what were the panther tank flaw?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 16 Jul 2019 13:31

Ulater wrote:
16 Jul 2019 13:05
, because nobody past Spielberger who somehow dug this report out of somewhere does.
The Spielberger account is a problem for some people. As he is one of 'them' they can not come straight out and say he lied/made it up so they try other more subtle ways to undermine. The method above is implying the original Panther report might not exist

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 16 Jul 2019 13:41

Indeed.

"The technical failures that occur on the Panther appear on the Pz III and Pz IV the same way. Only the fact that the Panzer V easily catches fire makes modifications necessary.

- 13th Pz Div., I./Pz.Rgt 2 as of 20th October 1943

"The report comfirms that the lifespan of a Pz.Kpfw. Panther was extended due to further improvements of the components. The average lifespan of a Panther is now close to the one of a Pz. IV with approximately 1500-2000 km between two major maintenance services."

- the leading Kraftfahroffizier from the Gen.Insp.Pz.Tr. commented on the report of I./Pz.Rgt.2 from 22nd April 1944.
The Spielberger account is a problem for some people. As he is one of 'them' they can not come straight out and say he lied/made it up so they try other more subtle ways to undermine. The method above is implying the original Panther report might not exist
Not what I was saying, but whatever. I am used to you by now.

But yes, one can draw some conclusions form the fact that a historian on a payroll of a major gaming company, and atleast 4 other authors only can copy the "original" text, and are either strangely unwilling or unable to see the original for themselves.
Last edited by Ulater on 16 Jul 2019 14:04, edited 1 time in total.

bam
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by bam » 16 Jul 2019 13:47

The only sources I have for French panthers are all online, and yes there are discrepancies. But the majority state the French used them in battalion strength until at least 47,thus longer than Germany.
Ulater, if u have contrary facts, please share them and expand my knowledge. That is the whole purpose of being here.
Where would the ministry of war likely test tanks if not at their test centres? In their car park?

In the meantime, I've emailed Saumur for answers. I'll share any reply
Last edited by bam on 16 Jul 2019 20:02, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Michael Kenny » 16 Jul 2019 13:49

Ulater wrote:
16 Jul 2019 13:41

one can draw some conclusions form the fact that a historian on a payroll of a major gaming company, and atleast 4 other authors only can copy the "original" text, and are either strangely unwilling or unable to see the original for themselves.
And one of those conclusions is that Spielberger 'invented' the French Panther report?

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 16 Jul 2019 14:02

Michael Kenny wrote:
16 Jul 2019 13:49
Ulater wrote:
16 Jul 2019 13:41

one can draw some conclusions form the fact that a historian on a payroll of a major gaming company, and atleast 4 other authors only can copy the "original" text, and are either strangely unwilling or unable to see the original for themselves.
And one of those conclusions is that Spielberger 'invented' the French Panther report?
Thats your strawman, not my conclusion.
The only sources I have for French panthers are all online, and yes there are discrepancies. But the majority state the French used them in battalion strength until at least 47,thus longer than Germany.
Ulater, if u have contrary facts, please share them and expand my knowledge. That is the whole purpose of being here.
The hilarious French tanker in the YouTube clip seems to have used and tested them. Where would the ministry of war likely test tanks if not at their test centres? In their car park?
One of the units wasnt in France in 1947, and the other did not exist at the time according to their Wikipedia.

So yes, Im open to any new knowledge on the matter.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by aurelien wolff » 19 Jul 2019 09:34

Michael Kenny wrote:
16 Jul 2019 13:31
Ulater wrote:
16 Jul 2019 13:05
, because nobody past Spielberger who somehow dug this report out of somewhere does.
The Spielberger account is a problem for some people. As he is one of 'them' they can not come straight out and say he lied/made it up so they try other more subtle ways to undermine. The method above is implying the original Panther report might not exist
"them" pls don't go like TIK history with that.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by aurelien wolff » 19 Jul 2019 09:39


Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Avalancheon » 19 Jul 2019 14:38

aurelien wolff wrote:
19 Jul 2019 09:39
concerning the reliability issue https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... _in_depth/
What proof is there that the French Panthers were built from wrecks?

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 19 Jul 2019 15:31

Avalancheon wrote:
19 Jul 2019 14:38
aurelien wolff wrote:
19 Jul 2019 09:39
concerning the reliability issue https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... _in_depth/
What proof is there that the French Panthers were built from wrecks?
What are you demanding proof for?

Is there any running factory French were assembling their Panthers from at the time?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Jul 2019 05:12

I'm a bit curious why someone would say the 503e RCC was never equipped with Panthers when the Panther Memorial of the 501e RCC at Mourmelon states the 4e Escadron, 503e RCC was equipped with them from 1951-1952? Also, a squadron serving with the 501e RCC was photographed, captioned as 1947. The same Panthers (not 50, but more like 20-odd, were recovered from various battlefields and still operational, not "newly built") equipped one squadron of the 501e RCC before they transferred them to the 503e.

Oh, and no, the 501e RCC did not "go to Indochina in September 1945". The 501e was a Metropolitan unit and not eligible to go to Indochina as a unit. Instead, a compagnie de marche was formed from volunteers drawn from it and sent to Indochina.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 20 Jul 2019 06:53

Richard Anderson wrote:
20 Jul 2019 05:12
I'm a bit curious why someone would say the 503e RCC was never equipped with Panthers when the Panther Memorial of the 501e RCC at Mourmelon states the 4e Escadron, 503e RCC was equipped with them from 1951-1952? Also, a squadron serving with the 501e RCC was photographed, captioned as 1947. The same Panthers (not 50, but more like 20-odd, were recovered from various battlefields and still operational, not "newly built") equipped one squadron of the 501e RCC before they transferred them to the 503e.

Oh, and no, the 501e RCC did not "go to Indochina in September 1945". The 501e was a Metropolitan unit and not eligible to go to Indochina as a unit. Instead, a compagnie de marche was formed from volunteers drawn from it and sent to Indochina.
So the 503e RCC wasnt operating "50 Panthers longer than Germans" , thats very good to know.

Also, the Photo - earliest mention on the internet seems to be this -

https://web.archive.org/web/20040813180 ... anther.htm

This claims it to be 503e RCC on manuevers, in 1947.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Jul 2019 07:08

They may be conflating the 501e and 503e RCC. The tablet at the 501e RCC memorial clearly states the 4e Escadron was equipped with Panthers 1951-1952. That would make sense, since by then I believe the 501e had re-equipped with ARL-44 and the 503e RCC was not reorganized until 1951, although I believe a squadron was first organized in 1950.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Ulater
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Ulater » 20 Jul 2019 08:07

Richard Anderson wrote:
20 Jul 2019 07:08
They may be conflating the 501e and 503e RCC. The tablet at the 501e RCC memorial clearly states the 4e Escadron was equipped with Panthers 1951-1952. That would make sense, since by then I believe the 501e had re-equipped with ARL-44 and the 503e RCC was not reorganized until 1951, although I believe a squadron was first organized in 1950.
Thanks for help, it is finally something definite, because the info from google seems to be conflicting on practically everything.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Jul 2019 15:09

Ulater wrote:
20 Jul 2019 08:07
Thanks for help, it is finally something definite, because the info from google seems to be conflicting on practically everything.
Sadly most of what I have concluded are by inference from the memorial at Mourmelon, since there is not much that isn't otherwise Wiki-based repeats of other snippets. Unfortunately, it seems most of our knowledgeable French members have fled from the extended influx of trolls here, otherwise I would think one of them would have responded by now. Bronsky, David Lehmann, and Claude Gillono would probably know, but I do not recall a post from them in years. Bronsky last visited in January 2019, I don't even remember David's or Claude's user name now. I could try emailing Claude and see if he knows.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1796
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: what were the panther tank flaw?

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jul 2019 01:09

Almost don't want to jump in here, but there are some really bad 'points' being tossed around.

First off, the Panther HE is for all intents and purposes, equivalent to the common Spgr for the 7,5 cm L46 and L48 weapons. From a 1944 German document I can post, they list the same weight and HE loading. But, a point that is being missed here, is that the KWK 42 fired the HE at a much higher velocity, and accuracy. It was actually the case that the Brits not only had 'weapon-envy', they actually used (Cuckoo tank), a Panther tank and remarked on how well it could put a HE round into a window at long range. So, it isn't all about who lobs the biggest HE projectile, it is about how accurately you can put it on an enemy. The KWK 42 fired it's HE at about the same velocity as the KWK 40 fired its AP! In fact, it was a very useful projectile against fast moving light targets and could probably ring the bell of any enemy turret it was used against.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”