Panther not rushed into service?

[Alejandro_]

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.

[ChristopherPerrien]

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

[EKB]

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.

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.

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.

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_]

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.

[EKB]

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!

[Michael Kenny]

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.

[paspartoo]

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

Read them and weep

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?
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!

[Michael Kenny]

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!

The poster just linked the report. He did not write it.

Your language is grossly offensive and borderline obscene. . Please moderate your terminology in future postings.

[Michael Kenny]

REME builds.

REME Panthers (2).jpg (66.59 KiB) Viewed 964 times

[Michael Kenny]

Meaning a vehicle damaged in battle and recovered by the Russians.

The 'damaged in battle ' Panther on arrival in England.

[Michael Kenny]

Same 'battle damaged' Panther

[Michael Kenny]

The guy you linked to is.......... The next Zaloga….....He’s on your level

Steve and I both seem to have arrived the same conclusion on German tank loss recording methods.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/me ... is+article