Talk:Panther tank/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

How shall I put this? Could it be that some of the data presented here are a bit, well, outdated? It would seem to me that the stated production numbers are of WW2-vintage themselves, being derived from contemporary intelligence reports. I do know that the most recent works of Mr Jentz are prohibitively expensive in the original English, but could you perhaps lend them from someone and carefully have a peak? Also the stated date of the encounter with the T-34 is of course much too late. Most sources give July 1941 - and even they are too late: it was at least as early as June 23rd. November 1941 is the date of the official German investigations into the matter.

MWAK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.44.226 (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2004 (UTC)

Very nice picture, 119! ;o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a nice "group photo" of Pkw V's in Russia at [1], and a cropped variant at [2]. It might be worth including if the copyright issues can be figured out. — B.Bryant 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "Panther II" and "Panther 2" refer to the same tank, the article should be consistent with the use of one type of numeral or the other. — B.Bryant 13:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Layout

Anyone want to apply the tank:template to this article? GraemeLeggett 21:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources

This article really need some sources for the production figures. They were just changed by some anonymous user, and who's to say which figure is correct? Harald Hansen 09:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Final production figures

Does anyone have the final production figures. T-34, Tiger, Sherman, Tiger II all have total production figures for the war but a Panther figure is lacking. Obviously deal with the sources problem mentioned above, but if we can give a month by month production break down surely someone has a total value somewhere. Thanks Pluke 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II#Panzer V (Panther). —Michael Z. 2006-02-05 22:33 Z

Thanks, never seen that page before! Pluke 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo caption

The caption of the photo in the Design Characteristics section has been changed several times. The vehicle is an ausf A, identifiable by the cast cupola. The ausf A and D share other recognition features such as the letterbox flap over the hull MG mount, the visor for the driver, and the two-piece hull sides. But the cast cupola is definitive for the ausf A. The photo of the tanks on the train shows the drum-type ausf D cupola. I don't know what the objects bolted to the hull corners are. DMorpheus 16:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ausf D had a vertical letterbox opening for the radio operator to fire a MG34 through in combat conditions and a larger rectangular aperture was provided for the driver. During combat the drivers apeture was closed and he used a fixed twin periscope. The Ausf. A changed to a ball mounted MG in the front glacis for the radio operator; however the driver still had the rectangular aperture. Finally all apertures in the front glacis were removed with the introduction of the Ausf. G variant and the driver used a rotating vertical periscope . The picture with the caption 'Early Panther Ausf. A' is actually an Ausf. D variant as recognisable by the two apertures in the front glacis plate. When you click on the picture it actually gives the correct variant - Ausf. D 212.77.203.162 08:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a widely-held, yet incorrect belief about the differentiating characteristics of the ausf D and A. Older sources make the claim you are making. However, if you check any up-to-date source such as Tom Jentz or Bill Auerbach you will see for yourself. The early ausf As retained the letterbox flap MG mount; the real difference between a D and an A is the turret, which had a cast cupola and monocular gunsight on the A; on the D, there was a drum cupola and binocular gunsight. The G had a completely redesigned (simplified) hull. The original photo caption is simply wrong, although the article currently correctly has photos of each of the major variants. DMorpheus 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Production part of the text

Production part needs quotation marks and the text should be edited, some parts of it are written from first person point of view. Citations would rock too. 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC+3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.156.217 (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"[M]y correspondent", etc., near the bottom, does sound like personal reasearch, ostensibly a Wikipedia no-no. Apologies if this is redundant as a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.147.158 (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unattributed and fishy-sounding to boot

I struck out the paragraph about "Black Bag" operations. #1) We shouldn't have things like "my informant" or "my book". #2) It's unsubstantiated. #3) The whole thing about a 74-calibre 88mm cannon sounds very fishy indeed. I've read in several places about plans to mount an 88mm L/100 in the Panther Schmalturm, but never anything about a 74-cal mark. Evidence? Photographs? Published materials? Sacxpert 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant to put L/71 (as this was what the Ausf. F was really meant to be armed with) but he was using the numpad and accidentally put 74 and never 'spell-checked' his writing. There was no such thing as an 88mm L/74 cannon.

Blerg1 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Only 2 Prototypes

I see a recent revision has introduced the myth that there was a preproduction series of 20 "Panther A1's". While you occasionally see this myth repeated (I have no idea where it started) in poorly researched books and websites it is wrong. There were only two Panther prototypes, the V1 which was just a chassis and the V2 (mild steel construction, differently shaped turret, ball muzzle brake) which were built around November 1943. The third Panther built was the first production Panther D and it was completed in January 1943. Any good book on the Panther sets out this history in detail - I can recommend Spielberger's book: "Panther and Its Variants" or Jentz's "Germany's Panther tank" or the Osprey book by Hart "Panther Medium Tank 1942-45". Jentz and Spielberger are regarded as the leading historians on German AFV's of WW2. Armourhistorian 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gun performance vs. IS-2

I removed the fact tag regarding the ability of a Panther to destroy an IS-2 at a range of 2,000 meters. A quick google search will reveal multiple sites with gun performance figures and armor thickness tables for the IS-2 and Panther. Firing HVAP (PzGr 40) ammo the Panther penetrates 106mm of armor at 2,000 meters. The IS-2 has 160mm thick frontal turret armor, and very well-sloped 120mm glacis, so it will not be penetrated from the front. However, a side hit against the 90mm hull side could penetrate. Likewise a hit on the 60mm hull rear would also penetrate. DMorpheus 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the IS-2 had 120mm glacis sloped at 60 degrees (which the panther could not penetrate at any range) and 100mm frontal turret armor, which indeed the Panther could penetrate at 2,000 meters.

If the IS-2 had thinner turret armor than its own glacis, that would make it truly unique. All my (dozens of) sources say 160mm turret front. DMorpheus 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well check out www.battlefield.ru here; http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50 I can't find a source stating it is 160mm. Actually, after looking a little more, I found a couple, but I would say the more reliable sites, which state the armour thickness of each part of the tank, list the turret armour as 100mm. Here is another, I would say reliable site; http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/data/is2m.htm

See Zaloga and Grandsen, 1984, where he quotes it as 160mm "maximum". I've checked on the main turret castings and most of my sources say 100 or 110mm, but the mantlet adds another 60 mm. So what this really comes down to is your definition of the turret 'front'. Obviously it is a cast turret with an intentionally very narrow frontal area with compound curves. This is probably the reason the sources vary; the area covered by the mantlet may be 160mm and the rest of the turret may be 100mm. DMorpheus 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If we start to count max armor this way then the Panther has ~220 mm max armour at the turret front (100-110 turret front + 120mm mantlet). --Denniss 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of how "we" count maximum armor. It's what the published sources say. Zaloga is easily one of the most respected researchers on Soviet armor. Also, there's the question of how the turret is designed. If the mantlet thickness overlaps the main turret casting (as it does for much of its extent on the IS-2) then the thickness truly is additive. If the mantlet doesn't overlap other armor to any great extent (say, for example, on early M4s with the M34 gun mount, or the T-34-85, where there is no overlap at all) then it would not make sense to add the two thicknesses together. DMorpheus 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You also have to look at the turret on the IS-2 instead of just saying the Panther could penetrate it a X range. There is more to the turret then just armor tables, for example the mantle was rounded, and from a frontal aspect the turret side were visible from the front. All this gave the IS2s turret superb protection. The flattest spot on the mantle was near the gun barrel, but the further down away it got the more sloped the armor became. So in effect many spots on the turret front would simply deflect even the panthers rounds. Wokelly March 13 2007

"Legacy" edits

Anyone care to comment on this new section? It strikes me as POV-ish, uncited OR and unencyclopedic. There are so many errors in it that adding fact tags will be disruptive. I have invited the editor to discuss on the talk page after several reverts. DMorpheus 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Panther was argubly the greatest tank in WW2 due to its speed, manouverbility and powerful cannon, this combined with sloped armour made it a fearsome and respected weapon on the battlefield.(it was common for allied soldiers to tell of great battles with Tiger tanks destroying their own, but in fact they had engaged Panthers but as the Tiger had gained such a reputation many just assumed it must be that) In comparision with the Tiger tank(s) the panther was not only much faster and more manouverable but also well protected (but suffered from weak side and turret armour) and although its gun was not that of the Tiger, its was capable of destroying all medium allied tanks at range and was more than a match for any of the allied heavy tanks and was much less prone to break down or other problems which plagued the Tigers. It was also produced in far greater numbers than the Tiger during WW2 due to the fact that it was less complex to build ,cheaper to produce and proved more reliable in combat than the Tiger.

Many of the characteristics of the Panther were taken on board by all armies due to its effectiveness and all modern day tanks share the roots of the Panther i.e protection , speed , manoverability and sloping armour which were so well blended into this vehicle (the Russian made T34 which was one of the first tanks to contained many of these characteristics and was the basis for the Panther,but lacked the heavy gun of the Panther untill the end of the war)allowing German tank crews to score incredible hit to kill ratios that were superior to the Tiger due to the numbers produced, but alas the Tigers reputation was far greater of that of any tank of WW2 and as such the Panther was never given the reconision it deserved, except by its rather grateful tank crews.''

the T34 was the best tank of WW2 because unlike the panther the T34 combine good protection , firepower, speed, maneuverability and produce ability....unlike the panther which was a complex machine....and there is one flaw in this...its that the panther shares it roots in the T34...

In point of fact, the best tank to come out of World War II is the Centurion. The Panther was the best all around design. The T-34 was the best all around design on the Allied side. The best Allied tank in head to head combat was the Sherman Firefly (its 17-pounder could penetrate a Tiger I's frontal armour at almost the distance the Tiger's 88m gun could penetrate the Sherman).

Request for citation?

There's a "[citation needed]" thing in the middle of the article where it states that 5 Shermans were regarded as enough to eliminate 1 Panther. Why is there a citation needed there, when it mentions the exact same ratio earlier in the article? Also, this is true, at the very least according to Stephen Ambrose. I'll have get out my copies of D-Day, The Victors, and Citizen Soldiers and check it out. Of course, I won't be surprised if somebody says that Ambrose is an illegitimate source. I disagree, but there's somebody to argue about everything, everywhere. 152.23.196.162 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ambrose was not an armor specialist, and he does have a tendency to insert his opinion into his work whether founded or not. That's his right, as an author, but it doesn't mean we need to blindly follow where's he's just wrong. There is no magical ratio of Sheramns:Panthers that will win a fight. Sometimes the Germans fought outnumbered and won; usually they didn't. DMorpheus 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Engine

An anonymous user 86.17.246.154 has just changed the stated engine power from 700 HP / 515 kW to 650 HP / 515 kW.

515 kW is roughly 690 HP, and 650 HP is roughly 485 kW, so the original is at least consistent with itself where the current version is not.

I haven't a clue what the correct value is, but what's there now is clearly wrong, so could someone with access to the facts please correct it?

FJPB 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Overhanging gun

Just what is meant by the term "overhanging gun"? Is it that the gun extends beyond the front of the hull? 83.109.86.72 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Carnildo (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy, thanks 83.109.86.72 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ausf D panther being produced before Ausf A

Does ANYONE know why the Panther Ausf D was produced and reached units before the A? I really can't find much information on why this is so. Jeremy D. (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The ausf D is simply the first production model. The second model was the ausf A, which entered production a few months after the D. IIRC the Ds were built in the spring/summer of 1943, while the A entered production around Sep 1943. So the German naming system was not always entirely logical ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just doesn't make much sense in my head that D comes before A. I know there were models before the Ausf D (prototypes and such) so i guess that would mean the Ausf D was the last of that type of model before they began the modifications to the engine and other mechanical issues that brought about the A.

That makes more sense now that i think about it. 142.179.226.200 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that "D" was supposed to be a lower-case "d," but was not written like that in practice. Lowercase model numbers (a, b, c, d) were used for prototypes, uppercase letters (A, B, C) were used for production models. -Scott S.

Videos with this tank

These sites: [[3]] and [[4]] are about this tank.Agre22 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Nahverteidigungswaffe

Panthers were equipped with this, right?

Why isn't this mentioned at all (presumanbly under "armaments")

GreenAsJade (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold DMorpheus (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page has been vandalized. Can someone please lock and restore the page? (Psychoneko (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

There's nothing in the history showing that. ??? DMorpheus (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Because someone has already fixed it. Wasn't me though. (Psychoneko (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Overlapping wheels

Looking at the wheels on the Panther, it occured to me that these are overlapping, just as with the Tiger I. Now with the Tiger I, these are repeatedly mentioned as a liability, at least on the Eastern Front, mud freezing over night and stucking the wheels. However, I cannot recall any mention of such about the Panther. Did it somehow not suffer from this, or is it simply overlooked with the Panther, and only mentioned with the Tiger because of its general mechanical troubles?

I think the liability regarding mud may be a bit of an exaggeration. They are also a liability because lots of them need to be removed to replace an inner or middle wheel. No post-1945 design I'm aware of has employed overlapping or interleaved wheels. DMorpheus 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AMX 50, :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the system used on the Panther had fewer layers of wheels and was less inclined to clog as a result. Getztashida 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the term "bogies" with "road wheels." "Bogies" are a carriage or frame used to mount road wheels. An example of this type of suspension is found on the American Sherman tank. Panther tanks did not use "bogies" or "bogie wheels;" road wheels is the correct term. -Scott S. (4/8/2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sprague (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Panther tank is a copy of Russian T-34 is a well known fact

Nearly all of documentaries and lots of documents already show this fact. Panther is a German idea to cope with superior design and engineering of the Russian by simply copy its concept. Like many military machines that the designer copy the superior concept from other such as Turbine engine in M1 tank is a copy of T-80 concept. Some people can't accept this because they has a strong bias toward some people they think inferior to them but in reality there is no superior nation at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.207.222 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted your edit. I do not doubt your good faith but your edits are unsupportable. The Panther was obviously a response to the T-34. It was not a copy as you stated (rather ungrammatically), and you will not find a credible source saying so. On the contrary, the competing Daimler-Benz Panther prototype was much closer in design to the T-34 and was rejected. In the absence of a credible citation for this edit it is original research and therefore cannot remain in the article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

DMorpheus sums it up well. —Michael Z. 2008-12-31 07:41 z

There's nothing about the Panther that is copied from the Russian T-34 tank. Sloped armour was not invnted by the Russians. The Germans used it since the very beginning for light armoured cars because it was well known that sloped armour gives good proection for less weight. Russians applied this on heavier tanks, but in my opinion: if the Russians really knew that sloped armour was such a big deal, they would not have had to copy the SdKfz 222 to build an adequate armoured car, BA-64, and they would have kept sloped armour for further tank developements, such as the IS-2 - but somehow the Russians had to relearn the effect of sloped armour and redesigned the IS-2. The T-34 showed the Germans, that sloped armour could give an high advantage at tank designs , which simply caused a German design that depicted sloped armour as well instead of armoured cars only. Anything else about the Panther having copied design aspects from the T-34 is speculativ. Big wheels were just caused due to the width of the tracks. And wide tracks were simply necessary because of the weight of the tank. The suspension and turret was totally different anyway. As firepower, armour (weight) and anything else was. So I don't see your point.84.163.93.243 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure all of that is entirely accurate, but no matter. We're here to describe what is in published, reliable sources, not our own opinions. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well my point is, that if you take a look at it there are just certain design similarities which also occured on other tanks (of other nations) without influences of the T-34. It's like the Stg 44 and AK-47. Every gun expert will tell you, that although the AK-47 was designed after the Russians studied the Stg 44, it's no copy but completly different on a closer view - nevertheless there are design similarities. It's the same for the Panther. 84.163.124.3 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Germans actually copied the T-34 and rejected it. Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.4.234 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Allied response

I have removed the paragraph below from the 'Allied response' section as it appeared to just be copied & pasted in, without any clear narrative linking it to the previous paragraphs

I will edit and re-insert later, unless someone else grabs it first chrisboote (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The British already had a number 17-pounder anti-tank gun
equipped vehicles under development in 1943; the "official" project
Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger was running behind (only 200 would be built) and
it was the Sherman Firefly conversion of Sherman tanks that was fielded
in far greater numbers. As well as towed 17-pounders, they had a 17 pdr armed
M10 - the 17pdr SP Achilles - and the 17 pdr "Archer"
self propelled guns. 
By the conclusion of the Normandy campaign, British
forces were fielding roughly a 1:4 ratio of Fireflys to 75 mm Shermans
in their tank units. In 1945, they deployed the 77 mm gunned Comet tank.

Direct Appeal To DMorpheus

This is a fellow tankneter, Jonathan Chin. Hello there. Don't you feel the assertion that the Panther was superior to the IS-2 in frontal fire utterly absurd, as both Steven Zaloga and Jentz concurred that the Panther must fire at 600m to ensure killing hits, but the IS-2 could kill a Panther at 1,000m, as is stated in German tactical manual for Panther crews?

It is well recorded in the Russian Battle Field site that while Panther D could resist IS-2 tank fire at ranges greater than 700m, but after the Germans begin to suffer shortage in rare metal elements for steel alloys. Panther Gs could take damage at even 14,000m.

Right now that statement is just staring at me every time I look at this page. Ugh. Jonathan

That was not MY assertion so I am completely at a loss to see why you are directing your comment at me. The edit is either sourced and valid, or it isn't. It doesn't matter who put it there. ;)

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

@Jonathan 14,000m? Do you really mean 14km? It's about tanks, not battleships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.118.173 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Silent battle

This article is undergoing some changes at the moment, but there seems to be no discussion other than edit comments, which are rather brief. Edit-revert-edit-adjust isn't an unusual process on wikipedia, but discuss is another, probably crucial element. We all want to improve the article, lets work together to do that.

I'll agree that some of the additions are wandering from the the core of subject, although most do have a kernel of useful information - instead of deleting the entire paragraph, perhaps try and summarize the key point, or discuss how to do so here?

There are also some passages which appear better suited to other sections... the current last paragraph of The Allied response mostly isn't about the allied response to the Panther, or the Panther itself, so perhaps it should be cropped and the relevant part moved to one of the the Combat use subsections. Hohum (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. My recent edits have been directed towards maintaining the focus on the Panther itself, not on other issues which may (or may not) have their own articles. I have a couple of reasons for this:

• For a well-known, widely-produced tank like the Panther, I don't believe it is productive to get into a description of every campaign in which the tank was used. That type of writing makes some sense with a rare weapons system but not for something like the Panther. Essentially we could retell every WW2 battle from 1943 onwards, and that would be pointless.
• By adding too much content about a particular campaign we risk creating contradictions between this article and those campaign articles. If the Panther itself was important in those campaigns, let's say so in the campaign articles.
• This is especially a concern here because there are so many popular myths about tank performance in WW2. It is all too easy to commit errors here. If there is something that really deserves a good treatment, let us create a new article to deal with it.

My sense is we should confine this article to the tank itself and not try to do too much in one article. That's my opinion anyway - others may differ.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, overall, I welcome the increased activity being put into this article, even though I've also been critical. I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of quality of some of the more noteworthy WWII tank articles, so it's good to see work being done on them. Hohum (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are some very good ones, such as the T-34, Chenillette UE or B-1bis articles, and then there are some awful ones. I am surprised that some of the more 'popular' tanks have some of the least-good articles. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, everybody. I'm still kind of new to Wikipedia, and am still discovering how it works. Just recently discovered this discussion page! Which explains why I have not discussed things here before......

Agree with some of the edits that others, mainly DMorpheus and Hohum, have made to my entries - I do tend to run off a bit. So, am trying to be more objective and closely document everything. Have many of the Jentz and Spielberger and some of the Zaloga books, and am constantly acquiring more books. Google Books has also been useful for some truly rare books. This is all very dense reading material, and trying to make sense of it all is difficult, as these authors CLEARLY contradict each other on many points. Each author also has a definite POV about what they are writing about. Spielberger was a Jagpanther company commander in WWII, for instance, which he reveals in his Panther book - how's that for a POV?

Who to believe? I am trying to go by the quality of the original source and how well referenced the text is. Jentz is the best in this regard, followed by Spielberger, and then Zaloga (Zaloga's great strength is in American tanks, but he does provide a much needed counterbalance to the German-centric POV of Jentz and Spielberger, IMHO). I am always curious as to the documentation for the information that these authors have put into their books, and it is surprising how Spielberger and Zaloga and other authors do not clearly document where they get a piece of information, e.g. number of tanks in a battle, gun penetration data, etc. Jentz is the best in this regard.

Right now, I am not very happy about the "Allied Response" passage either. The bits about the Russian tests at Kubinka and the power of the A-19 to punch all the way through the Panther are poorly documented. Jentz has a very clear-cut range penetration study done by the Germans in 1944 that disproves this. Also the part about how the U.S. came to underestimate the German tank threat is a bit wierd. I've written a more detailed, Zaloga-based passage about this in the M4 Sherman tank Wiki entry which I think is the best version of how this came about. I think a similar, shortened version of this would be better in place of what's there now.

One of the keys bits of insight I did want to get into the "Allied Response" part was that the effectiveness of all German tanks in France was severely hampered by the overwhelming air superiority of the Allies. These parts keep getting deleted!!!!! Although the ability of Allied air power to actually destroy a tank was pretty limited (Allied anti-tank weapons were too inaccurate, unlike what the Germans and Soviets used on each other in the Eastern Front), this did prevent the German panzers from forming up cohesively and coordinating their attacks. The references to Luttich and Arracourt were put in specifically for this, because these were German counterattacks led by Panther tanks that suffered the most as the result of Allied airpower. Allied airpower, or lack thereof, also had a major impact on the Battle of the Bulge. Without these references to Allied airpower, what's left of the entries on Luttich and Arracourt lack sufficient meaning. Why put in this reference to airpower in the Panther tank entry, rather than in those individual entries? Mainly because the Panther tank had a major presence in all those battles, and yet failed, and air power played a huge role in limiting mobility, and destroying the supply train and support troops within these panzer groups (while not directly destroying very many of these tanks themselves). People often talk about how great the Panther tank is, and yet need to be reminded that even a great tank without fuel, ammunition, or support troops is still going to be useless. It's the same reason I put in that photo of the burnt out Panther tank - for all the hyperventilating about how great the German tanks were, remember, the Germans did lose the war, and there were reasons for it beyond the usual "we got overwhelmed by numbers" idea.

Another section that got deleted, originally grouped with the blurb about Barkmann was the fact that Barkmann was an exception rather than the rule. The Panther was a mass-produced tank (or as close to mass-produced as the Germans could get) and so the great majority of Panther crews were very green troops, unlike Tiger I or Tiger II crews, who were usually selected from experienced tank crews because of the fewer numbers and greater expense of the Tigers. This had a major impact on how well the Panther tank actually functioned in battle and I had originally given a very clear reference for this from Zaloga's book, coming as a way of explaining how 75mm Shermans managed to beat the crap out of Panther tanks at Arracourt. The only remnant of this reference to the poor quality of Panther tank crews is in the Arracourt reference.

Lots more details to fill in still - motor (had more problems than what is in the current section), armor (the brittleness controversy), suspension (torsion bars had some interesting aspects), the later infrared night vision scopes. The entire Panther II entry was put in by somebody else, who was too lazy to properly reference it. It's all there in Jentz and Spielberger, but this would be at the bottom of my list of things to do. DarthRad (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer to the bulk of what you've said is that this article should focus on the Panther, not why Germany lost the war, or even particular battles. If you want to point out that they tended to have poorly trained crews (worse than Pz IVs or Stugs? - which were also both more mass produced than Panthers), then note that in a sentence or two, with a reference. It probably doesn't need a whole paragraph. Same with vulnerability to air power - this wasn't special to Panthers - it's worthy of a couple of passages in passing in this article. i.e. include it, but briefly.

Brevity is also a wider issue, the article is getting a little long. WP:LENGTH suggests 30–50 KB of prose or 6,000–10,000 words. This article is at 54 KB of prose and 9,000 words per Readability: Panther tank. Hohum (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hohum, it is wise to concentrate on a single purpose in each article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Allied Response - Soviet

Ok, I see DMorpheus deleted a big chunk of what I wrote about the Soviet response section. The whole purpose of that section was to address the question of why the Soviets ended up putting an 85mm gun as the upgrade to the T34 that could not penetrate the frontal hull armor of the Panther and could barely penetrate its mantlet. The answer - because the 85mm gun was meant to deal with the Tiger I, which it could defeat from the front, and the Panther arrived when the trials for 85mm gun development were well underway. Meanwhile, for all of 1942 and 1943, the Soviets did very little to improve the fighting capability of the T34, and the T34/76 got shot up like crazy during this time by all the upgraded German AFVs. The Soviets lost huge numbers of T-34s at Kursk. I think this is an important part of the story. The Soviets didn't always get everything right, in fact, they got more things wrong than just about every other combatant in WWII - which is how they lost over 25 million people. The Soviets just had more people to feed into the meatgrinder.

The T-34, in my view, gets WAY TOO MUCH credit for being a great tank. It was a FANTASTIC tank in 1941. For the rest of the war, it became target practice for the Germans, much like the M4 Shermans are often portrayed. The T34 and M4 actually paralleled each other in firepower/armor through their careers.

Yes, strangely enough, the T34/85 story parallels the M4 76mm story. The two tanks were nearly equivalent, with the 76mm gun being actually slightly more capable than the Soviet 85mm. Yet, unlike the American self-flagellation over the M4, nobody ever disses the T34/85 for being a crappy tank that got shot up by the Panthers and Tigers in great numbers, which was what did happen.

By the way, I don't think the M4 or T34s were crappy tanks, they were OK for their main function - mass produced infantry support weapons. The Germans had nothing of the sort for their troops other than the StuGs, etc., which were much more limited because they lacked a turret and heavy machine gun firepower.

DarthRad (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us recall this article is about the Panther. The information about the gun-and-armor race of WW2 is incredibly interesting stuff - and good fodder for a different article, on which I'd be happy to cooperate with you in creating. But it doesn't belong here; a few details were incorrect (e.g. no production KV-1 carried an 85mm gun); and we need to avoid original research. Note I first made this comment weeks ago (see above) and others have agreed.

Finally, with regard to your general point, recall that there were no Panthers or Tigers in the postwar victory parades. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a KV-85, which did enter production and combat in limited numbers. My reference to the KV-1 was that this was an 85 mm mounted on the KV-1 chassis.

I do think that an explanation of how the T34/85 ended up with a gun that could not penetrate the frontal hull armor of the Panther belongs in an article about the Panther. Recall that the original blurb for the Soviet response, written by somebody else, said that the T34 85mm upgrade was in response to the Panther, which truly was incorrect. I wanted to thoroughly refute that original blurb, probably got a bit carried away - didn't really mean to create a whole new Wiki section.

Not sure that parsing out these topics into separate pieces makes sense. Putting an abbreviated version of the gun and armor race into the Panther article fits in well because the Panther was right in the thick of this race - it was a major chunk of the story of the race itself; the Panther was closely tied in with the entire life cycles of the T-34, KV-1, and the JS-2 - all the major tanks of the Soviets in WWII.

I doubt that even an armor nerd would think to Wiki search for an entry on the Soviet-German gun and armor race in WWII.

DarthRad (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were some KV-85s. But that's not a KV-1. There was an unsuccessful attempt to put the 85mm into a normal KV-1S (not KV-1) and it failed. Each gun fitted to the KV resulted in a different designation (e.g. KV-2, KV-7, KV-8, KV-9, etc). Some reached production (KV-2, -8 and -85) and most didn't.

BTW this is one of the good reasons not to try to include too much in one article. Let the folks who are into KVs (or whatever related topic) write about that topic, and simply link to their article. Linking to other articles will yield the same result you seem to be aiming for here, much more efficiently.

If the topic is not strictly about the Panther it shouldn't be in this article. Whether other people would think to look for a gun-and-armor race article is something we would only find out by creating such an article. Considering that it could be linked from almost any WW2 tank or antitank gun article it is possible it would be very useful.

BTW, the correct designations are T-34-85 (hyphen, no slash) and IS-2 (no 'J') ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing: the T-34-85 ended up with a gun that could not penetrate the frontal hull armor of the Panther because it was intended for use against the Tiger. This merits a single sentence in an article about the Panther, at the most. Hohum (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 99% of the way....except the T-34-85 was most definitely designed to combat the Panther. Prior to Kursk the design emphasis in the T-34 bureau was on improving armor protection. Afterwards they decided they needed a better gun much more. We shouldn't assume that because the gun couldn't penetrate the Panther from all aspects at all ranges that it wasn't intended for that purpose. Still, one sentence can cover this. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the key point here is that the initial 85mm gun selection was based on live firing tests against the Tiger I, not the Panther. That's the really key point to stick into this Panther entry. This was the grandaddy of them all in terms of the origin of the entire 85mm upgrade path. The Soviets knew of the Panther from their spies, but had none to test against until after Kursk. By then, trial tests of the 85mm guns in the T34 were already underway. After Kursk, the Soviets decided to do the 122mm IS-2 tank, but stuck to the 85mm T34. Why? My best guess would be that there was already so much work put into looking into this upgrade pathway, and changing to an even bigger gun would have delayed the upgrade to the T34 even more.

Also, by 1943, T34s were becoming less and less anti-armor weapons and more and more of an infantry support tank, sent charging into battle with the Soviet human wave attacks, disposable just like the Soviet soldiers. Turning it into a heavy tank with terrific anti-Panther firepower and armor would not have fit well with its true role in combat at that point, would have been lots more expensive (being cynical here).

There are striking similarities with the development of the M4 Sherman. There was a brief attempt to put the 90mm gun onto the M4, using the T26 turret, but it was decided not to proceed with this upgrade as it would not go to production any sooner than the M26. The M4 as an infantry support weapon was already US Army doctrine and this doctrine was clearly a drag on all efforts to improve the M4s firepower beyond the 76mm gun. Suspect that the Soviets evolved their thinking about the T34 into something very similar.

DarthRad (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So include the key point, in a sentence ;-) Hohum (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, put in a much, much shorter paragraph, one sentence is just not enough....must...get...sleep....

DarthRad (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Engine and Panther II sections

Put in some more fascinating detail about the Maybach engines. Could not figure out why they used forked connecting rods until tonight - it was just so the two banks of the V-12 did not have to be offset - compacting the length of the engine by all of one half of one cylinder diameter! The German love of complex, over-engineered solutions strikes again! Something about this has to be said in the Intro to the Panther tank. The Germans badly wanted a mass-produced tank.... and yet.... ? forked connecting rods? dual torsion bar suspension? interleaved wheels? etc., etc.

Also rewrote the whole Panther II section to reflect the Gospel according to Spielberger and Jentz. The original version didn't quite follow their storyline. DarthRad (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Although interesting to a tank grognard, I think you're putting in far too much detail for an enyclopedia entry - this level of detail about the engine should be in an article about the engine, not the tank. Hohum (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again I agree with Hohum - this is useful, interesting stuff which should be elevated to its own article and then merely linked from this one (and the Tiger I, Tiger II, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger articles I suppose). Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wiki entry for the engine already, and I can certainly put this same information into that entry. My thinking about the Panther tank entry is that there are just so many misunderstandings about the tank, so many arcane details about it that people don't know about - it's nice to be able to see in one entry why something was a big issue for this tank. Engine reliability and engine fires were big issues for the Panther. Until I dug into Spielberger, I didn't know why failed connecting rods were an issue for this engine. That took a lot of digging! To me, the word "encyclopedia" means "encompasses all useful and interesting knowledge". "Encyclopedic" can also imply "authoritative". Now, whenever people read somewhere that the Panther had problems with its motor, with engine fires, and with its final drive, they can find the exact reasons for all that within this Wiki entry. They won't have to dig through Jentz and Spielberger line by line to find the answers. Spielberger especially is annoying - he sprays all sorts of little pearls of information everywhere in his book - it's not well organized, and very hard to find these little details in his book. I've just organized all the pertinent information from these books into easy to find summaries. Thoroughly written Wiki entries can sometimes be very long, but also much more informative than any other book or publication out there on the subject. Again, I would point out the very well written section on Michael Wittmann - a very long piece about his death, but a very nice summary of why it was so hard to figure out. DarthRad (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for article size and focus. Articles should not have every little trivial detail about components of an articles main subject. This is an encyclopedia for all kinds of readers, not just tank experts. Most readers will become bogged down, bored and disinterested if an article goes into minutia which isn't of general interest, or are too long. This article is already too long, unfocussed, and you are adding non-core details. The whole point of a linked encyclopedic structure is to allow people who want to know more about, for instance, the engine, to go to the engine article. "Arcane" details should not be in the article at all. Hohum (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations for T-34

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-t-34r-soviet-t-34-in-german-service.htm

At the time it was first fielded in 1940, it was easily the finest tank design in the world (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983).

What is uncited is the statement that the Panther is also regarded as one of the best designs of the war. I am sure a little homework will solve that. DMorpheus (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another: “although the T-34 was not equal on a one-to-one basis with the best German tanks, its durability, economy and suitability to the Soviet style of war made it a far more effective weapon than any of its German rivals. Its only real rival to the title of 'the best tank of World War 2' would be the American Sherman, for many of the same reasons.” (Zaloga, Steven J., Jim Kinnear, Andrey Aksenov & Aleksandr Koshchavtsev (1997). Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941–45: The T-28, T-34, T-34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks, p 6. Hong Kong: Concord Publication. ISBN 962-361-615-5.) —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 13:32 z

Thanks, yes, that's a good one. DMorpheus (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify why the reference to the T-34 is in the intro: many books on the panther begin with a discussion of the impact the T-34 had on German tank design; the Panther was a direct response. It is tough to explain why the Panther was built without reference to the T-34. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Panther being produced as a counter to the T 34 does not automatically mean the T 34 was one of the best tanks of the war. This may have been the case, but one on one, panther v T34 had the t34 outclassed. The statement above

“although the T-34 was not equal on a one-to-one basis with the best German tanks, its durability, economy and suitability to the Soviet style of war made it a far more effective weapon than any of its German rivals. Its only real rival to the title of 'the best tank of World War 2' would be the American Sherman, for many of the same reasons.”

This classes the Sherman and T34 as the best tanks of the war only because of their mass production , IE large numbers as opposed to individual performance.

If the T-34 is to be refferred to in the opening statement, it should only be stated that the panther was produced as a counter to the T34... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an obvious misreading of the source. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Hart (2003), p.43 in the source list: "The combination of potent firepower and impressive surviviability might have made the Panther the most effective tank of the war. However, it was less impressive in terms of mobility, reliability and cost; consequently, some scholars believe that the solid all-around performance of the Soviet T-34-85 tank gave it the edge over the Panther as the most effective tank of the war." This is virtually a re-statement of the sentence you are questioning. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not counter my argument, for one that statement agrees with me ""The combination of potent firepower and impressive surviviability might have made the Panther the most effective tank of the war." it may have been less mobile etc, but all of that is really beside the point.

If you really want to get into the mechanical and structural flaws of each tank, obviously the panther was plagued by mechanical problems, but the t34 suffered many problems as well, ie, poor armor plate quality (which despite the "on paper" thickness of the armor reduced the overall effectiveness of the armor plate thichness) The t34 was also plagued by mechanical problems.

The t34 suffered from lack of radios and optics of inferior quality to the germans to name a few. The T34 , I agree, was a damn good tank. My argument is that it is not comparable on an individual basis with a panther and thus it should not be insinuated that the T34 was of the same class as a Panther. This gives the reader the unavoidabe preconception that the T34 was equal.

Supporting this is the statement on the T34 wiki page "Neither was a match for the German Panther or Tiger tanks in armour or firepower, but these heavy vehicles were both in a class more comparable to the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank or the American M26 Pershing (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:37)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Second to that is that the T34 required the commander to operate the gun reducing the overall effectivnes of the tank, as the commander would usually be more occupied with gunnery than actual command —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Other wikipedia pages are not reliable sources.

2. Your argument rests on a lot of original research.

3. Here's Zaloga again (1997, p.6): "...the technological disparity was not great enough to substantialy effect battlefield performance in any meaningful way. To their credit, the Soviet tanks were considerably simpler and cheaper to produce, allowing the Soviet Union to build up a substantial quantitative advantage over the Geramn armed forces....Although the T-34 was not equal (blah blah...see above DM)". There's a key point here you may be overlooking. A big part of the *reason* there weren't many Panthers is *because* the germans chose to build such an expensive, complicated tank. A big part of why the Red Army was able to field a lot more T-34s than the Germans had Panthers is *because* it was cheaper and simpler. One-on-one encounters are almost irrelevant, partly (not completely) because they were rare; mostly because a tank is one part of a combined-arms team.

4. Mobility isn't important? Guderian disagrees with that idea; he is famously quoted as saying the tracks and engine are weapons just as much as the gun is.

5. The 76 mm armed T-34s had two-man turrets; the 85 mm armed versions had three-man turrets.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, that I am not very convinced about the argument of the Panther being overly complicated and much more expensive and time-consuming to build (and maintain) than the T-34 or Sherman. I have read this a lot of times,also in original sources, e.g. from Zaloga and other sources. But I think a strong point can be made, that this argument is flawed. I have never seen an actual comparison of the respective prices and building time for the Panther, Sherman and T-34. It seems more to be a bit of backward reasoning: A lot more Shermans and T-34 were produced than were Panthers, therefore they must have been easier to produce. However, this is flawed reasoning as it doesn't take the respective circumstances, e.g. the industrial capacity etc. into account. To the contrary I think a strong point can be made that the Panther wasn't that much more complicated than the T-34 or Sherman to produce, and the reason that not many more Panthers were produced, had way more to do with the state of german production capability in the years 1944/45. When the Panther was designed and build, German Tank Production had already placed high value on standardisation and rationalizing the production. E.g. the prices in Reichsmark for tanks as given in the german publication Waffen Revue Nr. 008 from 03/1973, based on archive material were: StuG III: 82.500 RM, Panther: 117.100 RM. Both vehicles without Guns, Optics and Radioset. Price for the main guns: Sturmkanone 40: 13.500 RM, KwK 42 (7,5/L70): 12.000 RM. So the Panther was about 1.4 times more expensive than a StuG-III. However, this was for a vehicle weighing nearly twice as much as the StuG, with an approximately 2.5 times more powerful engine and a turret. I believe a good point can be made that the Panther has been (relatively) much easier and cheaper to produce than the StuG, otherwise it's price would have had to be several multiples that of the StuG (more material, turret, more powerful engine, as was in fact the case for the Tiger). And I have never read any accusation of the StuG III to be overly complicated and hard to produce. Another hint in this direction is the relatively high production number of Panthers for 1944. So, to summarize: I doubt, that the Panther was much more expensive in terms of cost/build time/material than the T-34 or Sherman. Certainly not in a manner which outweighed it's higher tactical combat value. I believe that the relatively low production number is rather more due to the effect of the war on german production capability in the years of production than any inherent complexity of the Panthers design. I would rather like to see an actual comparison of sheer building time, used material and cost for the T-34, Sherman and Panther.--Snark7 (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But the statement mentions tank DESIGN and while the panther was produced in lesser numbers, the overall design was superior as numerous referneces cite. Lets not lose sight of the fact that my argument is mainly that the inclusion of the comparison in the opening statement gives false preconceptions about the individual performance of the two tanks. I don't really want to get into a protracted argument about the strengths and weaknesses of the tanks, as this will inevitably snowball into an in depth analysis of the war itself. Suffice to say that the removal of the t34 statement was merely to avoid preconceptions, and also the fact that it was not cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right, earlier today it was uncited. The way to deal with that is to add a fact tag (see WP:RS or WP:Cite for some hints) not by deleting it and claiming it isn't true, still without any source to back you. One bit of uncited original research is as good/bad as another. We can discuss this all day but the only thing that matters is published sources.

The statement is now sourced, so if you remove it again as you just did, you will be vandalizing wikipedia. By deleting a sourced edit and leaving the source footnote in, you created a false impression of what the source said. I dropped a friendly hint on your talk page.

If you type four tildes after your comments, your username or IP address will appear. It's considered polite to sign one's comments here.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The panther design is based on the performance of the panzer III/IV encounters with the T-34 + T-34 analysis. It is not based on the T-34, since the german assembly lines needed to be adapted, so they overhauled the panzer IV design (that was the T-34 impact, german tank doctrine changed after meeting it in combat). Also german Assembly lines where able to produce panther at the same rate of the panzer IV. The problem was the effort of those lines also where oriented to build heavy tanks (Tiger, Konigstiger, and all sort of monstrosities) which only wasted manpower/production time (not mentioning the Allied bombing, the lack of quality in raw material and shortage of manpower, using slave work). And again, i do respect a great part of Mr. Zaloga work,but as any work it has flaws. One of them is this absurd criteria to make the "mass production" aspect as determining, putting the Sherman near the T-34. The T-34 is considered the best WW2 tank design because its mobility, firepower, survivability and production rate are balanced (and the Sherman is NOWHERE near those req.). But stating this is, after all, only the "theory" side of tank combat in WW2. For combat relevance, you need far more points to consider: forces evolved is one (here is mass production)but doctrine and, especially, the crew (heart of the tank) are also involved. And those two made the Wehrmacht be able to withstand the Red Army for 4 long years- PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.116.255.29 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they "withstood" the Red Army right up until they surrendered in the smoking rubble of Berlin ;) If that is 'withstanding' was does getting beaten look like? DMorpheus (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statements about “best” or “better” tanks should be very carefully cited, and accurately quoted, taking their original context into account. Wikipedia should report exactly what an author said, and not make its own stand about which tank was absolutely better.

A tank which is “better” because it has a bigger gun or heavier armour may also be “worse” because it is too heavy to cross many bridges, or tends to have a broken transmission when it is time to fight. By taking an extremely simplistic view, one could argue that the heaviest Tiger II or Maus was the best tank because on some idealized mudless, set-piece battlefield it would outgun any other tank one-on-one. But of course this is a naïve fantasy.

On the other hand, some authors write that a tank was “better” because, for example, in 1940 it was suitable as a good fighting platform for the next five years (or 50 years). It is a fact that when the Soviets put the T-34 into service, it was a radical breakthrough in tank design, and no one else had even envisioned a tank which could face it evenly—the Panther was a direct response, and of course it was designed with absolute characteristics which were better. But perhaps a tank is “better” if you can knock out around 25,000 of them before your opponent can even design a response, much less takes the time to work out the bugs, re-tool the production lines, deliver it to the battlefield, and train the troops to use it.

Incidentally, the Soviets did have a lot of trouble getting T-34 mass production started in several factories in 1940–41, but by 1942 they were had streamlined the production details of the assembly lines and the tank incredibly. —Michael Z. 2008-11-12 18:31 z

French Army and other armies Panther

Th French have used for a while Panthers "as is" and some modified. After the war, many French Army tank units were equipped with Panthers (eg. 503rd Tank Battalion in Mourmelon had 50 Panthers in 1947 and 501rd Tank Battalion used Panthers from 1946 to 1950). Other post-war users included Bulgaria (Bulgarian Panthers), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia. After the war, modified Panther’s 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun was produced by French as 75mm DEFA and CN75-50 gun. It was used by them in a number of light tanks (eg. AMX 13) and armored cars (eg. Panhard EBR 75). Also, Israelis used the gun to upgrade their M50 Super Sherman. Between 1949 and 1952, French also worked on AMX-50 tank, which was heavily influenced by the Panther (and powered by Maybach engine), but it didn’t enter production in favor of American M47 Patton Medium Tank.

Takima (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison With Tiger I

After reading the Panther article, I drew a conclusion that the Panther is in every way superior to the Tiger I. Can someone please tell me if there is any aspect the Tiger I is superior in or is my idea correct?--chubbychicken 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

True, many people make a common mistake of thinking of Tiger as better, because it has number VI. Well, historical data reveals that Tiger was designed sooner than Panther and it was a complete technical garbage compared to Panther.212.87.105.228 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, much better side protection and bigger HE round. Both consistent with the 'breakthrough tank' role. DMorpheus 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to look it up, but the side protection on the Tiger I was about twice as thick as on the Panther. The Panther is sloped on the sides, but not much. DMorpheus 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I didnt know that. Thanks!!--chubbychicken 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From the main article itself: "The Panther was the first Axis tank design where modern features were more prominent than early WWII-era ones. The rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1, or the same as with the Tiger. Once the problems caused by the vulnerability of the engine and the transmission were solved, it proved to be a very effective fighting vehicle, being as effective as the Tiger, but less demanding to produce and logistically far less troublesome." Hence it would seem they are very similar with the Panther just managing to get the nod?! Mathmo 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Panther and Tiger were designed for very different roles and employed very differently, so it is difficult to argue that one is "better" than the other. It would be like arguing whether a pickup or a sports car were 'better'. DMorpheus 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions the logistical reasons that Pz IVs continued to be built alongside Panthers, but doesn't say anything about its relationship to the Tiger (and neither does "Tiger tank"). Were they issued to different kinds of units? Can you add a sentence or two? —Michael Z. 2006-11-06 17:18 Z

Guess I added more than a sentence or two....feel free to edit some more, it may be a little rough. DMorpheus 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-11-06 22:35 Z

While KwK 42 is superior in sheer penetrative power to the Tiger's 8.8cm, I feel that there should be a qualifier to that statement. KwK 42's gun relied on its high velocity to do damage, and as the shell bleeds velocity over range, 8.8mm would be the better at extended distances. Also, of the two projectiles the 8.8cm was more destructive and less likely to shatter or ricochette. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.222.84 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

One Area the Tiger was always superior to the Panther was armor quality. The Tigers armor was made from the finest the Germans could make. It was very strong and even guns that should statistically have been able to penetrate their armor would often suffer from shattergap, or the round shattering if fired at a close range to the tank because the shell struck such a hard surface at high speed. The panther at the other hand suffered from armor flaws, from minor issues to extreme instances of 75mm armed shermans taking them out with HE shells, because the impact cracked the armor or welds, causing spall inside the tank and wounding or killing the crew. In one instance a panther broke at the welds and fell in on its self, crushing the crew. Those are extreme examples, but the armor flaws were common, and usually guns like the US 76mm were able to penetrate panthers farther then statistically they should have. The Panther A series is suppose to be the most flawed version, but the G series was still flawed as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wokelly (talk • contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Yea the Tiger was terrible, once the panther was designed and refined if I was Hitler then I would only make the Panther instead of the Tiger and Panzer IV which were taking production lines away from the production of this exceptional tank, even though the Panzer IV was also very good.--HellraizerofUSA (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How can a Panther have "better firepower" than a Tiger when the latter had an 88mm gun, against the 75mm gun of the Panther ? If this is indeed correct I think it should be explained in the article alongside the "better firepower" comment.

It is already briefly explained in the "Armament" section.

"The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56, although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate."

It's slightly dubious to say this means it had more firepower overall, since the 75 mm HE shells were less effective against infantry as well. Hohum (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing about it already being in the armament section is that not everyone would read the whole article. I only had time to read the top few sections, read that and thought (rightly or wrongly) "the Tiger`s got an 88mm gun and the Panther a 75mm so that`s wrong, how much of the rest of the article is also wrong ? ". In my opinion, at the very least, there should be a link to the section which explains that apparent inconsistency.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is intended to be a quick summary of what is in the article. By definition it can't include all the detail of the rest of the article. If people want to know more, they need to read the rest of the article. Any piece of information in the lead might be confusing or a surprise to someone who doesn't know the subject - it's not feasible to link each piece to a complete explanation - or to keep this constantly up to date as the article changes. There is already a table of contents, and the Armament section is the most likely one to deal with firepower.

If people don't have the time or inclination to read the entire article, we can't force them to. However, I think I will reword it slightly, as the blanket term - firepower is too broad. Hohum (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism ?

I just read the first part of this article and it sounds extremely familiar. Far too familiar.

I will go search for the book were this might first have been written, but right now I am pretty sure that the start of the article is very close to plagiarism. That would explain some of the outdated data, too; I bought the Panzer-book this writing reminds me of in the seventies....VNCCC (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

photos

Hi, I'm looking for photos of Pantherturm III - Betonsockel, Pantherturm I - Stahluntersatz and any other tank turret implasments.Can you add links for photos or publish it on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.35.48 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Several here. Hohum 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

wow! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.207.194 (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Added info about the "Flakpanzer Coelian"

I'm surprised that no mention in this Wikipedia was made of the proposed anti-aircraft tank "3,7 cm Flakzwilling auf PzKpfw V, Flakpanzer Coelian", even though it has entries in the german and polish wikipedias (neither language do I know!). So I just added a brief entry in the "related developments" subsection, with a reference to an english language website that seems to be quite accurate AFAIK (my bibliography books are still tucked in a Storage...!). I'll try to find better sources in the next few days.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

taking out Panthers with 50BMG

A US Army Scout told me how individual Panthers were disabled using 50cal armor piercing rounds in Browning Machine Guns. One MG would start shooting at a tank tread link. When the turret started traversing to engage the MG, the crew would move and another MG crew would take up shooting at the same link. Once the link was broken, the Panther could only turn, not move away. The MG crews then worked on a link on the other side. This totally immobilized the tank. Next, the MG crews fired on a spot between the haul and the turret. This eventually burred the metal enough so that the turret was locked in place. At this point according to the Scout, the hatch usually opened and the Panther crew attempted to surrender. Saltysailor (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did he sell you a bridge as well? DMorpheus (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this was an alternative practice to the well-known ranger practice of just swarming over the Panther and drowning the crew by firing their water pistols into the openings.Took a while but had the added bonus that sometimes the tank rusted internally until the bottom fell out, much to the surprise of the crew. Hilarity ensued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.124.114.36 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just think about this in a logical way - a .50cal MG firing at range would require a fair element of luck (read enormous amount!) to consistently put rounds in the same spot over and over again in order to burr the metal on the turret or turret ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.26.239 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong classification

The tank classification at the bottom of the page ("German armored fighting vehicles of World War II") is incorrect. Panther tank is in fact "Panzer V" (Panzerkampfwagen V to be exact) whereas Tiger tank is actually Panzer / Panzerkampfwagen VI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.121.49 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, Hitler officially renamed it to just Panther Sdkfz 171 at some point in 1944 (late). I can't recall when, I could look it up, but it was changed from Panzerkampfwagen V to just Panther. In fact, the Tiger had the same fate, changing it's name to just "Tiger" in the spring of 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.107.99 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:GERMAN TANK DISGUISED AS AN AMERICAN TANK.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GERMAN TANK DISGUISED AS AN AMERICAN TANK.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I made a small edit on "Armour" section

I changed "sloped" to "angled" on frontal armour characteristics. Just seemed to read better. Maybe its just me :) Please revert if you wish. This is my first edit on wiki. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

WP:NOTFORUM

feared and flawed The main promblem with any of the more advanced german tanks is that the fuel consumption was considerably higher than any american tank like the sherman or staurt. Another topic is the fact that when a german tank was damaged even just to the point of not running they still acted like the tank turned to ashes. Americans would do anything possible to get there tanks running even though there is probabley 12 spare ones at a main base camp. If you also add the fact that there were about 7 shermans per German MBT it sorta evens the odds a bit. Even the tactics of using them as individaul super weapons is the most critical flaw in the german tanks. In short almost everything except the fear factor is mostly innefective or flawed. Big tanks dont eqaul big sucess.(Tankerman111 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Michael DickinsonTankerman111 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC))

Was the PKW V Panther medium or heavy?

The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II says it is a heavy tank. It is closer to the weight of the Tiger I than the I is to the Tiger II. David R. Ingham (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Panther was a medium tank. The weight of tanks generally rose during WW2 as newer, more capable designs entered the fray, so you can't go only by weight - combat role must be considered more than weight. The Panther was meant to form the equipment of one battalion in every armored division, and was meant to perform in assault, tank-vs-tank and exploitation roles - which conforms to the medium tank role. Heavy tanks, in contrast, were issued in much smaller numbers (mostly) to heavy tank battalions only. There were a few exceptions in the Wehrmacht, but, most Tigers were deployed in specialist heavy tank battalions. They were not expected to perform the exploitation role. FWIW, the Red Army followed the same practice with their much larger numbers of IS-2s. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

First MBT

the panther could qualify as the first main battle tank in history because it has the characteristics of an MBT a big gun, thick armor, but the mobility and speed of a medium tank...

so in theory it was the first ever MBT in history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.38.33 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the reliable sources say, not our opinions. One of the other characteristics of an MBT is that it is expected to fight without the support of heavy tanks. By the 1950-60s when the MBT concept was really taking off, all major armies were phasing out their heavy tanks. In WW2, the Germans and Soviets were still using them. The Panther also had a weak HE shell. So while I personally find it difficult to support the idea of the Panther as the first MBT it doesn't matter what I think ;) only what the sources say. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ok......well anyway its mainly because i saw it in a book....it said "Panther Main Battle Tank".....thats mainly why.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.38.33 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The first MBT was almost certainly the Centurion tank because with the British introduction of the APDS round in around 1944 the armour-defeating performance of a contemporary tank or anti-tank gun became so great that it became impracticable to armour a vehicle sufficiently to provide protection against them, and by the early fifties with the increase in gun calibres it would have needed armour approaching a foot in thickness, i.e, 12 inches to do so. So the Heavy Tank as a category became obsolete, because even they could not survive against any likely anti-tank or tank gun firing APDS such as the 20-pdr or ROF L7. To give some practicable protection against these guns and APDS you would probably need a vehicle the weight of the Maus. To get a usable vehicle of this weight you would need to give it an engine(s) of around 2000-3000hp and then you would have all the logistical problems in deployment of routing the vehicles around weak bridges, soft ground, etc., so there comes a point where a vehicle becomes more trouble than it is worth, militarily. The Germans found this out the hard way.

So there was no point producing a Heavy Tank as the additional armour possible could still be defeated, and so the Heavy Tank was of no usable advantage on the battlefield. As the Light Tank was made much less useful with the advent of Shaped Charge personal anti-tank weapons such as the PIAT and Bazooka, so the infantry AT guided weapons of the fifties such as the Anglo-Australian Malkara did the same for the Heavy Tank. So a Heavy Tank could even be defeated by infantry. There was thus little advantage in building them.

Therefore it only makes sense to design one tank - accepting that its armour will not stop everything - and use it for all main tank-versus-tank roles. This was termed the 'Universal Tank', and later 'Main Battle Tank'. The last British Heavy Tank was the Conqueror tank which existed only to carry the armour and larger gun needed to counter Soviet tanks such as the IS 10. Once the Centurion was up-gunned with the L7 it's gun was capable of dealing with any likely opponent and the Conqueror was phased out. Both the Centurion and the Conqueror were replaced by the Chieftain tank which was probably the first tank designed as an MBT. What later became the first German MBT was almost certainly the Leopard I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"the T-34 outclassed the existing Panzer III and IV."

So there is a disagreement over if the statement "the T-34 outclassed the existing Panzer III and IV." should be in the article. I looked at the source cited as saying that the T-34 didn't outclass the Panzer III & IV. However, the source states repeatedly that most historians do rate the T-34 as better. The view expressed is therefore a minority view at best. Also, it is from a war gaming site, and not a published historian. So I think the statement should stand.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

the source states repeatedly that most historians do rate the T-34 as better.

This is nowhere stated in the article. It's stated that the T-34 is sometimes praised and given an almost mythical status without any real review. The article also cites many credible historical and statistical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leapchild (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see, from the source as linked above:

"Its apparent superiority has become so entrenched in the psyche of post WWII authors that it is now assumed without question. Some go as far as to claim the T-34 as “the finest tank of the twentieth century” and the T-34 “rendered the entire fleet of German tanks as effectively obsolete”.(1)"

Footnote 1 cites the following works as expressing this view: "(1) Eg, T. Bean, W. Fowler, Russian Tanks of WWII-Stalin’s Armoured Might, Ian Allan Publishing, London, 2002, p. 61. Also, B. Taylor, Barbarossa to Berlin, Volume One, Spellmount Ltd, Staplehurst, UK, 2003, p. 61. Also B. Taylor, Barbarossa to Berlin, Volume One, Spellmount Ltd, Staplehurst, UK, 2003, p. 31."

"Historically, the poor showing of the T-34 in 1941 has been entirely attributed to the general state of the Red Army’s mechanised forces in 1941, and the ‘small’ number of T-34s available."

"Nevertheless, many current publications still rate the T-34/76 as the best all round medium tank in the world, until the advent of the Panther tank which appeared in limited numbers after mid 1943."

"The T-34 is possibly the only weapon system in history to be rated by most commentators as the finest all round weapon in a century of warfare, and yet never consistently achieved anything better than a one to three kill-loss ratio against its enemies.(21)"

This clearly marks the author's viewpoint as that of a minority. His work isn't peer-reviewed and even if he uses sound sources, he is apparently drawing novel conclusions from them.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. If more than three T34s were lost for each german tank how can it be considered outclassing contemporary german tanks? Leapchild (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Historians look at the tank and make the judgment. The T-34 had a better gun and armor, it is in fact possible to have a better weapon and misuse them so that an otherwise inferior enemy is more successful. Might be that the T-34 was all-in-all a worse tank than the Panzer IV, but the article should reflect what reliable sources say, otherwise it is original research. Your source handwaves the fact that the Soviets weren't very good warfighters. In the Winter War, for instance, the Soviets managed to lose many tanks and men against an enemy that didn't have any tanks at all. He also ignores the effects of the Great Purge on the Soviet officer corps. It's easy to find German accounts of awful Soviet tactics, such as infantry would advance side-by-side with tanks instead of behind them, making them easy targets for German machine gun crews. It might be that the T-34 was hyped up, during the war to boost confidence in an ally, and after the war historians overly relied on German sources for info on the Eastern front and German officers had an obvious interest in explaining away their own defeat on superior enemy tanks. That also fit snuggly with Cold War propaganda to rally people against the Soviet threat. Be that as it may, I believe I have shown that the majority view among historians is that the T-34, in spite of its flaws, was superior to the Panzer IV.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Isigny

Again from the Duel books pushing what was a politically driven firing trial in order to suggest a lack of the quality in this vehicle's armored plate.

Evidence provided by researcher Carey Erickson concludes that the tests were politically motivated to artificially bolster the performance of the US 76mm gun over the 17 pounder gun which was unfairly marginalized during the tests:

According to the researcher Panther No 1 listed as having an average quality plate by the trial, in reality (Panther No 1) had face hardened armored plates (far more brittle than RHA) which at this point of the war was a rare curiosity an not at all a good representation of the armored plate on most Panther tanks in 1944. This FHA plate Panther allowed easier penetration of later war allied calibers (APC/APCBC) in addition to this the plate was hit several times before it was weakened significantly enough to allow rounds to penetrate. Panther tank No.3 had serious battle damage (burned out) before being subjected to the tests. Such damage should have excluded from objective firing trials however they chose to ignore that fact in Isigny. These are the 2 Panthers the Zolga books claim show a declining armored plate quality present in late war German vehicles however as stated this test is not a fair representation of 1944 Panther plate. Therefore these tests are not an indication of poor quality Panther plate but rather an indication of the politics at the time I suggest a removal or an amendment informing the reader to the nature these tests.

VNCCC (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.235.233 (talk)

T-34's outclassing the German Panzer III/IV

I don't think the T-34 can be considered to outclass contemporary German tanks Panzer III and IV. The combat results for 1941 show the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost. Even if the T-34’s loss ratio was better than seven for every German tank, it was still in the region of four or five to one. A large proportion of T-34s in 1941 also fell victim to operational type losses, many T-34s were abandoned and lost due to breakdown, being bogged down or simply out of fuel. The Red Army’s tank divisions, already short of tractors, had little to no recovery vehicles or even time to recover these tanks. However, even if we assume a staggering 40-50% of T-34s were operational losses (which is probably too high an estimate), then the T-34’s loss ratio in tactical combat is still around two-three to one in German favor.

When one considers the apparent superiority of the T-34, the question has to be asked: why did the T-34 consistently suffer at least a two-three to one loss ratio against ‘inferior and obsolescent’ enemy tanks in tactical combat, i.e. when actually shooting at each other? Either the German’s combat proficiency was supernatural, the Soviet’s combat proficiency was unbelievably incompetent, or there were design flaws inherent in the T-34 as a complete weapon system which are not apparent in a cursory analysis of combat power based on armour and gun penetration.

The T-34’s great weakness was its fire control efficiency. It suffered from the same two-man turret syndrome as other Soviet tanks in this period, namely that the turret had to be hand cranked and the commander had to both aim, fire, spot and man the machine gun. Exacerbating this was the fact that the T-34 had relatively poor main gun optics quality, no turret basket, a very cramped and low turret (the gun could not depress more than three degrees severely restricting use on a reverse slope or at close range), poor turret drive reliability, no radios, and generally poor target observation and indicator devices (including no turret cupola and only one vision periscope for the tank’s commander). In summary, the T-34's inherent fire control efficiency was so bad that even well trained and experienced tank crews were put at a severe disadvantage. For inexperienced tank crews, with no radios and probably no organised combined arms support, it was a disaster. In practice this meant that for ever shot the T-34 fired, a german tank was able to fire three. The sloped armor was only effective against early war weaponry like the Pak 36 and Panzerbüchse and was near useless against heavier AT weapons, like the axis 75 mm and 88 mm tanks. The T-34 gun while high caliber, lacked both accuracy and velocity which harshly affected long range combat. Even rain was known to zip through cracks and disrupt electrical equipment and ammunition and it had even more trouble with snow.

The fact that the USSR produced 54 550 T-34s (easily the most widely produced tank of WWII) and hence produced a ‘war winning’ tank is a separate strategic level discourse and should not be confused with giving the T-34 credit for being effective at the tactical level. The Soviet tank strategy was all about overwhelming the enemy with superior numerical force, get in close and win no matter the losses with approximately 44 900 T-34s (82% of total production) being irrecoverably lost. Hence the T-34 can not be considered superior to contemporary German tanks since it was inferior in every aspect but production cost, time and mobility. Being all about quantity of quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leapchild (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to think the T34-76s definitely outclass the Panzer IIIs and Early Panzer IVs equipped with short barreled 75mm guns BUT not the later Panzer IV. Later Panzer IV with upgraded KwK40 L43 or L48 gun surpassed T34-76s in firepower and increased frontal armor to 80mm even outclassed the sloped armor of the T34-76 Model 1943. But that's just firepower and protection (frontal at most). The later Panzer IV suffered the same mechanical reliability and mobility issues as the Panthers, Tiger Is and IIs though not as badly. Yes, Early T34-76s, namely Model 1941 versions, the ones send to Aberdeen Proving Ground, suffered relatively low mechanical reliability problems as well. But most of the problem, except for the infamous 2-man-turret configuration, were resolved in Model 1942 and 1943. Not to mention there were also minor armor, ammunition and fuel storage improvements. Now, the specifics. 1."The sloped armor was only effective against early war weaponry like the Pak 36 and Panzerbüchse and was near useless against heavier AT weapons." Not true, or at least half true. Model 1943 T34-76 had been recorded deflecting even the AP rounds fired from KwK40 L43 mounted on the StuG III. The benefits of the slope armor is not just creating more effective armor protection when round do penetrate (to a certain depth), but also increase the chance for the incoming round to deflect which means very minor damage done as a result. Note that even the side of the T34-76 hull is sloped. 2."The T-34 gun while high caliber, lacked both accuracy and velocity which harshly affected long range combat." Compare to monster 75mm KwK42 and 88mm KwK36 mounted on Panther and Tiger I then yes, Compare to Panzer IV's KwK40 L43 and L48 then no. Firing from the 76.2mm F34 gun, the BR-350P APCR rounds actually have an velocity advantage. And F34's length/caliber is about the same as KwK40 L43, therefore should have similar performance. As for accuracy and precision, the F34 gun actually capable of 30cm*30cm dispersion at 1000m, same as the KwK40 L43 and nobody have argued that KwK40 L43 have "poor accuracy". Now people often says T34-76 has cruel gun sight which affect it's accuracy, again not true. The F34's gun-sight have the same FOV as the KwK40 L43's. As for quality, tests in Aberdeen Proving Grounds concluded it was ".....the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America." which at the time include M4 Sherman's. And I personally handled a antic T34's gun sight (well, its T34-85's) in a tank museum years ago which totally support Aberdeen's claim. But, as you said, despite the advantages T34-76s had on Early Panzers, they did suffer heavy casualties mainly due to the poor training of the crews and the 2-man-turret configurations, the poor ergonomics of the overall design enhanced that. And as the war progresses the training resolved most but not total. And German, on the other hand, began to field AFVs with better firepower and protection directed against T34s and KVs. Therefore, the losses remained high throughout the war, that doesn't mean T34's badly built and/or badly designed. In fact, it was designed to do what it was suppose to do, the same as the Panzer IV, M4 Sherman and Cromwell, and it does it very well. Although I agree T34-76's 2-man-turret is one of the biggest design flaw of the entire system and it was not corrected until the production of the T34-85s. Therefore, I would argue T34-85s outclassed all of the Panzer IIIs, IVs and StuG IIIs in firepower, protection and mobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBladewill (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the German name ?

What is the German name for this tank ? I have just spent decades of my life in the mistaken belief that "Panzer" was German for "Panther". But panzer panzer would make no sense.Eregli bob (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/#en%7Cde%7CPanther

Panzer is this: http://translate.google.com/#de%7Cen%7CPanzer

Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In this context Panzer simply translates into tank. In other contexts it also translates into armor. Panther usually means Black panther. --Denniss (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "Panzer" = armour. A tank is a "Panzerkampfwagen" (armoured fighting-vehicle), but is abbreviated to "Panzer", or written as "PzKpfw". The German for 'panther' is, 'der Panther/ Panter'. 217.44.24.125 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Al (UK)

The German name was Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausführung D (or ... Ausführung G etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why delete numeral # V?

In the beginng it says something like 'Hitler ordered that the roman numeral V should be deleted' Why? I don't get it why Hitler decided to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesh1 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because of the possibility of confusion with V for Victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)