Panther not rushed into service?
- Alejandro_
- Member
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Thanks Takao
The article also states: . As a result, the Challenger 2's power-to-weight ratio compares poorly to other MBTs
deployed by NATO, such as the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and M1A1/M1A2 Abrams.
In this debate it was suggested that it had little effect.
The article also states: . As a result, the Challenger 2's power-to-weight ratio compares poorly to other MBTs
deployed by NATO, such as the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and M1A1/M1A2 Abrams.
In this debate it was suggested that it had little effect.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
While reading on some other , topics, I found something of relevance to this forum topic, as to why this topic is unanswerable, and of not much importance if it were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Alejandro_ wrote:The article also states: As a result, the Challenger 2's power-to-weight ratio compares poorly to other MBTsTakao wrote: See this article by Jane's, on Pg.5.
http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/5 ... d_AFVs.pdf
Various add-on packages to the Challenger 2 have pushed it's weight from just over 60 tonnes to around 75 tonnes.
The Challenger 2E was a failed attempt to market an export version of the Challenger 2.
deployed by NATO, such as the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and M1A1/M1A2 Abrams.
In this debate it was suggested that it had little effect.
Get your facts straight. It was suggested that 15 tons of extra weight appears to have had little effect on maximum road speed.
In addition to your bizarre dispute over the bloated weights of postwar British tanks, I also thought it was comical that you brought up Challenger 2E as a counterpoint, because it has a German-made engine and transmission.
The irony (given your opinions here) is that Challenger 2 will remain under-powered - and under-gunned - because the UK cannot afford upgrades such as the EuroPowerPack and the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore.
Alejandro_ wrote: As I said before, you simply don't have much knowledge on the topic. I am not going to waste more time with you.
You wasted everyone's time with a diatribe that only the Germans greatly increased the weight of their tanks. Every design is a compromise and the Germans were only trying to increase protection for their tank crews. Yet you and Mr. Kenny imply that they were foolish for doing so.
It's a ridiculous argument in view of what the British Army has done since then.
- Alejandro_
- Member
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
You wasted everyone's time with a diatribe that only the Germans greatly increased the weight of their tanks. Every design is a compromise and the Germans were only trying to increase protection for their tank crews. Yet you and Mr. Kenny imply that they were foolish for doing so.
And you simply don't understand that Panther had a transmission designed for a 35 ton vehicle and manufactured with below standard material. The fact that you refer to not affecting "maximum speed" simply explains that you don't understand anything you are talking about. How often do tanks get to use/reach maximum speed?
Now you go straight to the ignore list. I am not going to bother with someone who starts talking about Challenger II when his beloved Panther is criticized.
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Your agenda is to belittle the Germans and un-crappify the reputation of British tanks. It sounds just like that kid in elementary school who bragged about being the fastest in his class. Then, during the race, right after everyone yells "Go!" he trips and cracks his head open on the asphalt.
So ist das Leben!
So ist das Leben!
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Read them and weep:
http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/10/02/fr ... ther-tank/
http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/13/fr ... liability/
Conclusion on the post war tests:
1. Results of Test:
Owing to the general mechanical unreliability of the Panther and Jagd Panther tanks insufficient test results have been obtained to allow any accurate assessment of the performance of these vehicles to be made.
1. Future Action:
It is recommended that this project be closed.
http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/10/02/fr ... ther-tank/
http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/13/fr ... liability/
Conclusion on the post war tests:
1. Results of Test:
Owing to the general mechanical unreliability of the Panther and Jagd Panther tanks insufficient test results have been obtained to allow any accurate assessment of the performance of these vehicles to be made.
1. Future Action:
It is recommended that this project be closed.
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Let’s see. The first report says:
‘Today we present a report from the British Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment from 1944 testing a captured German Panther tank provided by the Soviet Union’
Meaning a vehicle damaged in battle and recovered by the Russians.
For the second report it says:
‘The two Panther, and both Jagd Panther machines were new vehicles when first received at P.V.P.E., having been constructed by No. 823 Armoured Troops Workshop, R.E.M.E. B.O. A .R., in 1945.
In the case of the Panther A.R.V., this vehicle had run 632 kilometers prior to its arrival at F.V.P.E., and it was found necessary to install a new engine before commencing trials’.
I didn’t know there was a German factory called ‘No. 823 Armoured Troops Workshop’, guess I’m not as smart as Kenny… So vehicles built by British soldiers, using what? Their superior engineering skills?
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... nks/page-2
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity
The guy you linked to is one of the Russia strong retards from world of tanks forum. The next Zaloga…
He’s on your level Kenny!
‘Today we present a report from the British Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment from 1944 testing a captured German Panther tank provided by the Soviet Union’
Meaning a vehicle damaged in battle and recovered by the Russians.
For the second report it says:
‘The two Panther, and both Jagd Panther machines were new vehicles when first received at P.V.P.E., having been constructed by No. 823 Armoured Troops Workshop, R.E.M.E. B.O. A .R., in 1945.
In the case of the Panther A.R.V., this vehicle had run 632 kilometers prior to its arrival at F.V.P.E., and it was found necessary to install a new engine before commencing trials’.
I didn’t know there was a German factory called ‘No. 823 Armoured Troops Workshop’, guess I’m not as smart as Kenny… So vehicles built by British soldiers, using what? Their superior engineering skills?
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... nks/page-2
Yeah I’ll weep for the intelligence of the people who chose them in order to ‘prove’ that the Panther didn’t work. What did Einstein say?Michael Kenny wrote:Read them and weep
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity
The guy you linked to is one of the Russia strong retards from world of tanks forum. The next Zaloga…
He’s on your level Kenny!
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
The poster just linked the report. He did not write it.paspartoo wrote:
The guy you linked to is one of the Russia strong retards from world of tanks forum. The next Zaloga…
He’s on your level Kenny!
Your language is grossly offensive and borderline obscene. . Please moderate your terminology in future postings.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 26 Dec 2015, 12:19, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
The 'damaged in battle ' Panther on arrival in England.paspartoo wrote:
Meaning a vehicle damaged in battle and recovered by the Russians.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Same 'battle damaged' Panther
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther not rushed into service?
Steve and I both seem to have arrived the same conclusion on German tank loss recording methods.paspartoo wrote:
The guy you linked to is.......... The next Zaloga….....He’s on your level
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/me ... is+article