Panther not rushed into service?

[Phaing]

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

No need for that, I have a few I can list here;
Britain really did produce a horde of bad tank designs.... and not just the designs, but shockingly large prodution figures for tanks that had proven failures right from the start.

Covenanter Cruiser tanks; 1365 built, never saw combat and used only for training. Production ceased in 1943, maybe they should have tested the pilot model first.

Cavalier Cruiser tank; an order for 500 was placed before adequate testing (again) and none ever saw combat, again. Some were converted to recovery vehicles or armored command posts, so they did some service, but not as tanks.

Other failures;
The Black Prince... a lot of work must have gone into this, but what were they thinking? It was obsolete before any were made.

Cruiser Tank MarkI - IV a.k.a. A9-A13, awful mistakes.

Tortoise; the British Maus.

Archer; Hey, lets put a 17-pounder on a light chassis for our own Marder. Okay, but did it have to have the gun mounted backwards, and be so small and tight that the driver had to leave the vehicle or get his head crushed by the gun's recoil?

If we add in all the better vehicles, its a bewildering list of machines and sub-types that make the German's look simple and rational.

[Michael Kenny]

The 6 Black Prince and 6 Tortoise were surely a humongous drain on resources!
The Tortoise was designed to assault the Siegfried Line and the Black Prince was the last Infantry Tank design.
The Archer was a very good AT weapon. By pointing the gun backwards they avoided the German mistake of over-long tanks that could not get around in urban situations. There are many accounts of (for example Jgd Pz IV) knocking its sights out of alignment on trees/buildings or digging itself in to the far bank of hollows.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Yes, Do not knock the Archer. It was and remands quite a good evolutionary design as far as anti-tank/tank destroyers go. This is "high-praise" given I am an American tanker, and I am inclined to bash many gnomish ideas by reflex. Battle of New Orleans and all that.

This topic is a dog off its leash.

[Phaing]

The 6 Black Prince and 6 Tortoise were surely a humongous drain on resources!

As I called it the German Maus, I should remind you that there were only 2 Maus made.

And no, I don't like the Archer. Any SP that can only engage targets to the rear and has to be immobile to fire at all is a bad idea.

[Michael Kenny]

As I called it the German Maus, I should remind you that there were only 2 Maus made.

The 80 ton Tortoise not even remotely comparable to the 180 ton Maus.
Try Jagdtiger

[Phaing]

As I called it the German Maus, I should remind you that there were only 2 Maus made.

The 80 ton Tortoise not even remotely comparable to the 180 ton Maus.
Try Jagdtiger

Oh, going by tonnage now?
6 x 80 = 480 tons of Tortoise
2 x 180 = 360 tons of Maus.

Neither saw combat, neither was anything but a total dog and a waste of time.

And the Germans never produced hundreds of tanks that were good for nothing but training.
Aircraft was where they screwed up, especially with the Me 210 and 410, but that's another story.


Back to the OP, how long would it have taken to make the Panther perfect?

[ChristopherPerrien]

And no, I don't like the Archer. Any SP that has to be immobile to fire at all is a bad idea.

, This is true of all SP's, and just about every tank in WWII also, except for that god-awful :roll: Sherman, which by coincidence was half the reason for the Panther being pushed into service as per this topic.. The other half being the T-34.

[Phaing]

And no, I don't like the Archer. Any SP that has to be immobile to fire at all is a bad idea.

, This is true of all SP's, and just about every tank in WWII ...

No, they didn't require the driver to get OUT of the vehicle so that the weapon could be fired. And the fact that the weapon had to be fired over the rear deck only might have been encourging to those planning to run off, but it also made following up a successful attack that much more difficult.
All in all, it seems more like something the Italian Army would have come up with.

[Michael Kenny]

. And the fact that the weapon had to be fired over the rear deck only might have been encourging to those planning to run off, but it also made following up a successful attack that much more difficult.
All in all, it seems more like something the Italian Army would have come up with.

Yes the Brits were always planning to run away......................

[T. A. Gardner]

. And the fact that the weapon had to be fired over the rear deck only might have been encourging to those planning to run off, but it also made following up a successful attack that much more difficult.
All in all, it seems more like something the Italian Army would have come up with.

Yes the Brits were always planning to run away......................

Well, they are rather good at it when they want to be...

[EKB]

Back to the OP, how long would it have taken to make the Panther perfect?

You'll never get a straight answer, because no weapon needs to be perfect.

If we add in all the better vehicles, its a bewildering list of machines and sub-types that make the German's look simple and rational.

Agreed, if we look at the big picture from World War II to the present. I have no idea why anyone would imply that British tank and gun designers were smarter and more crafty than the Germans. As if the Great Tank Scandal did not continue for another 50 years after World War II. As if one could separate past from future.

I also note that just ten years ago, the British Army admitted that its Challenger II tank was lacking in firepower. Based on results of live firing tests, British ordnance experts proposed to replace the rifled main gun with a smoothbore gun (Germany’s Rheinmetall 120mm) at a projected cost of nearly £400 million. That idea persisted in the British Army until 2014, but ultimately the German gun was not affordable according to Colonel Nick Hunter of the Armoured Vehicle Programmes at the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) procurement organisation.

[Alejandro_]

We can see modern day examples by looking at the M1 Abrams tanks which were completely stripped down and remodeled to incorporate newer technology which help cut costs immensely by sticking with an older model (though albeit a completely rebuilt older model) than to design a new one completely.

M1 Abrams was designed under completely different circumstances. I do not know what does this have to do with the topic.

According to R. P. Hunnicutt, the drive train used for the prototype Chrysler XM1 Abrams tank was designed for 58 tons. The last time I checked the numbers, the M1A2SEP with full upgrades weighed at least 69.5 tons. It's probably heavier today.

AFAIK later versions had improvements on the final drive, but I would have to ask.

In any case, Panther original design was supposed to have a planetary gearset for the final drive, but due to cost and tooling it was replaced with a parallel axis gearset. It was much cheaper in terms of design and production, but wore out rapidly. According to postwar French reports they lasted ~200 kms. Later in the war a milder steel was used in the production of the transmission, which made the problem worst.

IMO Panther tank was a very unbalanced vehicle. It had some outstanding features (70L70 gun and front protection) but many issues, including transmission and lateral armour. The latter caused real concern:

During a conference in the Heereswaffenamt on 10 February 1944 the opinion was expressed that the Panther I no longer met the requirements in light of the experience gained on the Eastern Front. The panther should be completely redesigned and, as already mentioned, receive the Tiger steering mechanism and final drive.

'Panther & Its Variants, W.J. Spielberger'

Perhaps a lighter design, with the original 60 mm protection, would have been a better idea.

[stg 44]

Perhaps a lighter design, with the original 60 mm protection, would have been a better idea.

How much weight would that have saved though? 1-2 tons maybe? Its still 41-42 tons with 60mm armor then (first Panther weighed around 43 tons IIRC, gained weight with later models). The original design called for an L48 or L60 75mm and the bigger L70 increased weight a lot, while the turret was pretty poorly designed and from another tank (IIRC VK3601 that morphed into the Tiger), rather than being purpose designed for the Panther chassis.

[SpicyJuan]

In any case, Panther original design was supposed to have a planetary gearset for the final drive, but due to cost and tooling it was replaced with a parallel axis gearset. It was much cheaper in terms of design and production, but wore out rapidly. According to postwar French reports they lasted ~200 kms. Later in the war a milder steel was used in the production of the transmission, which made the problem worst.

Which was much cheaper in terms of design and production? The latter? Do you have any more info, especially on the robustness of the planetary gearset?

The latter caused real concern:
During a conference in the Heereswaffenamt on 10 February 1944 the opinion was expressed that the Panther I no longer met the requirements in light of the experience gained on the Eastern Front. The panther should be completely redesigned and, as already mentioned, receive the Tiger steering mechanism and final drive.

'Panther & Its Variants, W.J. Spielberger'

Sounds a lot like the Panther II. I wonder how it would have performed.

Perhaps a lighter design, with the original 60 mm protection, would have been a better idea.

Perhaps, but it seems a Pz III/Pz IV mix with sloped armor would have been a much better vehicle. If not, a modified Panther II would have made much more sense than the MAN Panther.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Well the topic question was never answered in the beginning of this topic, nor has any answer or numbers been presented much less the effect it would have made.

How many more extra MkIV do you get by delaying MkV production? My answer was probably none ,to maybe 1000, at a cost of 1000 V's.

Does that change the war ? nope. No matter how you look at it or what figures could be used, but since no figures were even presented or even attempted , whatever.


=============================

I also note that just ten years ago, the British Army admitted that its Challenger II tank was lacking in firepower. Based on results of live firing tests, British ordnance experts proposed to replace the rifled main gun with a smoothbore gun (Germany’s Rheinmetall 120mm) at a projected cost of nearly £400 million. That idea persisted in the British Army until 2014, but ultimately the German gun was not affordable according to Colonel Nick Hunter of the Armoured Vehicle Programmes at the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) procurement organisation.

Never got a chance to deal with either the L11 or the later L30. They might have been good shooting guns, but the use of bagged rounds, puts them in the stupidity section, IMPO.- in my professional opinion

The Brits should have switched to the L7 105MM a long time ago. And while the new :roll: fangled German 120 smoothbores fires a wicked round. They are not as inherently accurate as a rifled 4" round from the L7.

The L7 is the best tank gun that has ever been made. A shooting contest L7 vs L11 vs L44 or 55 would be an interesting competition.