The Panzer Tanks

The Panzer tanks were quite a big part of Adolf Hitler's Nazi war machine, they were very effective, especially Panzer IV and Panzer V. For the most part for those two tanks they performed the best at the beginning of the war, but still were quite useful after D-Day. But, on the Eastern Front(Russia), Panzer IV and Panzer V did not perform well, for a big part was the cold weather and rough winters. So this is when the Tiger Tanks come in, they did better than the Panzer's, but were eventually run over by the Red Army. There was at one time palns to make a 35 metre tank with naval guns and 17,000 horse3power engine. But these ideas were scraped when the guns and parts were needed for defending the Atantic coastline for the inevitible D-Day was to come. But after the D-Day landings, an SS Panzer division captured 150 Canadian solders and executed them. This slaying only pervocted the Allies to fight hard and overcome the Nazi regime. So in conclusion, the tanks that the Nazi's built during World War Two, were a big part of Germany's many great victories, like the Afrika Korps with Field Marshell Erwin Romnmel at the wheel. So the next time you think about tanks, think of the German modeled Panzer tanks and how they engineered such greatness out of depression.

Sincerley,
Private Mic von Krate

(open to critism and further knowledge)

 

german tanks are surrounded in myth but in reality are not as good as people think.

The mark 1 and 2 were basic limited light tanks. The 3 and 4 started life also a a good reliable medium tank. But the british matilda and a french tank whose name I can never remember was just a good if not better.

People constantly harp on about the panzer 5 and 6 being the pinicle of armoured vehicles but frankly thats rubbish. Both had problems, especially the 6 with reliability, and both had their matches on the battlefield. Especially the Russian JS and KV series tanks were at least the equal of the 6 and the later T-34's were as good as a mark 5.

I think the reason why german tanks have this image is not becuase of cold comparrison of the vehicles but becuase germany had huge successes in 39, 40 and 41 and generally defeated larger armies shocking the world.

But this was as much to do with both sides tactics and force distribution as it is their tanks. The French 40 campaign being a prime example. Here the panzers main vehicles were lowly mark 1's and 2's with a large prop of czech tanks in there as well to boost numbers.

Yet in France 1940 the allies had more tanks and probably the best tanks, though in limited numbers as well. The same applies in russia in 41. The russians had far more tanks, though most were fairly useless, but they did have KV-1's and T-34's which were far better than the mark iv and more importantly the mark iii which was supposed to germanys main cruiser tank.

These tanks completly outmatached the german tanks and forced them to phase out the remaining mark II's and mark iii's (after going through a limited upgrade schedule), upgrade the mark iv and reclass it from infantry support to main cruiser whilst forcing them to build an entirly new tank to keep up with the russians, the mark vi

FNG

 

The Pz.Kpfw.Panther didn't perform at all at the beginning of the war. It first saw action in mid-1943.

The Eastern Front wasn't all cold weather, either. The summers were quite warm, and could last fairly long as well.

The Tiger was a Panzer too. Panzer is a generic term, unspecific of any vehicle.

Your reference to the 'Ratte' is also doubtful, especially your point about it being cancelled because the parts were needed elsewhere (even if the design existed, it never progressed beyond the drawing board, and thus no parts were ever made).

 

just as a side issue, Rommels north africa tanks were rubbish and he generally had very few. He mainly had Mark iii's with a few mark ii's and iv's. Later he got a small number of mark iv specials with the long 75mm.

They sent a few token tigers as well after the torch landings but they were not much use given the terrain and the fact they were brand new and plagued with problems.

Facing rommel were british matildas and valentines which were both limited but reasonable, american grant/lees which were fairly competent and then shermans. Of course the brits also had our own cruiser tanks but we don't like talking about them.

FNG

 

What about the Mark III Specials (mark III...why don't we use the german name here?) PzKpfw III Ausf J with the KwK 39 L/60.)
To call those rubbish goes a bit to far...in those early days they were quite capable against most English tanks?

 

FNG, the T-34 is way inferior to the Panther... it is comparable to late Pz. IV versions, the Panther is out of its league.

 

The morel seems to be size doesn't count it's the way you use them.

 

Indeed, superior tactics (in the strategic and tactical sense) are far more important than the equipment used. The side in the war that had the best tanks was always the loosing side, remember.

 

I don't consider the T-34/85 to be that far behind the panther. It had similar armour and a capable gun. It was also reliable.

FNG

 

How many mark III specials did Rommel get and how far into the campaign?

the point I was making is Rommel only got a few of the later better tanks. I can imagine that a good percentage of allied tank kills in the desert were actually done by AT guns and not tanks, though I bet the allies lost loads of tanks through enviromental attrition.

FNG

 

The Panther had significantly stronger frontal armour than the T-34-85, and its gun was far better as well.

As for reliability, can you please post the large-scale statistics which you base your assumptions on (i.e. comparable statistics covering long-term service records on an army level for both vehicles).

 

the panther was renowed with reliability problems as the first ones that saw service were the prototypes. However a lot were solved but still it remained a tank that required careful and regular servicing unlike the T-34's which were very much simpler.

according to this site the panther had 110mm and the late T-34's 90mm. The T-34 could penetrate over 100 mm at 1000 yards which would be sufficient to tank on a panther toe to toe, especially at shorter ranges.

FNG

 

Everybody says the T-34 was reliable, yet noone has ever presented any documentation to this claim. Until someone actually presents such documentation, any claim that the T-34 is reliable can only be seen as unfounded.

As for the Panther, modern tanks doesn't seem to have better reliability. Does this make the Panther poor?

 

The fact that they drove to Berlin from Stalingrad should attest to the T-34's reliability
The fact that the T-34 is still in use in third world countries should attest to the T-34's reliability
The fact that every part of the T-34 was accessible and simple enough to be repaired by the crew alone should attest to the T-34's reliability

Just because the T-34 had a nasty habit of breaking down alot does not make it an unreliable tank. The fact is that even despite such problems, the T-34 was extremely easy and quick to repair, even more so than the Sherman and ALOT more so than the Panther.

 

1) They didn't drive straight from Stalingrad to Berlin.
2) The Russian manual for movements with armoured vehicles requires frequent technical breaks.

But in what condition, and at what expense for spare parts?

How would the crew find steel, copper or aluminium in the middle of nowhere for repairs?

What definition of 'unreliable' are you using, then?

And your source for this would be...?

 

Are there any Panthers still in service? :lol:

 

Apples and oranges. Since the post-war reserves and production could not supply more than a small contingent of French Panthers.

 

Edit: Christian got it before me...

No, because most of them were destroyed and tank development took different turns. The T-34 and Panther were very different in nature, and the fact that it is not used today does not mean it was not better than the T-34... Very rough example: For example, the Browning 0.50 MG was designed in the 20s, and variants are still being used today. But "nobody" is using, for example, the T-18 tank. That does not mean the T-18 was a bad tank in the 1920s.

 

Not to mention the continued use of the StG 44 alongside the AK-47.

 

No no, of course not... I am not stubborn enough to deny that the Panther was technically a far superior tank to the T-34. I'm just saying that one good point of the T-34 was its very simple design. Engineering teams were apparrently able to repair a T-34 in only a few days, if not hours... The Panther had more parts, and required far more expertise and time to repair if damaged