Panther not rushed into service?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#61

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Oct 2015, 22:11

paspartoo wrote:
If you have a problem with the book take it up with the author not me.......................
If it's wrong it should be easy of you to disprove it.....................
Not how it works here. Consult the posting guidelines.

http://forum.axishistory.com/app.php/rules

2. Claims and Proof

The sixth rule of the forum is: "When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)."

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced, secondary articles or opinions.

.

paspartoo
Member
Posts: 835
Joined: 07 Feb 2009, 14:35
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#62

Post by paspartoo » 04 Oct 2015, 07:34

A good thing that comes out of any internet fight is that it makes me go out and find more information. I had missed an interesting book on the T-34. It's in Russian so i have to use google translate but i think everyone will understand the percentages. :D

I'll post stuff when i have read and understood it.
So it seems i have to thank you Kenny for at least doing something useful. :lol:
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#63

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Oct 2015, 21:48

paspartoo wrote:: My advice is read 'Panzetruppen vol2' by Thomas Jentz....................

Those who want to learn more can read 'Panzertruppen 2: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force ¥ 1943-1945'. The rest can continue their usual posting.....................


My advice to those interested in the Panther is:
1). Read the reports included in Jentz’s ‘Panzertruppen’ vol 2..............................
A book means little I you are unable to check out how an authors (biased) conclusions were formed. For instance much confusion has been sown by this table from Jentz
Jentz readineaa rates-vert sml.jpg
Note the first 2 dates. May and September
Now it is true there are no firm consolidated figures for this period but you would think the author would caution the reader that there is a significant gap where some 3000 + German tanks fell off the books and' the West' in September 1944 held just some 3-400 tanks in total. It is pointless trying to average these figures because so much is missing.


Still some people try:
polo30310_4_2015 5_28_26 PM.jpg
polo30310_4_2015 5_28_26 PM.jpg (36.09 KiB) Viewed 970 times
Not content with Jentz's partial totals the author above further knocks off the last set of low numbers to get an average nearer to what he believes it should be. GIGO writ large!

Why start at May anyway. We will have to check individual units due to the lack of collated totals. They will give some idea of the situation in early 1944.

Take GD Pz Rgt 26 and its Panthers.
GD PzRgt 26 sml.jpg
Or all Tigers in The East: Those Jan-April figures are very bad. Add then for an average and the numbers are very low.
Attachments
Jentz readineaa rates (3) sml.jpg

paspartoo
Member
Posts: 835
Joined: 07 Feb 2009, 14:35
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#64

Post by paspartoo » 05 Oct 2015, 08:40

Superior imperial British tank technology (via' armored champion'):
zaloga.jpg
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#65

Post by EKB » 05 Oct 2015, 09:28

Michael Kenny wrote: The excuses boil down to claiming the Panther was a victim of external factors that had nothing to do with its development and use. I say that the Panther was a symptom of the chaotic German development system and rather than being a victim of it. By not fulfilling its intended role the Panther added to the chaos. It was a perfect example of the dysfunctional tank development system that allowed the design weight to rise above the ability of the engine and transmission. The Panthers faults did not appear out of thin air they were built in from the start.

In Britain of the USA such a design would have been dropped and would never have reached the front line.

Maybe you can explain what lessons were learned by the British Army about "dysfunctional tank development systems" during World War II. Go ahead and give us some data on how the British Chieftain tank fared on reliability after a 400 km road march. And while you are at it, maybe you can account for the discrepancy between the original design weight vs. the final weight.

It's too bad that this thread has turned into another complete waste of bandwidth ...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#66

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Oct 2015, 14:11

paspartoo wrote:Superior imperial British tank technology (via' armored champion'):
zaloga.jpg
I was wondering where you got the 'Great Tank Scandal' & 'Death By Design' book titles from. Obviously from your Google book preview and you have no idea about the contents.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#67

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Oct 2015, 14:14

EKB wrote:



Maybe you can explain what lessons were learned by the British Army about "dysfunctional tank development systems" during World War II. Go ahead and give us some data on how the British Chieftain tank fared on reliability after a 400 km road march. And while you are at it, maybe you can account for the discrepancy between the original design weight vs. the final weight.
...
I believe this is the 'yours were just as bad' argument which indirectly means you agree the Panther was a mechanical nightmare?

However if your query is genuine I suggest you resurrect this thread.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=174002
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 05 Oct 2015, 14:22, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#68

Post by SpicyJuan » 05 Oct 2015, 14:14

Michael Kenny wrote:
paspartoo wrote:Superior imperial British tank technology (via' armored champion'):
zaloga.jpg
I was wondering where you got the 'Great Tank Scandal' & 'Death By Design' book titles from. Obviously from your Google book preview and you have no idea about the contents.
Be sure to not misquote, Michael Kenny! :D

paspartoo
Member
Posts: 835
Joined: 07 Feb 2009, 14:35
Contact:

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#69

Post by paspartoo » 05 Oct 2015, 15:01

Michael Kenny wrote:
paspartoo wrote:Superior imperial British tank technology (via' armored champion'):
zaloga.jpg
I was wondering where you got the 'Great Tank Scandal' & 'Death By Design' book titles from. Obviously from your Google book preview and you have no idea about the contents.
Look mate, I had fun with the fight so far and you forced me to go back and check a Russian source that I hadn’t used so far. It was hard to find but worth it just to spite you.
I’ve done the same thing before thanks to forum fights so in that sense you people have directly contributed to my essay's popularity! :lol:

Apart from that this is becoming tiring. I’ve told you twice to man up and say yes or no. I’m not going to post anything else without an answer. You can keep posting for yourself if you like. 8-)
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#70

Post by EKB » 05 Oct 2015, 16:52

Michael Kenny wrote:
EKB wrote:



Maybe you can explain what lessons were learned by the British Army about "dysfunctional tank development systems" during World War II. Go ahead and give us some data on how the British Chieftain tank fared on reliability after a 400 km road march. And while you are at it, maybe you can account for the discrepancy between the original design weight vs. the final weight.
...
I believe this is the 'yours were just as bad' argument which indirectly means you agree the Panther was a mechanical nightmare?

However if your query is genuine I suggest you resurrect this thread.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=174002

So you would rather not discuss the lessons learned by the British Army during World War II. Is this not important to you?

The record of the highly dysfunctional Chieftain tank certainly made the Ministry of Defence uncomfortable. But I'll note that the situation did not improve much later. Challenger I had a 22% operational rate before the Gulf War. Please underscore how that statistic compares to Germany's Panther tank, or the King Tiger.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#71

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Oct 2015, 16:57

paspartoo wrote:
I’m not going to post anything else without an answer.
Confirmation you are simply plucking book titles out of the air and have no idea about the contents.



Never let it be said I did not help a struggling Amazon/Google Book Preview expert. Here is what you are 'referencing'

jentz0012.jpg
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 05 Oct 2015, 17:07, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#72

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Oct 2015, 17:40

EKB wrote: Please underscore how that statistic compares to Germany's Panther tank, or the King Tiger.
Here is some data to help you do your own comparison.

Normandy 1944. Format = Date........in service...........in repair
Tigers.
SS 101
1/6 37-8
1/7 11-19
4/7 25-5
5/7 25-5
7/7 25-5
8/7 20-7
11/7 13-15
13/7 14-14
15/7 17-8
16/7 20-8
22/7 7-18
24/7 13-11
26/7 14-11
27/7 13-11
28/7 20-4
29/7 20-4
30/7 21-4
1/8 20-5


SS 102
8/7 25-8
11/7 14-13
13-7 10-16
15/7 19-10
16/7 19-10
20/7 17-14
11/8 7-9

sPz Abt 503
11/7 23-18
13/7 32-13
17/7 39-6
25/7 20-8
27/7 20-4
29/7 15-7
1/8 13-16

sPz. Jgr Abt 654
Jgd Panther

28/7 21-4
1/8 8-16

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#73

Post by David Thompson » 06 Oct 2015, 03:27

Several posts from Paspartoo and Michael Kenny, containing insulting or personal remarks about other posters, were removed.

Gentlemen -- Be civil or be gone.

User avatar
pintere
Financial supporter
Posts: 459
Joined: 03 Jan 2015, 23:04
Location: Moose Jaw

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#74

Post by pintere » 06 Oct 2015, 04:20

David Thompson wrote:Several posts from Paspartoo and Michael Kenny, containing insulting or personal remarks about other posters, were removed.

Gentlemen -- Be civil or be gone.
Hear hear!

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther not rushed into service?

#75

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Oct 2015, 05:14

Sample numbers for 12th SS in the period missing from the Jentz table that gives an average 65% operational rate for the Panther.

June 1st. Panther 48 Op, 2-6 repair = 56. Pz IV 91 Op, 7-0 repair = 98. Total 154


June 26th. Panther 37 Op, 27 repair = 64 . Pz IV 60 Op, 12 repair = 72. Total 136



July 5th. Panther 28 Op, 30 repair = 58 . Pz IV 30 Op, 24 repair = 54. Total 112


July 9th. Panther 18 Op, 24-5 repair = 47. Pz IV 10 Op, 27-5 repair = 42. Total 89


The June 1st figure is in the Jentz 'May 31st' total and at 85% fits well with his 88% but look how the numbers collapse in the next 5 weeks with an average of 49%. They got worse it is just the later figures are not available in full. This would be typical for all Panzer units caught up in the Normandy & Bagration defeats but none of these totals appear in the Jentz table because he misses out all of June, July, August and September `1944 from his totals!

Post Reply

Return to “What if”