The Panther Tank's bad reliability

Actually, I you are right. Good catch, the exact quote I am looking at is "On average, Panther units in 1944 had 35 to 40 percent of their tanks unavailable" (Panther vs. Sherman Steven J. Zaloga, Osprey Publishing). However, the operational readiness of the Panther D was indeed 35 percent.

Another quick fact: Of the 47 Panther tanks inspected by the allies after the Battle of the Bulge, 20 (42 percent) of them had been abandoned or destroyed by their crews most likely for mechanical reasons.

 

This is in fact incorrect. The Char B1 used a hydrostaticly enhanced double differential steering system using a Naeder hydraulic booster pump. The closest modern equivalent to this is / was the system used on the Swedish S tank.

Virtually all Western heavy AFV / MBT now use some variation of the GM developed Allison Cross Drive transmission system. This was developed starting in 1943 by O. K. Kelly and G. Hause, engineers with General Motors Transmission Products Study Group. The Allison motors division of GM produced the units starting in 1949 as the Model CD-850 for the M46 tank. With detail design differences, a similar unit was developed by Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen A.G. for use in the Leopard series tanks for example.
One huge advantage of this system is that it eliminates torque differential between the two tracks when driving straight ahead. This reduces stress on the transmission and requires less driver input to keep the tank moving in a straight line.

 

Interesting thanks for the correction.

 

Throughout its service life, the Panther was plagued by a drive train that wasn't suited for a vehicle of its weight class, did the Germans ever make an effort to address it?

 

I can't site specific's but there was a steady improvement in reliability, though by US standards it remained temperamental i believe.

 

Just reading through the last two pages I noticed a couple of points worth addressing...

On the issue of diesel versions of the Panther, it's perhaps worth noting that the BRITISH were ahead of the game, in that in the early thirties, in the specifications released for what became the Matilda II, a diesel engine was mandated as it would remove a whole class of potential faults...especially in breakages/damage in combat. A non-existent ignition system can't be damaged by a hit to or above the engine bay...

Regarding alloying metals becoming scarce for the Germans by the end of the war - there was actually a whole covert war going on during the war years regarding the supply of precious alloying metals and other resources. On the british side, the MEW...the Ministry of Economic Warfare...did what it could to inhibit the flow of materiel to Germany - but very often their ability to do so was limited to simply buying up what was available on the open market for anyone to purchase.

The Germans' source of Tungsten/Wolfram was nominally "Spain" - that's where it was marketed - but in reality the vast majority of it was actually mined in Portugal and covertly transferred to Spain...where it entered the metals' market there. In the early war years the British tried to buy up what they could - but money was at a premium. By 1943 their attempts to intervene again in this way in the tungsten trade came to naught for the first half of the year - but American pressure...and cash!...stymied a good part of the third and fourth quarter's production from reaching Germany via France.

And of course - other events in France from June 6th 1944 blocked the transport of metals from Spain by and totally from the middle of the summer on

 

Never heard of an alternative engine although there were some attempts to copy the soviet diesel engines or to build a better one.

The Tiger had the same engine. For the Panther, it was powerful enough. And it was reasonable reliable, not as reliable as a Sherman, more reliable than most of the british engines. Problem was the complexity of the engine.
Overengineering, the usual problem of german weapons.

 

German over engineering is a stereotype. The jerry can, Me109, Fw190, MG34, MG42, Panzers 1-1V weren't over engineered. They were good designs. - (period)

The engine that powered the Panther and Tiger was not over engineered, just unreliable. Advances in design stretch the performance envelop and uncover technical problems that need to be solved. A 600-650 BHP tank engine was a technical advance. The 12-cylinder Maybach HL 210 P45 generated comparable power to the British Meteor developed from the outstanding Merlin aircraft engine. Harnessing this power to drive trains posed further technical problems.

Typically a Panther unit suffered 20% breakdowns on every move - (from interviews post Ardennes). Comets and Cromwells were much more reliable than this, if less than the 99% reliability of the M4 Sherman

 

Some examples where the old 'over-engineered' saw can probably be legitimately applied to Panther.

On the Engines. They can be criticised as such because the unreliability came from an attempt to be a tad too clever for what was easily achievable/robust at the time and fit such a powerful complex unit into such a small space. From fuel feed, to fan drives, to very thin cylinder walls and even issues associated with intended amphibious ability, there was delicacy there (something modern Panther/Tiger runners are all too aware of).
(If you like Maybachs though, The Weald Foundation has some remarkable work going on: https://www.facebook.com/TheWealdFoundation/photos/a.1445195129112117.1073741828.1433277266970570/1601515646813397/?type=3 )
The units were in many ways impressive, but realistically rather pushing the envelope. I don't blame them, as I still think there's a case to be made for Germany having little choice but to pursue technological solutions over a more robust mass product.

The engines are maybe debatable, but the suspension lays itself more easily open to accusations of overdoing things a bit.
The attention lavished during development on the suspension was remarkable, obsessive even, and those dual bar torsion springs are a thing of engineering beauty in their own way, but they have a delicacy to them as well, and never really convince me that they made complete sense on a WW2 combat vehicle. Their repair/replacement was theoretically a simple job, but 30-odd difficult-to-manufacture springs running the full width and length of the floor was not the most robust approach using the period's technology.
Then, there's interleaved wheels... I will never be convinced by interleaved wheels, which along with their other issues directly impact the above need for somewhat OTT suspension systems. Torsion bars came of age, but interleaved wheels were discarded in the future evolution of the tank, with good reason I feel.

Along with the diesel mucking about, which ran and ran if memory serves, there were a couple of factory test vehicles fitted with aircraft radial engines.
Can't remember the type of engine at the mo though. Probably BMW, but again, my memory, so maybe not.

Still think the real Panther drivetrain flaw is nicely illustrated by that postwar French 150km between gearbox rebuilds though (got the full report/manual... somewhere. Will have a look.), and the need to remove the turret for much more than day-to-day maintenance. Those interchangeable Sherman Gearbox front ends were a remarkable thing on a WW2 A vehicle.

 

Maybe information from specialists will help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejq44cdeMO8

The first Panther prototype from Daimler was almost a copy of the T 34 and a Diesel engine was planned:
http://www.panzer-archiv.de/kampfpanzer/deutschland/panzerv/panzerv.htm

The MG 34 was overengineered. That's why the simpler MG 42 was introduced. The Pz III and IV were at least not as easy to manufacture than the Sherman or the T 34.

 

Looked it up, two Beemer 132dc Radial-fitted vee-hickles were tested in 1943. Variant of Tante Ju, Condor, etc. plant.
520HP achieved, but haven't enquired any further into overall results.

 

Did someone say over-engineering?

How about shaft driven engine cooling fans with oil cooled geared transmissions with a 90 degree transition?

Dunkofs

 

Watched half a dozen people shouting and fighting with Tiger 131's fan drives at a tankfest years back. Running with the sound of a high velocity sack full of spanners.
I believe that nice Mr Gibb from the Weald finally sorted them a new/repaired set.

 

https://youtu.be/dU2SDHha078

Mmmmm, spacious.
Well, spacious compared to Tiger, but still hardly room to swing a spanner.
In the days before moderately straightforward pack swaps, this was all a tad ambitious, and linked to unreliability. Things break down, obviously, but difficulty of repair (despite some Herculean efforts by Panzer maintenance crews) mean they more often stay broken down. Not the finest feature when you severely lack capacity to provide entire replacement vehicles.

 

Well you heard it from the tank overhaul guy 5 to 1 Sherman vs Panther any of you guys gunna call him a liar.✌

 

The Weald Foundation has a second Jagdpanther planned, to accompany their well-known restoration of a few years back.

They've been Tweeting and Friendface-ing some rather intriguing pictures. (Along with the usual flow of even more intriguing FT17 replicas etc. Do follow them on their assorted feeds if you like the very highest level of 'keep-em-rolling'. Formerly 'The SdKfz Foundation', and all flowing from the remarkable Mr Gibb's collecting.)
https://www.wealdfoundation.org

 

Omg that Jagdpanther.... Beautiful

 

It was quite funny when it first appeared at Beltring.
Hundreds of other genuinely interesting vehicles on the site, but I was part of the sad crowd surging towards it whenever it moved. Walking backwards and snapping away like crazy.