 2021 09: 59
        +1
        Quote: Ryaruav
        t-4 with a kvk40 cannon was enough to defeat the t-34

        enough for cars of the sample 41 years old
        Already a car with a nut-tower for 43 years was far from penetrating so easily, and the T-34 became much faster, after correcting a bunch of shortcomings, it was more difficult to hit and the crew could act much more efficiently. And the t34-85 in the tower could be hit from the KVK-40 only close.
        Quote: Ryaruav
        there were not so many owls, especially since the tiger could butt with them-1

        the tigers had good chances against ISs only at short distances closer than 700m. But from the 43rd year, the IS battalions began to use tactics when they rarely approached the contact line closer than 1.5 km and became practically invulnerable to the German anti-tank defense. And they became what the Germans wanted to see the tiger.
        It also affected the fact that at long distances our 122mm gun turned out to be much more accurate than the German Acht-Acht.
        Quote: Ryaruav
        the release of the jagdpanther is better than the panthers themselves, these are serious cars

        the Germans needed both. These are tanks for different tasks.
    4. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2021 19: 23
      +6
      Quote: paul3390
      But they say Aloizievich was offered a variant of the T-IV with a panther tower.

      Alas, the "four" exhausted their modernization potential back in 1943, and then there was a real "corporate mockery". The front rollers were overloaded so much that the two rear rollers were no longer lying on the track, not to mention the fact that they would carry some kind of load
    5. figwam
      figwam April 26 2021 22: 26
      +5
      Quote: paul3390
      As you can see, they have quite real vehicles in a combat situation.

      Your pictures are ordinary photoshop.
      Here are the real ones.

    6. not main
      not main April 27 2021 01: 19
      -3
      Quote: paul3390
      But they say Aloizievich was offered a variant of the T-IV with a panther tower. And they even built a couple of copies. That is, to follow the path of the Soviet Union, with its T-34-85 ... IMHO - 10-12 thousand of such hybrids would cause us much more trouble than 5 thousand TV .. But Comrade Stalin seemed to understand significantly better the equations of modern war , that is why I did not go for an abrupt change of the serially produced and debugged model .. Only for modernization. And when it became clear that we were coping, the T-44 was already in use, albeit not in such quantities. The Fuehrer was always carried away by every wunderwaffe .. And thank God.

      Here's something like ..




      Actually, this is never a "panther"! Look at the chassis! And where is the "chess" pendant here?
    7. Jager
      Jager April 27 2021 12: 52
      +3
      The Jagdpanzer IV already came with all-metal front rollers - the limit of the Pz. IV by mass. It did not make sense to put on the already overloaded with additional armor the "four" hodovka also the heavy "Panther" turret. We released several experimental vehicles and calmed down. For the same reason, the frontal armor of the T-34/85 could not be enhanced - the last reserve was "eaten" by a heavy turret with a new gun.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 28 2021 07: 16
        +1
        Quote: Jager
        For the same reason, the frontal armor of the T-34/85 could not be enhanced - the last reserve was "eaten" by a heavy turret with a new gun.

        They could, they showed it on the T-43, we just had big problems with rolled armor, and an increase in its thickness, this is immediately a decrease in the number of tanks produced, that's what we couldn't go for sure.
        1. Khibiny Plastun
          Khibiny Plastun April 28 2021 20: 53
          0
          T 43 on torsion bars, not like the T 34 candlestick-Christie. Although the T 34 and brought the forehead to 75mm. But he did not go into the series.
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 April 28 2021 10: 03
        0
        the Germans made such hybrids at repair stations - when there were not enough spare parts.
        in addition, there were several commander's T4s with a panther turret but without a gun.
    8. yehat2
      yehat2 April 27 2021 13: 27
      0
      Quote: paul3390
      The Fuhrer, on the other hand, was always carried away by every wunderwaffe.

      this is not true. The Fuhrer grabbed the wunderwaffe only when he did not see the traditional ways.
      and T4 with a panther tower essentially did not change anything. you need a fully armored silhouette.
      For example, Shermans almost did not punch a panther in the forehead, and keeping 1 panther is easier than 3 Shermans.
      And the jagdpanther is generally a masterpiece of tank building. With a moderate cost and very high performance characteristics, while not overweight and reliable on the basis of 2 years of operation and fixing the panther's jambs.
  4. alpamys
    alpamys April 26 2021 19: 04
    +5
    I watched the Germans on YouTube, who fought on the Panther, they only praise, there are also few complaints about the chess suspension, but it is difficult, but it had more advantages.
    1. akims
      akims April 26 2021 19: 19
      +1
      If a tiger or panther was knocked out, or they were out of order, evacuation was extremely difficult, as well as on-site repair, unlike Soviet tanks, with the possible exception of KV.
      1. lucul
        lucul April 26 2021 19: 28
        -1
        If a tiger or panther was knocked out or out of order, evacuation was extremely difficult, as was repair on site.

        What kind of evacuation - you look at the armor action of Soviet shells.
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2021 20: 25
        +1
        Quote: akims
        If a tiger or panther was knocked out, or they failed, evacuation was extremely difficult, as well as on-site repair, unlike Soviet tanks,

        Unlike the Red Army, for the Panzerwaffe, such an ARV Bergepanther was created

        so that the issue of evacuation and repair of Panthers and Tigers was resolved
        1. Constanty
          Constanty April 27 2021 05: 48
          +4
          the issue of evacuation and repair of Panthers and Tigers was resolved.


          At one time I read on Battlefield.ru the memoirs of a German tanker (nicknamed "truck") who served on the Tiger.
          After reading them, one might get the impression that the Tiger spent a very large part of his time towing other damaged / non-working Tigers on his back.
        2. Aleksandr97
          Aleksandr97 April 27 2021 11: 59
          +3
          1943 In deep mud, even two tugs are not enough to evacuate one Panther. In total, the damaged tanks were towed to a distance of 600 m. The Bergepanther were used only to tow the damaged tanks from the front line to the near rear.
          The battalion's experience shows that it is necessary to have at least four Bergepanther tugs, at least at the expense of the usual 18-ton tugs. The equipment of the tugs with radio stations came in handy. During the battle, Bergepanther commanders received radio instructions.
          To tow one “Panther” in dry weather requires two tractor Zugkraftwagen 18t. However, even four 18-ton tractors cannot move a tank in deep mud.
        3. Tamer
          Tamer April 27 2021 12: 19
          +3
          GKO Resolution No. 5568 Order. On the production of tractors based on the T-34 tank at the NKO tank repair plants. April 8, 1944
        4. yehat2
          yehat2 April 28 2021 10: 05
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          the issue of evacuation and repair of Panthers and Tigers was resolved.

          only partially. You need to understand that even with tractors, it is hellishly difficult to drag a 60-65-ton monster through the mud.
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 April 27 2021 13: 29
        +1
        Quote: akims
        unlike Soviet tanks, except maybe KV.

        ours were transported by tanks, mainly t34
        and the Germans in the same way exploited a repair panther for transportation or 2 artillery tractors.
    2. mark1
      mark1 April 26 2021 19: 30
      +7
      Over the years, there will be more and more advantages. After the war (in calmer conditions), the T-4 was operated (and also fought!) Much longer than the T-5, that's the answer to all the questions.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 20: 36
        +4
        Quote: mark1
        The T-4 was operated (and also fought!) Much longer than the T-5,

        The Panther is a complicated machine for those countries that fought in fours.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 27 2021 13: 32
          +1
          the panther has a narrow specialization - a special tank against numerically superior medium tanks (30-36t) like the Sherman or T-34.
          As the war ended, the need for the panther dropped dramatically and tanks that were somewhere between medium and heavy became more popular - Persings, centurions, t-44 (and then t-54), etc.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 27 2021 19: 55
            -1
            Quote: yehat2
            persings, centurions, t-44 (and then t-54), etc.

            All of these machines were made as the response of their countries to the Panther.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 April 28 2021 10: 08
              0
              the t-44 was designed before the panther was seen. In fact, this is a 41-year-old project.
              In the same way, the tiger project was created long before the Germans saw the KV-1 or T-34.
              Unless the panther had a noticeable bias in specialization - its weapon did not correspond to its mass at all and was just delivered to fight the T-34.
    3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka April 26 2021 19: 38
      +4
      Quote: alpamys
      I watched the Germans on YouTube, who fought on the Panther, they only praise, there are also few complaints about the chess suspension, but it is difficult, but it had more advantages.

      The use of a checkerboard suspension was associated with a banal economy of rubber for a bandage. Otherwise, during the winter-autumn and winter-spring periods, tanks had to be put on logs at night. On the other hand, the Panthers at least could not disable the mice, as at Stalingrad. And in the cold, the pneumatic drives did not freeze like those of Czech tanks near Moscow.
      In fact, an excellent anti-tank weapon, which ours also used when they took such trophies.
      1. Khibiny Plastun
        Khibiny Plastun April 26 2021 20: 04
        +3
        Good evening.
        I read the same that Kniepkamp's undercarriage type, this is a smooth ride, better load distribution and economy of rubber. But then I put myself two pictures side by side - T 34-85 and Panthers, and I don't see there any special savings in rubber, but the rollers are thinner, but there are more of them. My opinion, the thesis about saving rubber is controversial. And the repair of such a suspension is still a challenge. I think that the Germans were too clever.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka April 26 2021 20: 21
          +4
          Quote: Khibiny Plastun
          I think the Germans were too clever

          I agree too clever. Ours also saved on rubber.
          Photos of the T-34 produced by the Stalingrad Tank Plant. Pay attention to the skating rinks.


          1. Khibiny Plastun
            Khibiny Plastun April 26 2021 20: 40
            +6
            Yes, these photos are familiar to me. At 42, there was no time for fat. The T 34 was also produced with a gasoline engine, in the absence of diesel engines. And the tanks were needed, even with a bezin, even a solarium, even with or without bandages.
            1. saigon
              saigon April 27 2021 11: 20
              +2
              With gasoline, one plant produced 42, it was not about diesel engines, the logistics were there (carburetor ones were easier to deliver)
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 28 2021 07: 19
                +1
                Quote: saigon
                With gasoline, one plant produced 42, it was not about diesel engines, the logistics were there (carburetor ones were easier to deliver)

                No, it is with diesels. The plant for their production was evacuated at that moment, and in the Urals they had not yet established their mass production. And it was not only at one plant, with M-17 engines they produced T-34 and KV tanks at Krasny Sormovo, STZ, in Tankograd.
          2. user1212
            user1212 April 27 2021 02: 29
            +4
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Ours also saved on rubber.

            Not certainly in that way. They tried to release the tanks without rubberized rollers, but such rollers burst very quickly, so they took a different approach. In your photos, not just rollers without a rubber layer, but rollers with internal shock absorption, in which a rubber layer is installed between the hub and the roller disc. This photo shows that they are even different in diameter.
          3. yehat2
            yehat2 April 27 2021 13: 33
            -1
            the clatter of the tracks was deafening.
            Germans often heard T-34s from several kilometers away.
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2021 20: 28
        -3
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The use of a checkerboard suspension was associated with a banal economy of rubber for a bandage.

        Not only, but also with excellent smoothness, which made it possible even to shoot aiming on the move
        1. Avior
          Avior April 26 2021 23: 50
          +2
          In addition, observation conditions from a tank in motion are much improved, especially for German tanks with a turret in the middle of the hull.
          And the observation conditions of tanks are generally a weak point.
        2. not main
          not main April 27 2021 01: 27
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          but also with excellent smoothness, which made it possible even to shoot aiming on the move

          But from this moment, can you give more details?
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 27 2021 07: 29
            -2
            Quote: non-primary
            But from this moment, can you give more details?

            The fighting compartment of the Panther is located in the best place for shooting, there are the lowest fluctuations, which also had a beneficial effect on the crew's motion sickness. The suspension is quite energy-intensive, which allowed the Germans to carry out aimed fire on the move at low gas, in contrast to our T-34s, which are very prone to swaying.
            1. Jager
              Jager April 27 2021 12: 57
              +1
              try to hit with a rifle while driving across the field at low speed in a UAZ. So leave all these tales about "aimed shooting on the move" to grandfather Otto Carius.
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 28 2021 07: 21
                0
                Quote: Jager
                try to hit with a rifle while driving across the field at low speed in a UAZ.

                And you had to shoot from a tank on the move without STV. Yes, it is difficult for me, but it is quite possible. In the tank forces, there is even a command like this: "Track"
              2. yehat2
                yehat2 April 28 2021 10: 13
                +1
                Well, depending on where to go. If in an elephant, there is already a chance.
                and I must say, the panther's move was much softer than that of the UAZ.
                The panther had another problem - blindness. Unlike the tiger, the panther had a very narrow view and the rangefinder was sloppy, and the turret was spinning slowly and there was no effective brake (like on the tiger), which made it possible to quickly and accurately position the turret, had to be twisted by hand. And as a result, the high rate of fire of the gun rarely came in handy.
                1. Battle Cat
                  Battle Cat April 28 2021 23: 35
                  0
                  Hello, and you can read more about the rangefinder on the panther.
      3. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 20: 34
        +3
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The use of a checkerboard suspension was associated with a banal economy of rubber for a bandage.

        The same suspension on the pre-war half-boots, too, because of the rubber?
        1. Romka47
          Romka47 April 27 2021 14: 13
          +3
          Or in order to shoot on the go))
    4. Jager
      Jager April 27 2021 12: 55
      +1
      These are the latest debugged series. Tankers of early modifications will not tell anything - they all burned down in the fire of battles.
  5. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka April 26 2021 19: 26
    +8
    Thus, in the final stages of the war, the German army had to simultaneously use two medium tanks, which had serious differences in all basic characteristics and capabilities.

    Funny German classification of tanks. Nifiga herself a kitty is almost a ton heavier than our KV-1s. The PzV was essentially a heavy tank.
    However, if you play from the reverse "German" our 47 ton KV-1 with 76,2 mm gun was a medium tank, T-34-85 with 85 mm heavy cannon.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2021 20: 29
      +1
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      The PzV was essentially a heavy tank.

      The classification of a tank is not determined by weight, but by its purpose in battle formations.
      1. not main
        not main April 27 2021 01: 32
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The PzV was essentially a heavy tank.

        The classification of a tank is not determined by weight, but by its purpose in battle formations.

        Well then, M-1 Abrams, It's just a light reconnaissance tank!
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 27 2021 07: 31
          +1
          Quote: non-primary
          Well then, M-1 Abrams, It's just a light reconnaissance tank!

          The M1 Abrams is the BASIC BATTLE TANK capable of performing many tasks on the battlefield, including reconnaissance.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 April 28 2021 10: 20
            +1
            the Americans even threw him out with a parachute
            however, when 2 cars were written off, the desire to repeat disappeared.
      2. user1212
        user1212 April 27 2021 02: 42
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        The classification of a tank is not determined by weight, but by its purpose in battle formations.

        We have a weight (more than 40 tons), the Germans have a gun caliber. The same panther in our classification is a heavy tank, according to the German it is a medium one. Not the only difference. For example, when comparing the tabular armor penetration of our and German guns, they somehow keep silent about the fact that the method of "offset" of this parameter also differed, just as ours and the American differ now
      3. Romka47
        Romka47 April 27 2021 14: 14
        +1
        The classification of a tank is not determined by weight, but by its purpose in battle formations.
        It would be logical, I agree with you. But we have what we have, ours have it by WEIGHT
        the German has a gun caliber.
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 28 2021 07: 34
          0
          Quote: Romka47
          But we have what we have, ours have it by WEIGHT
          the German has a gun caliber.

          Not. And they and us IT IS TIME TO PURPOSE, and everything else is "from the evil one"
          The Germans had a "medium tank" T-3 with a 37-mm cannon and a "heavy" T-4 with a 75-mm cannon. One was for the line, the other was for support
          The Panther has a 75-mm gun and it is already for the line, like the "medium" T-4
          1. kytx
            kytx April 29 2021 20: 37
            -1
            was not t3 "average" - this is a success development tank
            was not t4 "heavy" - this is a breakthrough tank
            the Germans at the beginning of the war had their own classification of tanks
            and it is no longer known who pulled the owl onto the Soviet globe of classification by mass
            and who invented that the Germans were classifying by caliber, too, can no longer make out
            hence the eternal disputes m5 is it heavy or average ?!
            for me he is not a tank, but a vehicle :)
            joke
            it is average only heavy and large laughing
    2. Avior
      Avior April 26 2021 23: 46
      +3
      Soviet tanks often have a characteristic difference - a relatively small armor volume.
      As a result, the tank is tighter, but with the same weight, the armor thickness is greater.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 27 2021 10: 33
      +3
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Funny German classification of tanks. Nifiga herself a kitty is almost a ton heavier than our KV-1s. The PzV was essentially a heavy tank.

      In fact, "Panther" was a tank destroyer. smile
      It could not be a heavy tank for one simple reason: too weak armor. The TT must have a reservation that protects it in a circle at least from small-caliber infantry anti-tank vehicles. And the "Panther" side - 40 mm, even the battalion 45-mm gun took it.
      Tactically, the future "Panther" was originally designed as a single medium tank to replace the "three" and "four". And it all started with a 20-ton class. However, during the journey, the "cat" was able to grow up. smile
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 27 2021 11: 49
        -2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        even the battalion 45-mm gun took.

        Battalion 45mm cannons? How interesting.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        must have a reservation that protects it in a circle at least from small-caliber infantry anti-tank vehicles

        The regular AT of the allies was 6 pounds, and the Tiger did not particularly protect against it.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In fact, "Panther" was a tank destroyer

        The Panther was a tank with highly differentiated armor. The self-propelled PT cannon were British 2lb and 6lb vehicles, as well as the Sherman 76.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 28 2021 10: 38
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Battalion 45mm cannons? How interesting.

          ... the main guns of the battalion artillery should be considered an anti-tank gun and a battalion mortar (howitzer, mortar)
          © A. Nikolaev. Battalion artillery. 1937 g.
          So the 45mm guns of the anti-tank platoon / battalion battery are battalion guns. They were used appropriately - not only as a PTO, but also to accompany the infantry with "fire and wheels."
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 29 2021 02: 18
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            these are battalion guns

            Why a link to a pre-war source? Did you ever hear that from July 41 to December 44 these guns were withdrawn from the battalion level?
      2. DesToeR
        DesToeR April 27 2021 16: 07
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In fact, "Panther" was a tank destroyer.

        In fact, if the Panther was a tank destroyer, it was a very expensive tank destroyer. If anyone made adequate anti-tank self-propelled guns, it was the Americans. There is no armor, but there is a cannon and speed. And with the right tactics, these "shells with hammers" could be against the Panthers as they should.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 27 2021 19: 35
          0
          Quote: DesToeR
          If anyone made adequate anti-tank self-propelled guns, it was the Americans

          In fact, no. These vehicles were obviously worse than a tank with the same gun.
          1. DesToeR
            DesToeR April 27 2021 20: 22
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            In fact, no. These vehicles were obviously worse than a tank with the same gun.

            In fact, the Americans were themselves surprised when the Witch, "written off" in the minds of the M18 generals, was able, with the right tactics, to shoot a lot of Panthers and not only. In general, the loss / damage statistics for the M18 are very good, although the characteristics of the car were "no miracles".
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BsxrGnG3WE
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 April 28 2021 10: 23
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And the "Panther" side - 40 mm

        panther g 60mm at a slight angle
        and the first panthers - yes, they were even punished by the dexterous T-70, simply bypassing and shooting them not in the forehead.
  6. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer April 26 2021 19: 31
    0
    Is a 45 ton tank medium? It would be more correct to say - heavy. From the heaviest "four" 20 tons, and to the "tiger" only 11 tons. Germany had two heavy tanks - different in design and gun caliber, which is not a gut. Understanding comrades say that it would be much wiser to modernize the "four".
    1. lucul
      lucul April 26 2021 19: 40
      -4
      Understanding comrades say that it would be much wiser to modernize the "four".

      All German tankers asked to simply copy the T-34 and start production with the KwK-40 cannon. This would really be the best solution for the Wehrmacht. But the Germans would not be able to quickly copy the duralumin V-2 diesel engine.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 26 2021 19: 43
        +1
        On this there were a lot of discussions, tanks are not my "strong point" because I wrote something, read it from those in the know - Baryatinsky, Kolomoisky or Kolomeytsev, forgot it. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone.
        1. lucul
          lucul April 26 2021 19: 45
          0
          On this there were a lot of discussions, tanks are not my "hobbyhorse" because I wrote it, I read it from those in the know - Baryatinsky,

          So about the fact that the Germans offered to copy the T-34, Guderian himself wrote.
          With a German cannon, with German radios and optics, that would be a good choice.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 12
            +2
            Guderian is a good tank general, although the Germans had better ones. But he is not a designer, not an engineer, not a production worker. The almost complete restructuring of production during the war is very bad.
      2. Undecim
        Undecim April 26 2021 20: 20
        +2
        But the Germans would not be able to quickly copy the duralumin V-2 diesel engine.

        Duralumin diesels do not exist.
        1. lucul
          lucul April 26 2021 20: 21
          -1
          Duralumin diesels do not exist.

          Dural cylinder block)))
          1. Undecim
            Undecim April 26 2021 20: 22
            +6
            And there are no duralumin cylinder blocks.
            1. lucul
              lucul April 26 2021 20: 31
              -2
              And there are no duralumin cylinder blocks.


              The cylinder block and crankcase are made of an alloy of aluminum with silicon, and the pistons are made of duralumin.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim April 26 2021 20: 43
                +6
                An alloy of aluminum with silicon is called silumin.
                1. lucul
                  lucul April 26 2021 20: 46
                  -3
                  An alloy of aluminum with silicon is called silumin.

                  But is this an aluminum alloy or not? )))
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim April 26 2021 20: 57
                    +4
                    There are dozens of aluminum alloys.
                    Duralumin is a wrought alloy. Silumin is a casting alloy. These are completely different materials of construction.
                    It was the Germans who began to make the first aluminum alloy pistons in the world, back in 1926, by the Mahle company.
                    The pistons are made of aluminum-copper alloy, but this is not duralumin.
        2. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 36
          +1
          The Germans had diesel engines of very good quality. Why the Germans (Americans, British) did not want to switch to diesel, the question is very "muddy".
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 26 2021 22: 06
            +4
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Why the Germans (Americans, British) did not want to switch to diesel, the question is very "muddy".

            Nothing muddy. They put what is at hand. Including diesels, except for the Germans. The Germans had specialized tank engines; they did not need to make tank engines from bus engines.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer April 26 2021 23: 13
              -1
              This site contains an article by Roman Skomorokhov, dedicated to the problems of creating a German tank diesel engine. There are some controversial points, but in general the article is convincing.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 27 2021 06: 42
                -1
                I do not remember. But the essence of the German situation was that Maybach made quite successful engines and there was no need at first, and then there was no time to do something better.
          2. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo April 27 2021 00: 30
            +3
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The Germans had diesel engines of very good quality. Why the Germans (Americans, British) did not want to switch to diesel, the question is very "muddy".

            The Americans switched when the Marine Corps needed tanks - for the sake of fuel unification with landing pontoons.
            And in the army there is a huge car park on gasoline, why fool your head?
            Ours, by the way, logically, would produce diesel trucks, but it didn't work out.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer April 27 2021 09: 23
              +2
              Dieselization of the USSR began a little later. Although at the cost of a liter of A - 76 - 4 kopecks. - it was not some very urgent problem.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo April 27 2021 10: 58
                -1
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Dieselization of the USSR began a little later. Although at the cost of a liter of A - 76 - 4 kopecks. - it was not some very urgent problem.

                You confuse the 70s with the 30s.
                Before the war, the oil refining industry in the USSR was very weak and did not meet the needs of the army and the national economy. In aviation, a crisis broke out in general in connection with the transition to high-octane gasolines, which were not enough until the very end of the war.
                1. TermNachTer
                  TermNachTer April 27 2021 12: 31
                  +1
                  So I'm talking about the dieselization of the USSR in the 70s, and not about the 30s. Although in the 30s Yaroslavl produced diesel trucks, just very little.
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 27 2021 09: 46
              0
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              diesel trucks would have been produced, but it did not work out.

              There, and with tanks, it did not work out very well. And with tractors. Light tanks - NOT AUTOMOTIVE gasoline, tractors - kerosene and naphtha. So it’s a very big question how good an idea was to diesel separate tanks, and only heavy and medium ones.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo April 27 2021 10: 55
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                and only heavy and medium.

                Well, actually, the main type of light tank was supposed to be the diesel T-50. But the engine was not finished.
                Plus, a deformed version of the V-2 was designed for the Voroshilovets tractors.
                So the direction was correct, but not shmogli.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 27 2021 11: 19
                  0
                  The direction would be correct if they could completely dieselize the army. And so the USSR ended earlier than from the gasoline Urals to KamAZ.

                  And with diesel tanks and gasoline trucks and armored personnel carriers - a big question.
      3. Slon379
        Slon379 April 26 2021 22: 11
        -2
        But now they use duralumin in dvigle with might and main! Here is genetic memory!
        1. Undecim
          Undecim April 26 2021 22: 28
          +3
          And what parts of "dvigla" are made of "duralium" now?
          1. Oleg ratay
            Oleg ratay April 27 2021 08: 07
            +1
            Quite right, the duralumin goes to the sheets and then to the body parts. Engine parts from AMg cast alloys, possibly from AK, AL (they are also foundries, if they are on the engines - I don't remember).
          2. Slon379
            Slon379 April 30 2021 19: 24
            -1
            The smartest or the stupidest? It is clear that we are talking about aluminum and its alloys.
      4. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich April 27 2021 09: 00
        0
        There was no point in copying the T-34. The tank had a difficult-to-manufacture body with internal candle suspension springs. Because of this, it was cramped and low-tech. The invention of automatic welding machines in 34 helped to establish mass production of T-1942 hulls. This body and the candle suspension were subsequently abandoned altogether, the design turned out to be a dead end. Of the modern tanks, only the Israeli "Merkava" has a candle suspension partially, but already outside the hull.
      5. Battle Cat
        Battle Cat April 28 2021 23: 43
        0
        Why copy B2, the same hl230 is smaller and more powerful at the same time.
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2021 20: 31
      0
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Understanding comrades say that it would be much wiser to modernize the "four".

      The possibilities for its modernization were not endless and they were exhausted already in 1943, and then there was simply "pure mockery" of the design, a similar story we are now witnessing over the T-64 tank ...
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 16
        +2
        The "Quartet" has been on the assembly line for only ten years, there was still a margin for modernization. This is not me saying, but those who understand the issue more deeply. In the same way, they say that when it became clear that the weight of the "panther" approached 40 tons, it was necessary to stop the circus. Either be limited to the "tiger" or design a really medium tank - 30 tons plus or minus a couple of tons.
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 26 2021 21: 26
          0
          Quote: TermNachTER
          The "Quartet" has been on the assembly line for only ten years, there was still a margin for modernization.

          No, it was not ... without a complete redesign of the structure, it was no longer. The nose was too congested
          See how the rear rollers just hang in the air
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 30
            0
            I’m not a tanker or a designer, but I don’t think that if we add another roller to the hodovka, then this will not require a radical alteration of production. It was possible to redistribute the weight a little inside the case. Some other options are possible.
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 27 2021 07: 35
              0
              Quote: TermNachTER
              I am not a tanker or a designer, but I don’t think that if we add another roller to the hodovka, then this will not require a radical rework of production.

              Well, of course ... why simply it was necessary to increase the length of the hull, made of armor steel, which would lead to an increase in weight, and this meant it was necessary to completely recalculate the weight distribution and the chassis, especially the suspension system, change the layout ...
              And so yes ... bullshit changes
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer April 27 2021 09: 19
                0
                And the creation of a second heavy tank, of a different design and with a different gun caliber, is not big garbage in the end?
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 27 2021 09: 30
                  0
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  And the creation of a second heavy tank, of a different design and with a different gun caliber, is not big garbage in the end?

                  And it turned out due to the fact that someone just decided to "add one skating rink"
                  And the caliber of the guns of the T-4 and the Panther was the same
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer April 27 2021 09: 32
                    0
                    Yeah, only the "four" was a medium tank, but with the "tiger" the calibers are different. It was especially fun for the German rear services - the shells are different, the parts are different)))
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 April 27 2021 09: 36
                      0
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      Yeah, only "four" was a medium tank

                      In general, some Western experts refer it to the category of "light-medium" since its combat weight varied from 17,1 tons (modification A) to 24,6 tons (modifications N-K)
                      1. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer April 27 2021 12: 32
                        0
                        This refers to the latest modifications, which by weight almost caught up with the T - 34, which is considered the standard of the WWII medium tank.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 26 2021 20: 32
      +2
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Understanding comrades say that it would be much wiser to modernize the "four".

      There are exceptionally many people who fight from the couch better than the Germans.
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Is a 45 ton tank medium?

      The Germans were not worried about this.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 18
        0
        They may not have been steaming, but they were properly "naparil" in May 45))))
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 26 2021 21: 25
          -1
          There, somehow, it was not about the Panthers. But the fact is the fact - both the Americans and the British followed the Germans in 40-50 tons with a delay of 2 years.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 32
            +1
            The Americans and the British, really began to fight only in the 44th. Run along the North. Africa, I do not consider a war - a very specific theater of operations.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 26 2021 22: 07
              0
              Quote: TermNachTER
              The Americans and the British, really began to fight only in the 44th.

              Therefore, according to your version of the story, they generally made their Panthers as soon as they saw the German original.
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer April 26 2021 22: 45
                0
                I have not heard of the British (American) "panthers". The fact that they began to fight after the landing in Normandy does not mean that their intelligence did not work. And the USSR also shared information, including on tanks. So the Germans knew about the "tigers" and about the "panthers" and even encountered them in small numbers in the North. Africa and Italy. so they did not come as a surprise to the allies.
                1. Avior
                  Avior April 26 2021 23: 42
                  -1
                  ... So the Germans knew about the "tigers" and about the "panthers"

                  At least they suspected smile
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 27 2021 06: 36
                  0
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  Did not hear

                  M26, A41
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  their intelligence worked. And the USSR also shared information, including on tanks.

                  The USSR, as far as is known, learned about the Panthers from the British. One of the Kursk panthers was taken to England.
                  1. DesToeR
                    DesToeR April 27 2021 15: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    The USSR, as far as is known, learned about the Panthers from the British. One of the Kursk panthers was taken to England.

                    The British "begged" this panther from the USSR only by 1944. Tests of this "sample", to put it mildly, discouraged the British in terms of technical reliability - the tank was constantly breaking down. For the sake of fairness, it must be clarified that at the time this Panther (most likely version D) entered the test site, it already had EMNIP's mileage of about 3 thousand km. But the British would not have been British if they had not been convinced by their own example. Not believing in the results of the 1944 test on an orderly worn-out sample from the USSR, they conducted their own in 1945. Moreover, they selected five new cars on the Panther chassis (not only tanks) with scanty mileage. The result was similar. Even on later versions of the vehicles, the weak technical reliability of the "chassis" was not eliminated (by British standards). The post-war operation of the Panthers and their quick decommissioning only confirms the conclusions drawn from the test results many times: the Panther tank was not a reliable and unjustifiably expensive piece of equipment in operation.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine April 27 2021 19: 59
                      0
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      the Panther tank was not a reliable and unjustifiably expensive piece of equipment to operate.

                      The Panther tank was unusable by Syrian personnel without a repair base and factory support. The four worked better in such conditions and it was much easier with spare parts.
                      1. DesToeR
                        DesToeR April 27 2021 20: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The Panther tank was unusable by Syrian personnel without a repair base and factory support.

                        Well, the main "exploiters" of the Panthers were far from the Syrians, but the French, quite well provided for with personnel and rembases ...
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The four worked better in such conditions and it was much easier with spare parts.

                        This is the technical and operational reliability in the army.
    4. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 20: 39
      -2
      The Germans considered tanks to be medium or heavy in terms of gun caliber, not weight.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 21
        +1
        Classifications of tanks in WWII were "a bunch" and cruising, and infantry escorts, etc. We are talking about the fact, and not about how this tank was classified in a particular country. "KV - 1", in the summer of 41, according to the German classification "heavy", although its cannon is 76 - mm. And there was also "KV - 2".
  7. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 26 2021 20: 18
    -7
    Tank Panthers are the best tank of WW2.
    1. lucul
      lucul April 26 2021 20: 22
      +1
      Tank Panther samyy best tank of WW2

      As a tank destroyer, yes, because the Panther's tower turned a little.)))
      1. CastroRuiz
        CastroRuiz April 27 2021 10: 54
        -1
        enough turn of the shtob will chop up a bunch of T-34-85s and Ronsons, they are Sherman. :)
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2021 20: 32
      -3
      Quote: CastroRuiz
      Tank Panthers are the best tank of WW2.

      What's the best thing? And how is the M26 Pershing inferior to it?

      "Panther" was created for the German army and, as practice has shown, it could be more or less successfully operated only in the German army
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 20: 53
        0
        Quote: svp67
        And how is the M26 Pershing inferior to it?

        20 vehicles in the European theater of operations. Poor mobility. Wrong layout with rear sprocket.
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 26 2021 21: 03
          -1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          20 vehicles in the European theater of operations

          And yet the tank fought
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Poor mobility.

          Not worse than the Panther
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Wrong layout with rear sprocket.

          What is it like? Actually, it became a "classic" in the post-war period.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 26 2021 21: 14
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            And yet the tank fought

            Formally.
            Quote: svp67
            Not worse than the Panther

            Significantly worse, a less powerful engine and a torque converter, which takes some of the power.
            Quote: svp67
            Actually, it became a "classic" in the post-war period.

            It became a classic when MTO was short enough to bring the turret back to the center of the car. The Americans' MTO was extremely long, as a result, the muzzle was overloaded, like that of Soviet cars. Find a lateral projection of Pershing, ISa and Comet, for example (the British have a significantly shorter MTO due to the checkpoint deployed across the tank, combined with the final drives), look where their mask and the center of the tower are relative to the front roller.
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 27 2021 07: 38
              -2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Formally.

              And nevertheless, on the account of the tankers fighting on these tanks, there are also destroyed Tigers and Panthers, as well as losses from them.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              see where they have the mask and the center of the tower relative to the front roller.

              So what? For that, this scheme saved a lot in weight, which could be directed to strengthening the same booking, and maintainability
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 27 2021 07: 55
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                For that, this scheme saved a lot in weight.

                Have you read Rezun?

                This scheme severely limited the front weight. Therefore, the heavier Pershing has a forehead like the lighter Sherman Jumbo, while Jumbo is far from the ultimate, to put it mildly, design in terms of layout.

                For the circuit to provide the benefits you are talking about, the MTO should be short enough. The Americans had a short MTO after the war, and the torment with the T-44 / T-54 in the 40s, I think, is well known to you.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 27 2021 08: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Have you read Rezun?

                  No, "Theory of tank building"
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  This scheme severely limited the front weight.

                  You are blocking now RIDDLING. Sherman, like all German tanks, had a transmission in the nose of the hull, which weighed a lot, including eating this weight from the armor. We had to do weight distribution taking it into account, on tanks with a rear MTO position, the weight of the tank's nose was provided only by its armor
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine April 27 2021 08: 43
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    You are blocking now RIDDLING.

                    Be careful with the caps.
                    Quote: svp67
                    We had to do weight distribution taking it into account, on tanks with a rear MTO position, the weight of the tank's nose was provided only by its armor

                    You still haven't found the picture? Why should I do everything myself.
                    Sherman

                    The tower is on the second bogie, the first fully carries frontal armor and a transmission that is light relative to the tower. It is possible to further increase the armor by lowering the height (see Hellcat) and moving the tower even further back.
                    Pershing.

                    The turret has been moved one roller forward, the frontal armor and cannon mantle are above the first roller. There is a large rear overhang to accommodate the transmission, but the transmission is relatively light. Increased front projection protection is not possible due to overload on the first roller. See exactly the same with the T-34 upgrades.
        2. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 April 27 2021 18: 30
          +2
          A very good tank, in WoT without straining 51 percent in random. laughing
    3. Khibiny Plastun
      Khibiny Plastun April 26 2021 20: 44
      0
      Uh-huh, the best is only in your dreams.
    4. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer April 26 2021 21: 22
      +1
      The statement is highly controversial. Read Baryatinsky or someone from the English-speaking authors
    5. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev April 27 2021 20: 48
      +1
      Thank you for making me laugh. The best tank is the one that allowed you to win. The best were T34 and Sherman.
      Of the heavy, the best IC 2.
      Your trouble is that you do not understand anything about war and the tasks of tanks.
      Panther, Tiger, CT and other expensive and useless monsters are the worst tanks of WW2.
  8. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 20: 38
    -4
    Quantity beats quality. But this did not teach Western strategists anything, they are building expensive toys again.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich April 27 2021 09: 21
      +2
      That’s not the point, that’s not the point in the tanks. In the Soviet Union, an advanced automated technology for welding tank hulls was developed, this is what helped to establish mass production, and not the imaginary simplicity of design or quality. The T-34 had both a difficult-to-manufacture body and a complex diesel engine.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev April 27 2021 20: 39
        0
        Yes, there was nothing complicated, the T34 was simplified as much as possible (especially before 1944): inconvenience, blindness, small resource, outdated suspension, all for the sake of cheapness. Do you believe that our diesel was worth more than a German carburetor engine?
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich April 27 2021 22: 05
          +1
          Do you think that making internal recesses in the spring housing is easy, and diesel is easier to manufacture than a carburetor engine? There is no limit to my surprise, I have not met such technical illiteracy for a long time!
          The workers of the rear accomplished a feat without exaggeration, releasing it, and even in such a number, and you belittle their feat with your clumsy conclusions.
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev April 28 2021 11: 47
            -2
            Yes, I think to make a B2 diesel much cheaper than a carburetor one for a Panther. You are surprised, well, then the surprise should be justified, and your literacy requires confirmation: how much did the B2 engine cost for the Panther, the numbers in the studio.
            Oh yes, making holes in the case is quite simple, given that the cases were made by tens of thousands, by unskilled workers, but for some reason they did it and there were no problems.
            Where do you see the belittling of the feat? Maybe the imperfection of T34 completely killed his dignity? Well, this is a fact: blindness, a small resource, poor tracks, a small reserve for modernization in terms of armor, but at the same time cheapness and mass character. Hard workers are heroes, soldiers are epic heroes, but those who invented and adopted T34 would have to knock on the head.
            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich April 28 2021 11: 59
              +2
              You inattentively familiarize yourself with the material, this confirms your technical illiteracy. For the springs, vertical niches were made inside the body, and not holes. They just copied the unsuccessful suspension from Christie, maybe good for a light tank, but not for a medium one. High-quality welding of such a low-tech armored hull is a very difficult process. And the V-2 diesel is also not simple, an aluminum alloy block, four valves per cylinder. Real perfection at that time, and the manufacture of such a diesel engine was by no means a simple task.
              And you know, I don't faint from comparisons, like those from Panther, he's German, and ours comes out obviously simple, and only because ours.
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev April 28 2021 18: 31
                -2
                And, that is, niche is it in your opinion competently?
                A hole is a hole, a gap, so that a cutout can be called a hole with a stretch.
                Niche - (from French. Niche - "ledge", "recess") - an architectural element, a decorative recess in the wall, used to install statues, vases, fonts or other objects.
                Enough idle chatter, give data on B2 and the German engine, price, time spent, without this you are just a chatterbox.
                1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich April 28 2021 18: 44
                  +2
                  Niches had a very real embodiment in metal that did not even come close to resembling holes. Deal with the linguistics of the issue yourself, not the subject of technology.
                  And enough of idle chatter, bring the design differences of the Panther engine that make it constructively outstanding and advanced. With no differences in design, you are just a chatterbox.
                  The low price of the engine can speak of the outstanding achievements of technologists and mass production.
                  1. Viktor Sergeev
                    Viktor Sergeev April 29 2021 18: 22
                    0
                    What's this advanced, the Panther engine? It's funny. If the Germans could make a diesel engine for a tank, they would have done it, but they had neither time nor resources, so they drove a wretched carburetor, burned scarce fuel, which was not enough. It was these advanced engines that became, among other things, the reason for the loss of Germany. The most advanced were the solutions that allowed riveting tanks like cakes, this is war, not VDNKh. The greatness of the B2 is such that it is still the basis of all Russian tank engines.
  9. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 26 2021 23: 52
    0
    Quote: Corona without virus
    to change horses again? )))

    Horses also need to be reproduced.
    We will have to live on stocks, not everyone has them.
  10. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 26 2021 23: 56
    0
    Quote: CastroRuiz
    Tank Panthers are the best tank of WW2.

    For what operations? From the area that the Merkava is the best.
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 26 2021 23: 57
    +2
    Quote: Vasyan from the factory
    German equipment was worse than Soviet in all respects.

    The Germans had better aviation.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 27 2021 06: 44
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      The Germans had better aviation.

      The Germans had almost everything better.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 April 27 2021 18: 35
        +1
        This killed them.
  12. Constanty
    Constanty April 27 2021 05: 43
    +3
    The shape (and many problems) of the PzKpfw V Panther, in my opinion, was influenced by many factors.

    The first - unsuccessful attempts in the USSR in the center "Kama" of a prototype GrossTraktor with a rear engine and transmission in 1929.
    This pushed the German designers away from this system, resulting in min. a propeller shaft running through the entire hull, resulting in an increase in hull height and thus space and weight protected by armor
    Compare that to the T-44 with a rear transmission.


    The second is Ernst Kniepkamp, ​​who is in the management of Waffenpruftungsamt 6, responsible for the tactical and technical assumptions of the ordered tanks and stubbornly pushing his own technical solution for the chassis (self-interest through deductions?)
    Compared to the chassis of, for example, the PzKpfw III, this solution was heavier and more time consuming. That I won't mention the nightmare of the renovation.

    If not for these two factors, the tank would be about 6-8 tons lighter, easier to manufacture, and the HL-230 engine would be less loaded and prone to breakdowns.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 27 2021 07: 23
      -1
      There will never be an end of people who say that the choice between a Renault ft17 type layout or a 6 ton Vickers type was the leading edge of tank thought, and someone there understood something right or wrong.
  13. mvg
    mvg April 27 2021 08: 52
    0
    Kirril, one request .... Don't write anything ... don't. Pen and text are not yours
  14. Aleksandr97
    Aleksandr97 April 27 2021 11: 51
    +3
    On March 5, 1944, Guderian reported: “As the experience of the last battles has shown, the Panther has finally been brought to mind. The report of February 22, 1944, received from the 1st Tank Regiment, says: "In the current version, the Panther is suitable for front-line use. It significantly surpasses the T-34. Almost all the shortcomings have been eliminated. The tank has excellent armor, armament, maneuverability. and speed. Currently, the average mileage of the engine is in the range of 700-1000 km. The number of engine breakdowns has decreased. Breakdowns in final drives are no longer noted. The steering and transmission are quite reliable. "
    The largest number of combat-ready "Panther" was at the disposal of the German command in the summer and autumn of 1944. At this time, the peak number of efficient tanks reached 522 units. At the same time, the Red Army had several thousand T-34, KV-1, EC-2 and M4 Sherman. Despite many local successes, the Panthers could not turn the tide of the war.
    In addition to combat and technical characteristics, any combat vehicle has other characteristics. Such as reliability, maintainability and, most importantly, the price, and the ensuing possibility for mass production. If we evaluate the bare numbers of technical characteristics, then the car looks outstanding, even the statistics of battles with our tanks speak in favor of the Panther. And despite its technical perfection, this machine practically destroyed the Third Reich, leaving it virtually without tanks. For these qualities, the Panther was not ahead of her time, but rather late. She was supposed to appear in the pre-war period, and all her childhood illnesses should have been eliminated even before the war, and not at a critical moment for Germany. But, before the war, such a machine could not appear. Since it was the result of understanding the battles against the T-34.
    1. DesToeR
      DesToeR April 27 2021 16: 27
      +3
      Quote: Aleksandr97
      If you evaluate the bare numbers of technical characteristics, then the car looks outstanding.

      Which of the characteristics of the Panther looked "outstanding" for 1943? 40mm side armor? So on the T-34 it was 45mm already in 1939. 80mm forehead armor? So on the KV, the forehead was covered with 75mm armor plus a 30mm screen - a total of 105mm in 1941. Did the 75mm cannon surprise everyone? So there were already samples of tanks with 6 inches "in the woods". An 34mm cannon was installed in the T-85-85, and even 100mm was tested. They were able to install 122mm in the KV tank. The Panther was recognized as the best GERMAN tank. But the truth is that in the opening at the Kursk Bulge, everyone paid close attention not to Panther, but to Ferdinand. And there really was something to be surprised: 200mm frontal armor and "laser gun" 88mm / L70 cannon. Nobody really noticed the panther, the Soviet anti-tank equipment is so accurate.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 27 2021 20: 11
        0
        Quote: DesToeR
        Which of the characteristics of the Panther looked "outstanding" for 1943? 40mm side armor?

        No, some Matilda 1 had 60.
        Quote: DesToeR
        80mm forehead armor? So on the KV the forehead was covered with 75mm armor plus a 30mm screen - a total of 105mm in 1941

        The 80mm Panther is larger than the 105mm KV. And these tanks are of different classes.
        Quote: DesToeR
        Did the 75mm cannon surprise everyone? So there were already samples of tanks with 6 inches "in the woods". An 34mm cannon was installed in the T-85-85

        Yes, a great weapon. The Soviet counterpart had a larger caliber (and therefore a heavier and larger shot) and appeared on the tank only in 1944.
        Quote: DesToeR
        The Panther was named the best GERMAN tank

        Not so bad.
        Quote: DesToeR
        Nobody really noticed the panther, the Soviet anti-tank equipment is so accurate.

        The Soviet VET did not make a difference; it did not cope very well with troikas.
        1. DesToeR
          DesToeR April 27 2021 20: 56
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The 80mm Panther is larger than the 105mm KV. And these tanks are of different classes.

          Nothing prevented from making a single inclined sheet like that of the Panther on a Soviet machine. The KV tank did not have a transmission in the control compartment. The grandfathers considered it more rational to "saw down" a new heavy weight with 120mm in the forehead and 90mm along the sides, but in the same weight (44 ... 48t). The grandfathers knew better ...

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Yes, a great weapon.

          And why is it great (if you are of course about 75mm / L70)? Although it is more correct to put the question like this: why is 75mm / L70 better than 88mm / L56 on a 1943 tank?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The Soviet counterpart had a larger caliber (and therefore a heavier and larger shot) and appeared on the tank only in 1944.

          Spoon road for dinner. And in 1944, these "spoons" ate the royal portions of tiger meat.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The Soviet VET did not make a difference; it did not cope very well with troikas.

          The fact of the matter is that "no difference", tk. The panther for the Soviet anti-tank equipment did not fundamentally differ from the "groove" or "troika". On the forehead - "lousy", on the side - "khana".
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 27 2021 21: 32
            0
            Quote: DesToeR
            M18 Witch was able, with the right tactics, to shoot a lot of Panthers and not only

            Yes, even this machine was suitable for ambush tactics. But PT battalions were mainly attached to infantry divisions, for which they were completely unsuccessful.
            Quote: DesToeR
            The grandfathers considered it more rational to "saw down" a new heavy weight with 120mm in the forehead and 90mm along the sides, but in the same weight (44 ... 48t)

            Yes. By the end of the 44th year, an IS with a straightened VLD appeared.
            Quote: DesToeR
            than 75mm / L70 is better than 88mm / L56 on a 1943 tank?

            Smaller caliber with similar armor penetration.
            Quote: DesToeR
            And in 1944, these "spoons" ate the royal portions of tiger meat.

            The C-53 pierced the Panther in the frontal projection only in the forehead of the turret. It was dangerous for the Tiger, but the Tiger was a kind of machine, in his case, all-round protection from the ZiS-3 is more important. And the Tiger had no problems with the T-34-85 itself.
            Quote: DesToeR
            On the forehead - "lousy", in the side - "khana".

            Head-on from "if you're lucky" passed to "don't even try", and the ability to shoot at the side depends on the preparation of the enemy. If the enemy allows himself to drive inside an unsuppressed anti-tank defense system, this is not a question for the tank.
            1. DesToeR
              DesToeR April 27 2021 21: 51
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Yes, even this machine was suitable for ambush tactics.

              What other tactics can a tank destroyer have? Free search? So in a free hunt, even the "late" Jagdpanther was lost at times. The tank is certainly better, but the tank is also more expensive due to its versatility.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Smaller caliber with similar armor penetration.

              Is that all? What about the weight of the swinging part? How about the size of the ammunition in the same volume? How about the cost of the gun in general and the shot in particular? Well, and the "cherry" on the cake - how about the OFS? Maybe it was worth making an incredible effort and think about whether it is worth introducing a new, hitherto in war, a weapon-ammunition complex that has never been used anywhere?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The C-53 pierced the Panther in the frontal projection only in the forehead of the turret.

              "Thirty-four, in fact, does not pierce the Panther in the forehead" ...
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              It was dangerous for the Tiger, but the Tiger was a kind of machine, in his case, all-round protection from the ZiS-3 is more important.

              Oh, the Tiger is better not to touch. That's why the Germans can not be scolded just for the Tiger. And the first, the one that is not "B". And to hell with him, that 300000 people / hour, yes 800000 Reichsmarks. Although some say that only 250K r / m. Well, yes, the "saws" of the Reich budget knew better.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Head-on from "if you're lucky" passed to "don't even try", and the ability to shoot at the side depends on the preparation of the enemy.

              This is called changed tactics. Well, what did the Nazis want? Everyone learns from the war "something and somehow". The only question is who is faster.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 28 2021 00: 33
                0
                Quote: DesToeR
                What other tactics can a tank destroyer have?

                Have an armored vehicle? Either ambushes or long range. But in this situation, it is not clear why this speed and this tower. It was wiser to spend the extra weight on a Nashorn-style weapon. And it is even more reasonable to make an assault SPG similar to the ISU-122S.
                Quote: DesToeR
                The tank is certainly better, but the tank is also more expensive due to its versatility.

                Not the Americans. M18 and Sherman cost the same.
                Quote: DesToeR
                What about the weight of the swinging part? How about the size of the ammunition in the same volume? How about the cost of the gun in general and the shot in particular?

                Quite good. Especially with regard to the shot, the ballistics of the gun made it possible to quite effectively use conventional AP, and not sub-caliber guns, for which there were no resources.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Well, and the "cherry" on the cake - how about the OFS?

                Perfectly with OFS, at the level of the usual four. Unlike, for example, the American 76mm.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Maybe it was worth making an incredible effort and thinking

                Put on the tiger gun? It might be reasonable, but Germans were never afraid of ununification. This is not a question for the tank.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Oh, the tiger is better not to be touched

                An interesting car for the eastern front, but there is nothing to catch on the western in 44. In 42, yes, he performed well.
                Quote: DesToeR
                This is called changed tactics

                This is called the Germans dropped the training of tankers and especially the coordination with the infantry and artillery. Only under such conditions could the idea of ​​shooting a tank at the side be different from suicide.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 27 2021 20: 14
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr97
      But, before the war, such a machine could not appear. Since it was the result of understanding the battles against the T-34.

      It could well, this is the development of pre-war 30-ton projects. The T-34 did not require such attention, it needed a reinforced four. But indeed, the fact that Soviet tank building was grossly underestimated forced the Germans to take excessive retaliatory measures.
  15. Stas1973
    Stas1973 April 27 2021 14: 17
    0
    In the future, the ratio of characteristics changed, both due to the appearance of improved foreign tanks, and due to the weakening of German armor,
    interesting, and who could do it, with the exception of IS2 and Firefly? Buyout entered the troops, we are talking about the latter, in small quantities.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 27 2021 20: 02
      +2
      Quote: Stas1973
      Buyout entered the troops, we are talking about the latter, in small quantities.

      Machines with a 17lb gun - Firefly, Komet, Archer, Achilles - were made about 5 thousand. That is, approximately on a par with the IS-2 / ISU-122. With a slightly different front length.
      1. Stas1973
        Stas1973 April 28 2021 04: 08
        0
        699 fireflies were produced. And so after all, you can add all the Hans' SUs with 75 mm guns to the Panthers.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 28 2021 07: 23
          -1
          Quote: Stas1973
          699 pieces released

          For July 44th. Use the English Wiki.
          Quote: Stas1973
          you can add all the Hans' SUs with 75 mm guns to the Panthers.

          With this gun? Jagdpanzer 4/70 only. Yes, it is quite possible to add, a serious car.
  16. Aleksandr97
    Aleksandr97 April 27 2021 17: 15
    +1
    Simultaneously with the adoption (autumn 1943) of the Tiger II tank, the Ministry of Armaments issued an assignment for the development of a new Panther II tank, with the requirement for maximum unification of the units of these vehicles. The development of the new tank was entrusted to the Henschel design bureau. The new "Panther" was a kind of lightweight "Tiger II" with reduced armor thickness, equipped with a Schmalturm turret. The main armament is an 88-mm KwK 43/2 tank gun with a barrel length of 70 calibers. The main difficulty was the lack of a suitable engine for the heavy machine, in connection with which the options for installing MAN / Argus LD 220 engines with a capacity of 750 hp were worked out. sec., Maybach HL 234 with a capacity of 850 liters. sec., Maybach HL 295 with a capacity of 1200 liters. from.
    At the end of 1944, the Armaments Directorate issued an order for the manufacture of two Panthers II, but only one hull was produced. But the tests were not carried out, and this tank hull without a turret was captured by American troops.
  17. flc9800
    flc9800 April 27 2021 17: 36
    0
    The author is a minus! For typos and mistakes ... The article is superficial, nothing new, from a word at all! Anyone interested in forming their own opinion about the tank, I strongly recommend the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5W1X8Eya6k&t=4832s
  18. Grossvater
    Grossvater April 28 2021 12: 29
    0
    Cool!
    Pz-V 46 tons average. IS-2 46 tons heavy, M-26 41 tons, also heavy.
    When evaluating and comparing German and Soviet (allied) tanks, it is worth remembering that they had different opponents. The Panther is essentially an anti-tank self-propelled gun with a rotating turret.
    The main enemy of her and the rest of the panzers were Soviet and American tanks, since there were not just a lot of them, but a lot. Therefore, a moderate caliber and highly effective AP rounds
    The main enemy of our and allied tanks was infantry, as an object of extermination, and anti-tank vehicles, as a threat. Accordingly, the caliber is larger and HE shells.
    By the way, precisely because of the ZiS-S-53 anti-aircraft fragmentation shells, which were not the most effective in this role, the surviving T 34 with 76 mm guns fought to the end and were highly valued.
    As for the Panther.
    It was ten tons heavier than the law of God required. The main reason is the traditional German front-mounted transmission layout.
    The cardan made it necessary to increase the height of the tank, the forward location of the transmission, coupled with the desire to pull it out through the hatches, plus the provision of rational angles of inclination of the armor forced to increase the length of the tank.
    By the way, the combination of the control compartment with the transmission compartment and, therefore, the reduction in the length of the tank is almost the only advantage of the German layout.
    Plus a heavy chassis.
    The Germans in 1944 put a gas turbine engine, but it did not go into the series, Thank God!
    In general, those 15-20 thousand fours that the Germans could build instead of the Panthers would have done a lot more trouble.
  19. abc_alex
    abc_alex April 28 2021 12: 48
    0
    In my opinion, the author has several inaccuracies.
    To start. The T5 Panther was not intended to replace the T3 and T4. when designing... T3 and T4 are tanks of different roles on the battlefield. Treshka with its small-bore long-barreled cannon is a tank destroyer of tanks. And a four with a 75-mm "stub" - an infantry support tank. The long-barreled gun on the T4 began to be installed only with the F modification in the spring of 1942. And the 35-ton tank, which later became T5, the Germans began to develop in 1941. And they were put into service in the spring and summer of 1942, when there was no talk of any withdrawal from service of three-ruble notes and fours and the idea of ​​a universal tank on the battlefield had not yet visited the heads of the German military. The Panther is a tank destroyer, judging by the armament.

    In fact, they spoke about rearmament on the T5 only twice, at the beginning of production and towards the end of the war. But for the first time before, as the volumes of production became clear, and the second was already when the Wehrmacht decided to unify the fleet of tank units. In real life, the Panthers were equipped with one battalion per regiment - 50-54 tanks.

    Further. The T5 is still a heavy tank. Let's use the domestic classification. 45 tons with anti-cannon armor.

    Due to limited resources, Germany could not compete with the enemy in terms of the number of armored vehicles, and a course was taken to increase quality indicators.

    ??? Why is that? I could. It depends on who is considered the enemy. If France, then the Germans in 1939-1940 were able to turn the balance of forces in tanks in their favor in the production of new T3 tanks. It's just that when they talk about the ratio of tanks between France and Germany 4500 \ 3500, they forget that the French produced their tanks all the 20s and 30s. And the Germans were forbidden. But when the political restrictions subsided, the Germans gave the tanks to themselves at an accelerated pace: 1939 PzIII tanks were built in September-December 157, and another 1940 tanks of this type were built in the first five months of 258. And another 149 Pz.Kpfw.IV. A total of 546 tanks in 9 months. In the USSR, of course, they did more, but in France they made 20-odd tanks a month at a peak of 40.
    The Germans rested on qualitative indicators for ideological reasons. Not technological.