Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. So, basically nothing... okay... have it your way then. Hard to take you seriously. Discussion finished for my part.
  2. Who? Then show me those "much better sourced" works. So the ignorant propagandists and nazi apologists, (including Hilary Doyle) can learn from them! (too bad poor Jentz and Spielberger cant defend themselves anymore... but who cares their decades of research was basically nothing more than nazi propaganda, yes?)
  3. Maybe show your books then, the sources you used, references, etc.
  4. Just people who write... AND spend their time studying original archives, documents, reports and the actual surviving vehicles. This is the difference between amateurs (like it or not, all of us are amateurs on forums such as this) and experts... Of course they may make mistakes, but overall, their knowledge about their subjects is FAR above mine, yours, and anybody else on this forum combined.
  5. Ok. Just answer some simple question. Are Spielberger, Jentz, Doyle (and many others) are "wehraboos"? Because neither author share your opinions about the Panther tank... (in fact, barely any) And Im quite sure they are the real experts, not the denizens of this forum... All of us here are only entusiastic amateurs compared to them. Spielberger even "dared" to say that it was an excellent tank. I just said, it was good, instead of mediocre. So Spielberger is an ignorant "wehraboo"? Young? Stupid? Or even a nazi apologist?
  6. @Jeeps_Guns_TanksGo to hell asshole... And you are trying to criticize anybody. You contributed nothing to this discussion, except declaring people with different opinions than yours as ignorant, and at the same time declare your wishful thinking as facts. I bet you didnt read any literature about stuff you claim to be expert of. And when you are totally out of arguments, first you steer the conversation to politics, and finally you insult me... Congratulations. You are a really toxic, sad person. As for the 88 in my user name... Maybe that I was born in 1988? But no, surely it was because politics... I have nothing to do with nazis, I hate them. My point with mentioning bolshevist war crimes was to mock your attempt to derail the discussion, which was to this point, peaceful. But well, we learned something. Anybody who dares to say anything good about german equipment (pieces of metal... but surely possessed by the very soul of A.H.!), they are immediately nazi supporters... Looks like that now includes Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle too! Well, now I understand why everything written in their books are ignored... Again, congratulations for turning this topic to this mess.
  7. It was an excellent fighter in its time. The chronic lack of fuel, and the barely trained pilots werent its fault. One of the best infantry weapon of the war... again, lack of magazines wasnt its fault. Yes, thats why allied soldiers envied german equipment... Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. (but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)
  8. Exactly that is why it cannot be used for evaluating the Panther's performance. As I told earlier, try looking for literature about the 1944-45 battles in Hungary.
  9. On the other hand, StuG armor was judged excellent... Please... no. T-34 was never a problem for germans. It was a damn good excuse for generals to explain their failures. The REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1. That one also worth a discussion, how underestimated this tank is. Just like the Panther, it had reliability problems, but its battlefield performance was excellent. A really, really excellent tank in 1941-42. The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was. And even though it isnt mentioned in books about this tank, its successor, the T-44 was the proof of the failure of the T-34. The Panther didnt really influence future designs (except Centurion). But neither the T-34. What problems? Standardized in Ausf.E, worked well. And I do not entirely agree with the "tinkering". Germans did settle on a solution: torsion bar. Yes, there were some moronic, and very unsuccessful projects of a certain F.Porsche, but these were small scale productions.
  10. Just showing that the "unfixable" poor design of the Panther is far from reality. What I mentioned are actual plans that werent implemented due to war.
  11. Just compare it with the T-54... 10 tons difference in favor of the T-54. While the T-54 had better armor and a bigger gun. Yes, the wunderkampfwagen myth is indeed idiotic, and was busted long ago. Sad that some people are still believing it. But it is even sadder to invent new myths to destroy the earlier one. Although the battlefield superiority of the Panther over the Sherman and especially the T-34 arent myths. Larger tank battles werent common in the west, and also the terrain wasnt ideal, so I think we cant really use it as a base for comparison. On the eastern front however, it became totally obvious that the Panther is a much more effective tank than the T-34, even the /85. And no, dont pull out the "bad soviet tactics" card (just check battles in hungary), and especially not the "poorly trained" soviets. In 1944 the average soviet tankist was much better than the average german.
  12. Wrong. Only in 1944 it became variable, and and only from second half of 1944 became shitty. Desing is just one (although important) thing to evaluate a certain weapon system. Even though the Panther wasnt the best (I'd rate it above average, but obviously not excellent) design, it performed well in combat. Its sad that the knowledge about its battlefield history is limited to some select battles in the west where it lost against Shermans. In hungary there were quite significant battles in 1944-45, in fact some of the larger tank battles in ww2. And the Panther excelled there. Even we hungarians operated some (about 15-20), and they were judged as damn good tanks in both offense and defense. A T-34/85 wasnt really a match for it. Not bad for a "mediocre" tank. It is quite unfortunate that there are very limited amounts of literature about these battles in english. Obviously. The hull of the tank didnt become so tall due to the air filters. Actually, the designers didnt relocate them to elsewhere, simply because they fit in the hull, on top of the engine. It had obvious advantages too, ease of access. True. But do we (fortunately) do not know if the design of the Leopard-1 would be successful in a real war. But honestly, I doubt. In my opinion (and Im sure this opinion will be just as unpopular here), the Leopard is quite inferior to its contemporary adversary, the T-62. And probably to the T-55 too. We can talk about the inefficient desings a bit. Yes, the Panther was big and heavy, and had comparatively low armor protection. And the Leopard? It had barely any armor (weaker than the Panther in both sides and rear, yet it was still over 42 tons... Where did that weight went??? Why would it spawn anything? The soviets already had a freakin awesome gun even in 1944, the D10, even if it took time to develop a tank that can accept it. Americans went with their 90mm, again, already in late ww2. Why would they drop their own developments in favor of adopting a foreign design? Anyway, lets play with ideas a bit. Even if history doesnt like the word "if". Lets assume Walkür successful. Hitler dead, wehrmacht generals evicts nazis from power. Germans leave all occupied western countries, ceasefire in effect with allies. With the resources freed up, germans are able to stop soviets at the original 1939 borders. Both armies totally exhausted, so ceasefire in the east too. Would the designers drop the whole concept of the Panther? Highly doubt. Now there is finally time to fix and improve the tank, as originally planned. The following improvements materialize: new and reliable final drive. Improved, and much more powerful HL-234 engine. 88mm KwK 43 gun (yes it was possible thanks to the big hull, that could accept a larger turret ring without problems). Stabilized gun sight. Optical rangefinder. This "1946" version would still be a beast. Significantly better than the T-44, and still better than the M-26 Pershing. Quite similar to early Centurions, although with less firepower.
  13. Big surprise... Penetration of BR-240P is 110mm @ 100m... On the other hand, the mantlet was invulnerable* for normal AP of T-34/76, and highly resistant even against the 85mm guns which were effective only out to about 800-1000 meters... * except lucky shots to lower mantlet, but this happened rarely. Side armor: weak. Everybody knows that. But so were the sides of the M-48 Patton in its own time period. Yet it doesnt get bashing for it...
  14. You and your calculations again... If you would even care to look for sources... The correct dimensions of the engine: lenght: 1310mm (includes the end fittings for the exhaust collector) width: 1010mm height: 1185mm INCLUDING THE AIR FILTERS!!! Without them, ~ 960mm. That means the two engines are quite comparable in size. Big surprise! the RR Meteor is again, just as big! And also the Ford GAA... Want a huge engine? Then check the AVDS-1790... And compare it to the V46 then... I have a feeling that your rants about the Panther are just coming from pure hatred towards the tank. Nobody said that it was perfect, nobody said that it was indestructible, nobody said that it was the best of the war. These are all myths, that definitely should be busted. Just like the myth of "death trap" Shermans. And also the myth of "totally unreliable, useless junk Panther". It was just a good tank, with its own faults. (that ended up on the losing side of the war) Period. (but yes, yes, one source trumps all... I should know that...)
  15. Yes this is interesting. But according to JCB, their HMEE can reach 96 km/h max speed, which is faster. But we'll see how it turns out in the end for the MAC. https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/products/defence-products/high-mobility-engineer-excavator
  16. Not necessarily. Wheel dozers do exist. For example, the Cat 824. A bit heavier, true (30 tons), but still carries a quite decent sized blade. https://www.cat.com/en_GB/products/new/equipment/dozers/wheel-dozers/18591262.html# Anyway, this new french vehicle is not a well thought out design in my opinion. Both its working attachments are in a very unoptimal postition and configuration, no wonder that its performance is that low (the 20 hours required for a 100m long firing position, I bet a good skid steer operator can do it in less than half that time). I think they either need a good tracked vehicle, or if the mobility requirements rule out tracks (even rubber tracks), then something like the JCB HMEE, which is a very nice design: has high mobility, excellent performance with its attachments, possibility of mounting add-on armor, and is based on proven technology.
  17. I do not really understand the point of the 4 in 1 bucket on a military vehicle. A big, heavy, adjustable dozer blade, like on soviet and russian engineer vehicles (IMR, BAT, UBIM) is much better, much more useful. In military environment, you do not need precision work. You do not need to load trucks. You do not need to grade. Also the position of the excavator arm is quite too far back, and the front bucket limits its movement greatly. Why not do it like on the Wisent-2, or the russian UBIM?
  18. Another result of track-phobia? " The vehicle proposed by CNIM/Texelis is fitted with a full-width front bucket capable to build a 100 meters-long defensive firing position in 20 hours. " What kind of position is this? honestly, 100 meters in 20 hours is pretty miserable performance... Ancient soviet MDK-2M can do it in probably less than a hour.
  19. Do not mess with the ruinous powers! We have our own Astartes too! And more! (calling the sorcerer) Anyway, lets agree that we disagree. This is already going on for too long.
  20. Btw, statistics show that on average, the readiness rate of the Panther wasnt that much worse than the Pz.IV Between 31 May 1944 and 15 March 1945, the average was 65% on western, and 62% on eastern front. Its 71 and 68 for Pz.IV... Not much difference. And I do not know where is this 3% from... The linked site does not mention it. + one more thing. Yes, soviets had to relocate factories. On the german side: slave labor + sabotage + bombing raids...
  21. Same thing with germans in 1944, and especially true in 1945...
  22. I wouldnt be so sure about the 5 speed gearbox since 1943. The captured T-34/85 in korea still had the old 4 speed. This type of gearbox was still present in those tanks that we used in the '50s. Also, I need to correct myself: Last time I wrote that we used mainly polish and soviet. Not entirely true. We had polish tanks, but only 10 of them. The rest were czech (about 100) and refurbished ww2 prod. soviet. The better made and more reliable applies to the czech. Probably the polish too, but since there were so few of them, I have no information.
  23. 70% as reliable as T-34s... But which T-34? 1941? 42? 43? 44? I highly doubt that the Panther was less reliable than the 1941-42 models. Anyway. Engine life is more or less known, the french report also states similar numbers. But on the other hand, the transmission and track life is much higher according to them.
  24. We used both soviet and polish T-34s. Generally, the polish tanks were significantly more reliable, and were better built. Transmission failures were a common thing however, especially the older 4 speed gearboxes failed frequently, which were still present in some soviet built tanks. Also the steering difficulties remained. (not just the excessive physical effort, the overheating of steering brakes was a serious problem too) The T-54 that arrived later was just a wholly different world. Lightyears ahead in every imaginable aspect.
  25. It is true. The early Panther D was definitely horrible, probably one of the most unreliable tanks of the war. But it is a big error to apply the problems of the D to the later A and G models. Lots of problems were fixed, especially in the engine & associated components.
×
×
  • Create New...