Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Trilisser, M. A.
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 20:39
Location: Pohjois-Savo

Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Trilisser, M. A. » 14 Aug 2019 06:38

Has any forumite conducted actual primary research on the issue of why the final drive of the Panther was of the inferior spur type instead of the much superior planetary type? Note: primary research is not the same as reading Jentz/Spielberger.

Some sources infer to a supposed shortage of internal teeth machining machines, but that stinks like rotten fish on 2 counts. 1st, planetary gears were even then a widely used mechanical construction and Germany was a leading country in mechanical engineering. 2nd, why wasn't the Farman-type used. There should be no engineering obstacles to its use in final drives.

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Alejandro_ » 14 Aug 2019 16:20

1st, planetary gears were even then a widely used mechanical construction and Germany was a leading country in mechanical engineering. 2nd, why wasn't the Farman-type used. There should be no engineering obstacles to its use in final drives.
Then perhaps you can explain why the epicyclical gear in the original MAN design was dropped and replaced with a double spur system?

Trilisser, M. A.
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 20:39
Location: Pohjois-Savo

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Trilisser, M. A. » 14 Aug 2019 20:46

I cannot for it makes no sense.

Denniss
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 02:52
Location: Germany

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Denniss » 14 Aug 2019 23:44

Perhaps not sufficient ball bearing production capacity available or fear that damage to ball bearing factories would have major effect on Panther production

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 387
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Alejandro_ » 15 Aug 2019 08:38

Perhaps not sufficient ball bearing production capacity available or fear that damage to ball bearing factories would have major effect on Panther production.
The answer is well known. From wikipedia:

The Panther's main weakness was its final drive unit. The problems stemmed from several factors. The original MAN proposal had called for the Panther to have an epicyclic gearing (planetary) system in the final drive, similar to that used in the Tiger I.[48] Germany suffered from a shortage of gear-cutting machine tools and, unlike the Tiger, the Panther was intended to be mass-produced. To achieve the goal of higher production rates, numerous simplifications were made to the design and its manufacture. This process was aggressively pushed forward, sometimes against the wishes of designers and army officers, by the Chief Director of Armament and War Production, Karl-Otto Saur (who worked under, and later succeeded, Reichminister Speer). Consequently, the final drive was changed to a double spur system.[49] Although much simpler to produce, the double spur gears had inherently higher internal impact and stress loads, making them prone to failure under the high torque requirements of the heavy Panther tank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_t ... ansmission

If this shortage of tooling was a myth or "stinks like rotten fish", how come the design was changed?

Alanmccoubrey
Financial supporter
Posts: 2838
Joined: 19 Sep 2008 13:44

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 15 Aug 2019 08:46

I don't know the answer to this very technical question but I do know that the answer to NOTHING is ever found in Wiki. Could you not find a real source ?
Alan

Trilisser, M. A.
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 20:39
Location: Pohjois-Savo

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Trilisser, M. A. » 15 Aug 2019 15:19

The answer is not well-known since it is fishy. That claim of tooling shortage sounds implausible due to the fact that planetary gears were widely-used devices and that Germany was nevertheless a leading nation in mechanical engineering.

Spielberger's Panther book has an extract from a minutes from tank design conference. MAN's representative states that Heerestechnische Büro demanded spur gears. After this statement the minutes indicate that two colonels began to argue with each other.

By the way, Panzer III steering system employs planetary gears too.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2296
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Panther tank final drive planetary vs. spur gear

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Aug 2019 17:59

Alejandro_ wrote:
15 Aug 2019 08:38
Perhaps not sufficient ball bearing production capacity available or fear that damage to ball bearing factories would have major effect on Panther production.
The answer is well known. From wikipedia:

The Panther's main weakness was its final drive unit. The problems stemmed from several factors. The original MAN proposal had called for the Panther to have an epicyclic gearing (planetary) system in the final drive, similar to that used in the Tiger I.[48] Germany suffered from a shortage of gear-cutting machine tools and, unlike the Tiger, the Panther was intended to be mass-produced. To achieve the goal of higher production rates, numerous simplifications were made to the design and its manufacture. This process was aggressively pushed forward, sometimes against the wishes of designers and army officers, by the Chief Director of Armament and War Production, Karl-Otto Saur (who worked under, and later succeeded, Reichminister Speer). Consequently, the final drive was changed to a double spur system.[49] Although much simpler to produce, the double spur gears had inherently higher internal impact and stress loads, making them prone to failure under the high torque requirements of the heavy Panther tank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_t ... ansmission

If this shortage of tooling was a myth or "stinks like rotten fish", how come the design was changed?
It is a little odd that the supporting reference [48] is actually from Jentz's Tiger instead of from his Panther book. In fact, Jentz does not reference the supposed intervention by Sauer at all, which leads me to suppose he may have dismissed it as possibly apocryphal. In any case, the Henschel L 600 C steering gear and final drives were only ever considered for the VK 30.02. In Panther, Jentz does not make a big deal about the MAN-design final drive "problems" and I can find no evidence from the USSBS or other sources that there ever was a "shortage" of gear cutting machines at MAN.
"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

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