Tonks: Tigers, Armatas, T-72 Alphabets

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
19,920
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
Kind of s spin off of the Ukraine thread.


Generic tank thread. WW1 to now. If it involves tanks/armored vehicles and similar things or pop culture related to (eg video games, movies). them go ahead.

We were discussing Armata and I said something like the Tiger was worth building, King Tiger and Panther not so much.
 
Last edited:
1682542768698.png
 
I like this idea for a thread. Why did you not think Panther's were worth building? Sure the early models suffered from mechanical issues but once they were worked out I thought the Panther was a great tank.
 
if you are playing sp hoi 4, howitzers are way better than even medium cannons on your tanks. the ai doesn't have enough armor or hardness to care about piercing or hard attack, so anti-infantry guns all the way.

tankettes are funny, both in game and historically
 
I like this idea for a thread. Why did you not think Panther's were worth building? Sure the early models suffered from mechanical issues but once they were worked out I thought the Panther was a great tank.

It was unnecesarily large and heavy, and too complex to manufacture. A 35ish ton easily mass produced tank would've been far more useful - basically a follow up to the Pz4. It wasn't awful the way some of the other late war Nazi tanks were, but it was significantly inferior to vehicles like the Sherman or T-34.

It was also kinda a dead end design wise. Note how no post war tanks were anything like the Panther in design - when both Western and Soviet tank designers got their hands on the Panther, they didn't bother copying it.
 
I like this idea for a thread. Why did you not think Panther's were worth building? Sure the early models suffered from mechanical issues but once they were worked out I thought the Panther was a great tank.

They never solved its mechanical problems it was to heavy for its engine.

It gad a good anti rank gun that was weaker vs infantry (higher velocity gun less HE charge).

If they made it ten tims lighter and treated it as an upgraded PzIV maybe.

They list something like 33%-50% due to mechanical breakdown.
 
It was also kinda a dead end design wise. Note how no post war tanks were anything like the Panther in design - when both Western and Soviet tank designers got their hands on the Panther, they didn't bother copying it.

In a direct sense, yes, but the Panther's design did pretty clearly presage the development of the "main battle tank" as opposed to the light, medium, heavy tank scheme.

I also don't entirely agree the Panther was inferior to the Sherman or T-34, if the Germans had had the production and logistics muscle to properly support the Panther it would have made a better showing.

I also completely disagree with @EvaDK that the Tiger I was a propaganda weapon: it was quite an effective tank when the kinks were worked out (and before loss of territory deprived the Germans of key materials for its construction, which also applies to the Panther). I would agree it was not the most effective use of German resources but there is quite a difference between that and "propaganda weapon."
 
In a direct sense, yes, but the Panther's design did pretty clearly presage the development of the "main battle tank" as opposed to the light, medium, heavy tank scheme.

I also don't entirely agree the Panther was inferior to the Sherman or T-34, if the Germans had had the production and logistics muscle to properly support the Panther it would have made a better showing.

I also completely disagree with @EvaDK that the Tiger I was a propaganda weapon: it was quite an effective tank when the kinks were worked out (and before loss of territory deprived the Germans of key materials for its construction, which also applies to the Panther). I would agree it was not the most effective use of German resources but there is quite a difference between that and "propaganda weapon."

Why I said the Tiger was worth building is tgat it was reliable enough and did actually cone close to what the Germans required (fewer better quality tanks) that they needed.

I think the medium tanks morphed into the MBT concept not the Panther which was a dead end design wise. Eg T-34-44-54/55 or Pershing-M48-M-60.

The only design feature copied was the cupola iirc and basic concept like high velocity AA gun in a tank which the USA and USSR both worked out independently (90mm in Pershing/M36 and 100mm on prototypes and T-54/55).

No one copied the Panther, the French used them briefly but dumped then once they figured out how bad they were.
 
In a direct sense, yes, but the Panther's design did pretty clearly presage the development of the "main battle tank" as opposed to the light, medium, heavy tank scheme.

I also don't entirely agree the Panther was inferior to the Sherman or T-34, if the Germans had had the production and logistics muscle to properly support the Panther it would have made a better showing.

I also completely disagree with @EvaDK that the Tiger I was a propaganda weapon: it was quite an effective tank when the kinks were worked out (and before loss of territory deprived the Germans of key materials for its construction, which also applies to the Panther). I would agree it was not the most effective use of German resources but there is quite a difference between that and "propaganda weapon."

The concept of the MBT or "universal" tank was being developed independantly by all the nations involved in tank production by the early 40s. The Panther was possibly the first to make it into service (though it probably wasn't quite there yet - the Centurion was likely the first tank to enter service that could truly be considered universal), but it wasn't particularly influential on any other nations designs.

If the Nazis had had more industrial and/or logistical muscle....thay still would have been much better of building an easily mass produced 35t tank instead of the overweight, overengineered Panther. Hell, look at what the nations that did have the logistical and industrial muscle foused on - the Sherman and T-34. Now to be clear, when I saying how good a tank is, I'm not talking about "which one would win in a 1v1 shootout". Beacuse that very rarely happened. I'm focusing on which would contribute more to winning the war. That's what matters in a weapon. And two Shermans are way more useful when it comes to winning a war than one Panther.
 
Did Germany have the capacity to produce and supply such vehicles?

Production and supply of such vehicles would've been easier than what they actually built (Tigers and Panthers). They obviously couldn't do it to the extent of the US or USSR, but thats what happens when you pick a fight with most of the world.
 
If the Nazis had had more industrial and/or logistical muscle....thay still would have been much better of building an easily mass produced 35t tank instead of the overweight, overengineered Panther. Hell, look at what the nations that did have the logistical and industrial muscle foused on - the Sherman and T-34. Now to be clear, when I saying how good a tank is, I'm not talking about "which one would win in a 1v1 shootout". Beacuse that very rarely happened. I'm focusing on which would contribute more to winning the war. That's what matters in a weapon. And two Shermans are way more useful when it comes to winning a war than one Panther.

Fair enough, the T-34 and Sherman were clearly superior to the Panther in the final/total analysis. I may or may not just really like the aesthetics of the Panther's design.
 
Did Germany have the capacity to produce and supply such vehicles?

Sort of. They produced 6k Panthers.

Building more tanks was mostly a waste due to oil. They couldn't fuel the ones they had so producing more was a waste. The old they could build 3-5 Stugs or whatever vs 1 tiger falls apart due to the fuel situation.

So a lighter Panther that was mechanically reliable would have been their best bet.

Their concet of quality over quantity was the right concept they never really executed it except maybe the Tiger. Tiger II, Jaghtiger etc were trash Stug, PanzerIII and IV were good.

They still lose anyway in alternative reality they needed to win by Dec 41.

Realistically a better PzIV or lighter Panther with a handful of Tigers or marginally replacement wascthe bestbthey could do.
 
Last edited:
i don't think there was any long-term nazi victory, even if they secured a ussr surrender that fast and made the optimal tank for what their war effort could utilize. their economy has been vastly overrated, they were running it into the ground with their policies, and their conquests weren't exactly friendly to their regime for obvious reasons.

they would certainly have cracked top 5 governments for mass murder historically though, maybe #1, and the world would have suffered even more if they managed to continue their regime longer.

as noted earlier, tanks didn't get into tank v tank slapfights like you see in war thunder very often, so making more of them as efficiently as possible to defeat infantry/push positions was the better call, as long as they were sufficient to that task.
 
Shermans main problem is that it's main gun was usually a 75mm gun designed for infantry support. Not tank to tank combat. That's what the Tank Destroyers like the M10 were for.
 
Shermans main problem is that it's main gun was usually a 75mm gun designed for infantry support. Not tank to tank combat. That's what the Tank Destroyers like the M10 were for.
It also had a high profile so it could be narrower, so that a certain number of them could fit on transport ships IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Shermans main problem is that it's main gun was usually a 75mm gun designed for infantry support. Not tank to tank combat. That's what the Tank Destroyers like the M10 were for.

And 85-95% (numbers vary) of the time they didn't encounter German tanks.

It was reliable, comfortable and the 75mm was good enough vs anything German except their heavies and Panther frontal shots.
 
Top Bottom