Panther not rushed into service?

[stg 44]

What if the Germans held off on producing the Panther tank until 1944 when they had the mechanical issues worked out, so spent 1943 building more Pz IVs instead?

[paspartoo]

What if the Germans held off on producing the Panther tank until 1944 when they had the mechanical issues worked out, so spent 1943 building more Pz IVs instead?

I think you’re confusing training and spare parts problems with ‘reliability’ (whatever that means). Holding back the Panther for a couple of months till the crews are fully trained on it, plus spending more on spare parts production would have had a positive effect on its performance. Building large numbers of a new heavy vehicle that could tow the Panthers and Tigers would be even better. However be careful with terms such as reliability and operational rates. They're not the same.

In general such discussions usually end up comparing apples and oranges... (look at the reliable T-34 for an example ).

[stg 44]

AFAIK the Panther had serious mechanical issues until March 1944 that were corrected with the AusF G series. For example most of the Panthers used at Kursk were lost to mechanical issues, including two that burned up just moving off of the train.

[paspartoo]

My advice is read 'Panzetruppen vol2' by Thomas Jentz. I'm not going to go through the trouble of copy pasting stuff from that book. Just get it and read the reports. Then you can find out if what you just said is correct or not.

[Michael Kenny]

Spielberger. Panther & Its Variants page 257

Date 23 January 1945.


Meeting of the Panzer Commision


there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types..................General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilisation of tanks is simply impossible...........
200 breakdowns with the 38(t).........
Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective drives on the Pz IV, from the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100............the troops lose their confidence and in some situations abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem

[stg 44]

Spielberger. Panther & Its Variants page 257

Date 23 January 1945.


Meeting of the Panzer Commision


there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types..................General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilisation of tanks is simply impossible...........
200 breakdowns with the 38(t).........
Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective drives on the Pz IV, from the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100............the troops lose their confidence and in some situations abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem

Right, that's in 1945 and probably referencing 1944 and the production problems with that; what about in 1943 and the differences in reliability vs. 1944? Also the above doesn't really address what I'm talking about.

[paspartoo]

http://www.amazon.com/Panzertruppen-Emp ... 0764300806

[pintere]

AFAIK the Panther had serious mechanical issues until March 1944 that were corrected with the AusF G series. For example most of the Panthers used at Kursk were lost to mechanical issues, including two that burned up just moving off of the train.

The Panther's final drives remained a liability until the end of the war. But, if they had fixed THAT, they would have had a very deadly war machine.

[Michael Kenny]

Right, that's in 1945 and probably referencing 1944 and the production problems with that; what about in 1943 and the differences in reliability vs. 1944? Also the above doesn't really address what I'm talking about.

It deal with both issues of reliability and spares. It proves (using German sources) that claims it got better after 1943 are bunk.

I suggest someone posts the data Jentz uses to claim the late war Panther solved its problems so I can point out any errors.

[stg 44]

Right, that's in 1945 and probably referencing 1944 and the production problems with that; what about in 1943 and the differences in reliability vs. 1944? Also the above doesn't really address what I'm talking about.

It deal with both issues of reliability and spares. It proves (using German sources) that claims it got better after 1943 are bunk.

I suggest someone posts the data Jentz uses to claim the late war Panther solved its problems so I can point out any errors.

No it doesn't, because we don't have a comparison of breakdown percentages in 1943-45, just in 1945 when everything was falling apart. The Panther never solved its problems it just became somewhat more bareable with the G-series.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkamp ... fz-171.htm

As with any weapon in constant use, various modifications and design changes were made to the Panther to improve its combat capabilities, while resolving outstanding issues. In March 1944, the first Ausf G was produced. The new Panther was much more reliable than previous models and became the most numerous model, and featured many new features. These included a new design for the top hull hatches, removal of the driver’s visor in the glacis (front) plate and upper hull sides closer to the vertical. Later variants had a rotating periscope for the driver, a new exhaust arrangement, a new gun mantlet with a reinforced "chin" designed to eliminate the shot trap and a new engine deck layout with a raised fan cover.

[Michael Kenny]

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkamp ... fz-171.htm

Really ancient site. It was up and running when I first started posting!
I note that though this Panther article has taken down the specifics of 'Barkmann's Corner' it still alludes to it.
Also the same site was famous for being the default reference for IR Panther information. Though it still has the full IR Article up it now has tagged this on the end:

Most of those reports can’t be confirmed and are questionable.

Worthless as a source. .

[paspartoo]

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....

[stg 44]

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....

How about you post some page numbers rather than cite a several hundred page book?

[SpicyJuan]

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkamp ... fz-171.htm

Really ancient site. It was up and running when I first started posting!
I note that though this Panther article has taken down the specifics of 'Barkmann's Corner' it still alludes to it.
Also the same site was famous for being the default reference for IR Panther information. Though it still has the full IR Article up it now has tagged this on the end:

Most of those reports can’t be confirmed and are questionable.

Worthless as a source. .

It seems as if we got to the point of "pls be very specific I wasn't 100 citations from only sources I'm not biased against, and must be irrefutable and inscribed in gold". It doesn't matter anyways, the cited statement is mentioning the credibility of reports regarding the effectiveness of the Panthers with IR sights (which is very reasonable as the Nazi's had a tendency at the very end of the war to pull "kills" out of their arse: for example Kurt Knispel), NOT that the Panther article is possibly completely untrue.

[Michael Kenny]

I gave 2 very specific example of where the quoted 'source' was worthless. This tends to make one (me at least) wonder how much effort went into compiling the rest of the sites 'facts'. It plainly is a page where the best possible spin has been placed on the Panther. As I said it is a really old page that belongs to the days when the internet was overrun with uber-panzer devotees. Thankfully those days are long gone and it would be better if more recent works could be quoted to support the 'reliable' 1945 Panther claim. . The Jan 1945 report I posted earlier seems fairly definitive.
Perhaps the reason you just complained about the critical aspects of my post rather than post facts that contradicted it is because you don't have any such facts?