T34/85 or Panther

The M41 Walker Bulldog had nothing to do with the Panther.

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, the Panther was of a completely different class than the T34/85. For one thing, it was 20 tons heavier. With that much leeway, who knows what the Russians would have done to upgrade their medium tank.

 

You can't compare weight classes like that. The Panther and T-34/85 were tanks which were used in the same way by both sides. If we simply look at the weight, we can't compare the M1 neither the K 98 k nor the Lee Enfield, both of the latter being more than 10 % lighter.

Christian

 

True but the Abrams does share commonalities with the Panthers design.

True but the Abrams does share commonalities with the Panthers design. Who in turn was inspired by the T34. Ahhhh the interesting relations of tanks…

Congrats on the New rank Dan

 

Yup both these bad boys were "Medium" Tanks...That means they were kinda like Shermans... But bigger.

 

kinda like shermans except with bigger guns, bigger armour, slower, and way better

 

The T34/85 was 10 tons lighter than the Sherman, its armour was half as thick on the glacis. When compared to the late Sherman's 76mm gun, penetration is roughly equal. It was faster than the Sherman and had better cross-country performance due to wider tracks, lesser weight, and lower ground pressure. The Panther was 10 tons heavier than the Sherman but had thicker armour everywhere except on the glacis. Its gun was more capable of penetrating armour; again, it was faster than the Sherman.

Dudemaestro: just because tanks are similar doesn't mean they are based on one another, they could both have emerged from two lines of design that came to the same conclusions. Besides, I do not exactly see how the Abrams is anything like the Panther.

Christian: the T34/85 was almost half the weight of the Panther. At such a vast difference in weight, I highly doubt the two should be considered comparable even if they were used in the same roles. Just because both were medium tanks, it can't be expected of a 25-ton tank to stand its ground against a 45-ton tank on equal terms.

 

Sure you can compare them. Just like the MP 44 and the Bar can be compared, even though the BAR was 40 % heavier. You can also compare the the Bf 109 and the P-51, despite the fact that the P-51 was about double the weight of the Bf 109.

Christian

 

No one likes a Sherman hater.

 

Actualy quite a few people do. About once every two or three months we get a hard core Germanist who really likes to lower their sites on the Sherman and blast away, which usualy leads into a long string of fights untill either the person in question or me gets banned.

 

the sherman was a good medium infantry tank. and in the firefly it was a reasonable fire power tank. ok it was not great but the t-34, cromwell and mkiv type tanks werent exactly much better. Infact id argue the t-34 was inferior in alot of ways.

 

I don't like unjust generalizations or discouragement of the expression of opinions. You should have asked Gunter Viezenz to support his opinion. Another thing you could have tried was do like jdbuk and I did, remarking on how unfounded his post really was by showing the value of the Sherman.

 

Example...

 

Well, IMHO, the Panther was just a better tank than the T-34/85. It was like a medium plus, if you will. The Panther's gun even though smaller was actually better as well as armor protection. And with better crew and communications the Panther would win any one on one fight with T-34/85. But quantity killed the big cat, did it not?

 

Also its side armour, which was as thin as that of the T34, and its maintenance-intensive engine and suspension killed the big cat.

 

Christie type suspension gave T34 a good speed on any type of terain, and wide tracks gave good mobility. I think that Panther had better crosscountry capabilities, but it was heavier. Yet, Panther had 80mm frontal armour sloped at 50 or 55 degrees (different oppinions on the internet). The T34 had 45 sloped at 60 degrees (thus it had a balistic thickness equivalent to 90mm unsloped armour). The gun was better on the Panther, and after kursk, most of the reliability problems with Panther were solved. So, the Panther was a better design then the T34.

As for the oppinions about Panther copying the T34, that's kind of too much. The sloped armour performed better against solid rounds then unsloped armour, so the germans learned this and applied it. Apart from sloped armour, what else from T34 is to be found on Panther?

A while ago, I have looked on internet about a german tank, called Leopard. It turned out that Leopard and Abrams are related, meaning they have the same ancestor.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Quite onest, I like this tank better then any other tank that exists today.

 

Only inasmuch as they were both started because of the failed MBT-70/ Kpz-70.
Leo 2 is a direct descendant of Leo 1, itself the result of a failed German/ French project for a common tank.
Abrams is the end result of a decades-long line of projects (including some seriously weird designs) that were started after WWII.

 

I think the comparison between the T-34/85 and the Panther is a valid-one. After all, the Panther's origin relates directly to the presence of the T-34 on the battlefield.

The Panther used the T-34 concept of sloped-armor on both hull and turret... however the German design solutions always seemed to result in MBT's that were both over-weight, and overly-complex.

The weight-problems caused their engines to be taxed, the complexity resulted in additional down-time to effect maintanence and repairs. (The interleaved road-wheels were obviously an asset in distributing weight, but the nightmares associated with changing a damaged road-wheel illustrate the price of added complexity.)

Also, in muddy terrain, the interleaved wheels would get jammed-up with mud... in comparison the T-34 with it's simple Christie suspension and road-wheels had no such problems.

I surely do admire the Panthers, and given a choice I would much rather command a Panther than a T-34. However, you cannot overlook the fact that the T-34 was a stunning design--and a shocker to the Germans--when it first appeared in 1940.

The Russians also recognized the value of a diesel-powerplant early-on... something the Sherman-designers obviously overlooked. The Sherman was a much better tank for it's crews under diesel-power.

The hardest working components of both Panther and Tiger/TigerII were their power-plants. I think both were under-powered and over-taxed, especially so in the Tiger-series.

As a "bright-spot" for the Sherman... it was reputed to be the #1 hill-climber of MBTs of that period.

Tim

 

Regarding the T-34, it would be interesting if anyone can present any evidence on the T-34 being more reliable than the Panther (not quotes from books, but large-scale statistical data). If that is no the case, then reliability cannot be compared, and can therefore not enter into consideration when comparing the two tanks.

 

If i was going to equip my pre-1945 Army, I would use the Panther G as my principle MBT. Ultimately I would love to get my hands on the F.

As far as T-34/85 vs Panther goes, one on one, I would definetly prefer the Panther. It is my favourite 'MBT' of the war.

Having said that, the T34-85 would be an awesome addition to a mechanized infantry structure, or even a very tank heavy unit.

Kym