Talk:Panther tank

Comment

How shall I put this? Could it be that some of the data presented here are a bit, well, outdated? It would seem to me that the stated production numbers are of WW2-vintage themselves, being derived from contemporary intelligence reports. I do know that the most recent works of Mr Jentz are prohibitively expensive in the original English, but could you perhaps lend them from someone and carefully have a peak? Also the stated date of the encounter with the T-34 is of course much too late. Most sources give July 1941 - and even they are too late: it was at least as early as June 23rd. November 1941 is the date of the official German investigations into the matter.

MWAK

Very nice picture, 119! ;o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a nice "group photo" of Pkw V's in Russia at [1], and a cropped variant at [2]. It might be worth including if the copyright issues can be figured out. — B.Bryant 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "Panther II" and "Panther 2" refer to the same tank, the article should be consistent with the use of one type of numeral or the other. — B.Bryant 13:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Layout

Anyone want to apply the tank:template to this article? GraemeLeggett 21:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources

This article really need some sources for the production figures. They were just changed by some anonymous user, and who's to say which figure is correct? Harald Hansen 09:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Final production figures

Does anyone have the final production figures. T-34, Tiger, Sherman, Tiger II all have total production figures for the war but a Panther figure is lacking. Obviously deal with the sources problem mentioned above, but if we can give a month by month production break down surely someone has a total value somewhere. Thanks Pluke 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II#Panzer V (Panther). —Michael Z. 2006-02-05 22:33 Z

Thanks, never seen that page before! Pluke 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo caption

The caption of the photo in the Design Characteristics section has been changed several times. The vehicle is an ausf A, identifiable by the cast cupola. The ausf A and D share other recognition features such as the letterbox flap over the hull MG mount, the visor for the driver, and the two-piece hull sides. But the cast cupola is definitive for the ausf A. The photo of the tanks on the train shows the drum-type ausf D cupola. I don't know what the objects bolted to the hull corners are. DMorpheus 16:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ausf D had a vertical letterbox opening for the radio operator to fire a MG34 through in combat conditions and a larger rectangular aperture was provided for the driver. During combat the drivers apeture was closed and he used a fixed twin periscope. The Ausf. A changed to a ball mounted MG in the front glacis for the radio operator; however the driver still had the rectangular aperture. Finally all apertures in the front glacis were removed with the introduction of the Ausf. G variant and the driver used a rotating vertical periscope . The picture with the caption 'Early Panther Ausf. A' is actually an Ausf. D variant as recognisable by the two apertures in the front glacis plate. When you click on the picture it actually gives the correct variant - Ausf. D 212.77.203.162 08:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a widely-held, yet incorrect belief about the differentiating characteristics of the ausf D and A. Older sources make the claim you are making. However, if you check any up-to-date source such as Tom Jentz or Bill Auerbach you will see for yourself. The early ausf As retained the letterbox flap MG mount; the real difference between a D and an A is the turret, which had a cast cupola and monocular gunsight on the A; on the D, there was a drum cupola and binocular gunsight. The G had a completely redesigned (simplified) hull. The original photo caption is simply wrong, although the article currently correctly has photos of each of the major variants. DMorpheus 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Production part of the text

Production part needs quotation marks and the text should be edited, some parts of it are written from first person point of view. Citations would rock too. 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC+3)

"[M]y correspondent", etc., near the bottom, does sound like personal reasearch, ostensibly a Wikipedia no-no. Apologies if this is redundant as a comment.

Unattributed and fishy-sounding to boot

I struck out the paragraph about "Black Bag" operations. #1) We shouldn't have things like "my informant" or "my book". #2) It's unsubstantiated. #3) The whole thing about a 74-calibre 88mm cannon sounds very fishy indeed. I've read in several places about plans to mount an 88mm L/100 in the Panther Schmalturm, but never anything about a 74-cal mark. Evidence? Photographs? Published materials? Sacxpert 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant to put L/71 (as this was what the Ausf. F was really meant to be armed with) but he was using the numpad and accidentally put 74 and never 'spell-checked' his writing. There was no such thing as an 88mm L/74 cannon.

Blerg1 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison With Tiger I

After reading the Panther article, I drew a conclusion that the Panther is in every way superior to the Tiger I. Can someone please tell me if there is any aspect the Tiger I is superior in or is my idea correct?--chubbychicken 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

True, many people make a common mistake of thinking of Tiger as better, because it has number VI. Well, historical data reveals that Tiger was designed sooner than Panther and it was a complete technical garbage compared to Panther.212.87.105.228 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, much better side protection and bigger HE round. Both consistent with the 'breakthrough tank' role. DMorpheus 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to look it up, but the side protection on the Tiger I was about twice as thick as on the Panther. The Panther is sloped on the sides, but not much. DMorpheus 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I didnt know that. Thanks!!--chubbychicken 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From the main article itself: "The Panther was the first Axis tank design where modern features were more prominent than early WWII-era ones. The rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1, or the same as with the Tiger. Once the problems caused by the vulnerability of the engine and the transmission were solved, it proved to be a very effective fighting vehicle, being as effective as the Tiger, but less demanding to produce and logistically far less troublesome." Hence it would seem they are very similar with the Panther just managing to get the nod?! Mathmo 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Panther and Tiger were designed for very different roles and employed very differently, so it is difficult to argue that one is "better" than the other. It would be like arguing whether a pickup or a sports car were 'better'. DMorpheus 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions the logistical reasons that Pz IVs continued to be built alongside Panthers, but doesn't say anything about its relationship to the Tiger (and neither does "Tiger tank"). Were they issued to different kinds of units? Can you add a sentence or two? —Michael Z. 2006-11-06 17:18 Z

Guess I added more than a sentence or two....feel free to edit some more, it may be a little rough. DMorpheus 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-11-06 22:35 Z

While KwK 42 is superior in sheer penetrative power to the Tiger's 8.8cm, I feel that there should be a qualifier to that statement. KwK 42's gun relied on its high velocity to do damage, and as the shell bleeds velocity over range, 8.8mm would be the better at extended distances. Also, of the two projectiles the 8.8cm was more destructive and less likely to shatter or ricochette. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.222.84 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

One Area the Tiger was always superior to the Panther was armor quality. The Tigers armor was made from the finest the Germans could make. It was very strong and even guns that should statistically have been able to penetrate their armor would often suffer from shattergap, or the round shattering if fired at a close range to the tank because the shell struck such a hard surface at high speed. The panther at the other hand suffered from armor flaws, from minor issues to extreme instances of 75mm armed shermans taking them out with HE shells, because the impact cracked the armor or welds, causing spall inside the tank and wounding or killing the crew. In one instance a panther broke at the welds and fell in on its self, crushing the crew. Those are extreme examples, but the armor flaws were common, and usually guns like the US 76mm were able to penetrate panthers farther then statistically they should have. The Panther A series is suppose to be the most flawed version, but the G series was still flawed as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wokelly (talk • contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

taking out Panthers with 50BMG

A US Army Scout told me how individual Panthers were disabled using 50cal armor piercing rounds in Browning Machine Guns. One MG would start shooting at a tank tread link. When the turret started traversing to engage the MG, the crew would move and another MG crew would take up shooting at the same link. Once the link was broken, the Panther could only turn, not move away. The MG crews then worked on a link on the other side. This totally immobilized the tank. Next, the MG crews fired on a spot between the haul and the turret. This eventually burred the metal enough so that the turret was locked in place. At this point according to the Scout, the hatch usually opened and the Panther crew attempted to surrender. Saltysailor (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did he sell you a bridge as well? DMorpheus (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gun performance vs. IS-2

I removed the fact tag regarding the ability of a Panther to destroy an IS-2 at a range of 2,000 meters. A quick google search will reveal multiple sites with gun performance figures and armor thickness tables for the IS-2 and Panther. Firing HVAP (PzGr 40) ammo the Panther penetrates 106mm of armor at 2,000 meters. The IS-2 has 160mm thick frontal turret armor, and very well-sloped 120mm glacis, so it will not be penetrated from the front. However, a side hit against the 90mm hull side could penetrate. Likewise a hit on the 60mm hull rear would also penetrate. DMorpheus 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the IS-2 had 120mm glacis sloped at 60 degrees (which the panther could not penetrate at any range) and 100mm frontal turret armor, which indeed the Panther could penetrate at 2,000 meters.

If the IS-2 had thinner turret armor than its own glacis, that would make it truly unique. All my (dozens of) sources say 160mm turret front. DMorpheus 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well check out www.battlefield.ru here; http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50 I can't find a source stating it is 160mm. Actually, after looking a little more, I found a couple, but I would say the more reliable sites, which state the armour thickness of each part of the tank, list the turret armour as 100mm. Here is another, I would say reliable site; http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/data/is2m.htm

See Zaloga and Grandsen, 1984, where he quotes it as 160mm "maximum". I've checked on the main turret castings and most of my sources say 100 or 110mm, but the mantlet adds another 60 mm. So what this really comes down to is your definition of the turret 'front'. Obviously it is a cast turret with an intentionally very narrow frontal area with compound curves. This is probably the reason the sources vary; the area covered by the mantlet may be 160mm and the rest of the turret may be 100mm. DMorpheus 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If we start to count max armor this way then the Panther has ~220 mm max armour at the turret front (100-110 turret front + 120mm mantlet). --Denniss 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of how "we" count maximum armor. It's what the published sources say. Zaloga is easily one of the most respected researchers on Soviet armor. Also, there's the question of how the turret is designed. If the mantlet thickness overlaps the main turret casting (as it does for much of its extent on the IS-2) then the thickness truly is additive. If the mantlet doesn't overlap other armor to any great extent (say, for example, on early M4s with the M34 gun mount, or the T-34-85, where there is no overlap at all) then it would not make sense to add the two thicknesses together. DMorpheus 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You also have to look at the turret on the IS-2 instead of just saying the Panther could penetrate it a X range. There is more to the turret then just armor tables, for example the mantle was rounded, and from a frontal aspect the turret side were visible from the front. All this gave the IS2s turret superb protection. The flattest spot on the mantle was near the gun barrel, but the further down away it got the more sloped the armor became. So in effect many spots on the turret front would simply deflect even the panthers rounds. Wokelly March 13 2007

Overlapping wheels

Looking at the wheels on the Panther, it occured to me that these are overlapping, just as with the Tiger I. Now with the Tiger I, these are repeatedly mentioned as a liability, at least on the Eastern Front, mud freezing over night and stucking the wheels. However, I cannot recall any mention of such about the Panther. Did it somehow not suffer from this, or is it simply overlooked with the Panther, and only mentioned with the Tiger because of its general mechanical troubles?

I think the liability regarding mud may be a bit of an exaggeration. They are also a liability because lots of them need to be removed to replace an inner or middle wheel. No post-1945 design I'm aware of has employed overlapping or interleaved wheels. DMorpheus 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AMX 50, :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the system used on the Panther had fewer layers of wheels and was less inclined to clog as a result. Getztashida 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the term "bogies" with "road wheels." "Bogies" are a carriage or frame used to mount road wheels. An example of this type of suspension is found on the American Sherman tank. Panther tanks did not use "bogies" or "bogie wheels;" road wheels is the correct term. -Scott S. (4/8/2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sprague (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 Prototypes

I see a recent revision has introduced the myth that there was a preproduction series of 20 "Panther A1's". While you occasionally see this myth repeated (I have no idea where it started) in poorly researched books and websites it is wrong. There were only two Panther prototypes, the V1 which was just a chassis and the V2 (mild steel construction, differently shaped turret, ball muzzle brake) which were built around November 1943. The third Panther built was the first production Panther D and it was completed in January 1943. Any good book on the Panther sets out this history in detail - I can recommend Spielberger's book: "Panther and Its Variants" or Jentz's "Germany's Panther tank" or the Osprey book by Hart "Panther Medium Tank 1942-45". Jentz and Spielberger are regarded as the leading historians on German AFV's of WW2. Armourhistorian 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for citation?

There's a "[citation needed]" thing in the middle of the article where it states that 5 Shermans were regarded as enough to eliminate 1 Panther. Why is there a citation needed there, when it mentions the exact same ratio earlier in the article? Also, this is true, at the very least according to Stephen Ambrose. I'll have get out my copies of D-Day, The Victors, and Citizen Soldiers and check it out. Of course, I won't be surprised if somebody says that Ambrose is an illegitimate source. I disagree, but there's somebody to argue about everything, everywhere. 152.23.196.162 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ambrose was not an armor specialist, and he does have a tendency to insert his opinion into his work whether founded or not. That's his right, as an author, but it doesn't mean we need to blindly follow where's he's just wrong. There is no magical ratio of Sheramns:Panthers that will win a fight. Sometimes the Germans fought outnumbered and won; usually they didn't. DMorpheus 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Legacy" edits

Anyone care to comment on this new section? It strikes me as POV-ish, uncited OR and unencyclopedic. There are so many errors in it that adding fact tags will be disruptive. I have invited the editor to discuss on the talk page after several reverts. DMorpheus 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Panther was argubly the greatest tank in WW2 due to its speed, manouverbility and powerful cannon, this combined with sloped armour made it a fearsome and respected weapon on the battlefield.(it was common for allied soldiers to tell of great battles with Tiger tanks destroying their own, but in fact they had engaged Panthers but as the Tiger had gained such a reputation many just assumed it must be that) In comparision with the Tiger tank(s) the panther was not only much faster and more manouverable but also well protected (but suffered from weak side and turret armour) and although its gun was not that of the Tiger, its was capable of destroying all medium allied tanks at range and was more than a match for any of the allied heavy tanks and was much less prone to break down or other problems which plagued the Tigers. It was also produced in far greater numbers than the Tiger during WW2 due to the fact that it was less complex to build ,cheaper to produce and proved more reliable in combat than the Tiger.

Many of the characteristics of the Panther were taken on board by all armies due to its effectiveness and all modern day tanks share the roots of the Panther i.e protection , speed , manoverability and sloping armour which were so well blended into this vehicle (the Russian made T34 which was one of the first tanks to contained many of these characteristics and was the basis for the Panther,but lacked the heavy gun of the Panther untill the end of the war)allowing German tank crews to score incredible hit to kill ratios that were superior to the Tiger due to the numbers produced, but alas the Tigers reputation was far greater of that of any tank of WW2 and as such the Panther was never given the reconision it deserved, except by its rather grateful tank crews.''

Engine

An anonymous user 86.17.246.154 has just changed the stated engine power from 700 HP / 515 kW to 650 HP / 515 kW.

515 kW is roughly 690 HP, and 650 HP is roughly 485 kW, so the original is at least consistent with itself where the current version is not.

I haven't a clue what the correct value is, but what's there now is clearly wrong, so could someone with access to the facts please correct it?

FJPB 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Overhanging gun

Just what is meant by the term "overhanging gun"? Is it that the gun extends beyond the front of the hull? 83.109.86.72 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Carnildo (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy, thanks 83.109.86.72 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ausf D panther being produced before Ausf A

Does ANYONE know why the Panther Ausf D was produced and reached units before the A? I really can't find much information on why this is so. Jeremy D. (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The ausf D is simply the first production model. The second model was the ausf A, which entered production a few months after the D. IIRC the Ds were built in the spring/summer of 1943, while the A entered production around Sep 1943. So the German naming system was not always entirely logical ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just doesn't make much sense in my head that D comes before A. I know there were models before the Ausf D (prototypes and such) so i guess that would mean the Ausf D was the last of that type of model before they began the modifications to the engine and other mechanical issues that brought about the A.

That makes more sense now that i think about it. 142.179.226.200 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that "D" was supposed to be a lower-case "d," but was not written like that in practice. Lowercase model numbers (a, b, c, d) were used for prototypes, uppercase letters (A, B, C) were used for production models. -Scott S.

Wrong classification

The tank classification at the bottom of the page ("German armored fighting vehicles of World War II") is incorrect. Panther tank is in fact "Panzer V" (Panzerkampfwagen V to be exact) whereas Tiger tank is actually Panzer / Panzerkampfwagen VI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.121.49 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page has been vandalized. Can someone please lock and restore the page? (Psychoneko (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

There's nothing in the history showing that. ??? DMorpheus (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Because someone has already fixed it. Wasn't me though. (Psychoneko (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Videos with this tank

These sites: [[3]] and [[4]] are about this tank.Agre22 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Citations for T-34

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-t-34r-soviet-t-34-in-german-service.htm

At the time it was first fielded in 1940, it was easily the finest tank design in the world (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983).

What is uncited is the statement that the Panther is also regarded as one of the best designs of the war. I am sure a little homework will solve that. DMorpheus (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another: “although the T-34 was not equal on a one-to-one basis with the best German tanks, its durability, economy and suitability to the Soviet style of war made it a far more effective weapon than any of its German rivals. Its only real rival to the title of 'the best tank of World War 2' would be the American Sherman, for many of the same reasons.” (Zaloga, Steven J., Jim Kinnear, Andrey Aksenov & Aleksandr Koshchavtsev (1997). Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941–45: The T-28, T-34, T-34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks, p 6. Hong Kong: Concord Publication. ISBN 962-361-615-5.) —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 13:32 z

Thanks, yes, that's a good one. DMorpheus (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify why the reference to the T-34 is in the intro: many books on the panther begin with a discussion of the impact the T-34 had on German tank design; the Panther was a direct response. It is tough to explain why the Panther was built without reference to the T-34. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Panther being produced as a counter to the T 34 does not automatically mean the T 34 was one of the best tanks of the war. This may have been the case, but one on one, panther v T34 had the t34 outclassed. The statement above

“although the T-34 was not equal on a one-to-one basis with the best German tanks, its durability, economy and suitability to the Soviet style of war made it a far more effective weapon than any of its German rivals. Its only real rival to the title of 'the best tank of World War 2' would be the American Sherman, for many of the same reasons.”

This classes the Sherman and T34 as the best tanks of the war only because of their mass production , IE large numbers as opposed to individual performance.

If the T-34 is to be refferred to in the opening statement, it should only be stated that the panther was produced as a counter to the T34... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an obvious misreading of the source. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Hart (2003), p.43 in the source list: "The combination of potent firepower and impressive surviviability might have made the Panther the most effective tank of the war. However, it was less impressive in terms of mobility, reliability and cost; consequently, some scholars believe that the solid all-around performance of the Soviet T-34-85 tank gave it the edge over the Panther as the most effective tank of the war." This is virtually a re-statement of the sentence you are questioning. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not counter my argument, for one that statement agrees with me ""The combination of potent firepower and impressive surviviability might have made the Panther the most effective tank of the war." it may have been less mobile etc, but all of that is really beside the point.

If you really want to get into the mechanical and structural flaws of each tank, obviously the panther was plagued by mechanical problems, but the t34 suffered many problems as well, ie, poor armor plate quality (which despite the "on paper" thickness of the armor reduced the overall effectiveness of the armor plate thichness) The t34 was also plagued by mechanical problems.

The t34 suffered from lack of radios and optics of inferior quality to the germans to name a few. The T34 , I agree, was a damn good tank. My argument is that it is not comparable on an individual basis with a panther and thus it should not be insinuated that the T34 was of the same class as a Panther. This gives the reader the unavoidabe preconception that the T34 was equal.

Supporting this is the statement on the T34 wiki page "Neither was a match for the German Panther or Tiger tanks in armour or firepower, but these heavy vehicles were both in a class more comparable to the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank or the American M26 Pershing (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:37)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Second to that is that the T34 required the commander to operate the gun reducing the overall effectivnes of the tank, as the commander would usually be more occupied with gunnery than actual command —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Other wikipedia pages are not reliable sources.

2. Your argument rests on a lot of original research.

3. Here's Zaloga again (1997, p.6): "...the technological disparity was not great enough to substantialy effect battlefield performance in any meaningful way. To their credit, the Soviet tanks were considerably simpler and cheaper to produce, allowing the Soviet Union to build up a substantial quantitative advantage over the Geramn armed forces....Although the T-34 was not equal (blah blah...see above DM)". There's a key point here you may be overlooking. A big part of the *reason* there weren't many Panthers is *because* the germans chose to build such an expensive, complicated tank. A big part of why the Red Army was able to field a lot more T-34s than the Germans had Panthers is *because* it was cheaper and simpler. One-on-one encounters are almost irrelevant, partly (not completely) because they were rare; mostly because a tank is one part of a combined-arms team.

4. Mobility isn't important? Guderian disagrees with that idea; he is famously quoted as saying the tracks and engine are weapons just as much as the gun is.

5. The 76 mm armed T-34s had two-man turrets; the 85 mm armed versions had three-man turrets.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But the statement mentions tank DESIGN and while the panther was produced in lesser numbers, the overall design was superior as numerous referneces cite. Lets not lose sight of the fact that my argument is mainly that the inclusion of the comparison in the opening statement gives false preconceptions about the individual performance of the two tanks. I don't really want to get into a protracted argument about the strengths and weaknesses of the tanks, as this will inevitably snowball into an in depth analysis of the war itself. Suffice to say that the removal of the t34 statement was merely to avoid preconceptions, and also the fact that it was not cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.77.50 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right, earlier today it was uncited. The way to deal with that is to add a fact tag (see WP:RS or WP:Cite for some hints) not by deleting it and claiming it isn't true, still without any source to back you. One bit of uncited original research is as good/bad as another. We can discuss this all day but the only thing that matters is published sources.

The statement is now sourced, so if you remove it again as you just did, you will be vandalizing wikipedia. By deleting a sourced edit and leaving the source footnote in, you created a false impression of what the source said. I dropped a friendly hint on your talk page.

If you type four tildes after your comments, your username or IP address will appear. It's considered polite to sign one's comments here.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The panther design is based on the performance of the panzer III/IV encounters with the T-34 + T-34 analysis. It is not based on the T-34, since the german assembly lines needed to be adapted, so they overhauled the panzer IV design (that was the T-34 impact, german tank doctrine changed after meeting it in combat). Also german Assembly lines where able to produce panther at the same rate of the panzer IV. The problem was the effort of those lines also where oriented to build heavy tanks (Tiger, Konigstiger, and all sort of monstrosities) which only wasted manpower/production time (not mentioning the Allied bombing, the lack of quality in raw material and shortage of manpower, using slave work). And again, i do respect a great part of Mr. Zaloga work,but as any work it has flaws. One of them is this absurd criteria to make the "mass production" aspect as determining, putting the Sherman near the T-34. The T-34 is considered the best WW2 tank design because its mobility, firepower, survivability and production rate are balanced (and the Sherman is NOWHERE near those req.). But stating this is, after all, only the "theory" side of tank combat in WW2. For combat relevance, you need far more points to consider: forces evolved is one (here is mass production)but doctrine and, especially, the crew (heart of the tank) are also involved. And those two made the Wehrmacht be able to withstand the Red Army for 4 long years- PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.116.255.29 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they "withstood" the Red Army right up until they surrendered in the smoking rubble of Berlin ;) If that is 'withstanding' was does getting beaten look like? DMorpheus (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statements about “best” or “better” tanks should be very carefully cited, and accurately quoted, taking their original context into account. Wikipedia should report exactly what an author said, and not make its own stand about which tank was absolutely better.

A tank which is “better” because it has a bigger gun or heavier armour may also be “worse” because it is too heavy to cross many bridges, or tends to have a broken transmission when it is time to fight. By taking an extremely simplistic view, one could argue that the heaviest Tiger II or Maus was the best tank because on some idealized mudless, set-piece battlefield it would outgun any other tank one-on-one. But of course this is a naïve fantasy.

On the other hand, some authors write that a tank was “better” because, for example, in 1940 it was suitable as a good fighting platform for the next five years (or 50 years). It is a fact that when the Soviets put the T-34 into service, it was a radical breakthrough in tank design, and no one else had even envisioned a tank which could face it evenly—the Panther was a direct response, and of course it was designed with absolute characteristics which were better. But perhaps a tank is “better” if you can knock out around 25,000 of them before your opponent can even design a response, much less takes the time to work out the bugs, re-tool the production lines, deliver it to the battlefield, and train the troops to use it.

Incidentally, the Soviets did have a lot of trouble getting T-34 mass production started in several factories in 1940–41, but by 1942 they were had streamlined the production details of the assembly lines and the tank incredibly. —Michael Z. 2008-11-12 18:31 z

Nahverteidigungswaffe

Panthers were equipped with this, right?

Why isn't this mentioned at all (presumanbly under "armaments")

GreenAsJade (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold DMorpheus (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Panther tank is a copy of Russian T-34 is a well known fact

Nearly all of documentaries and lots of documents already show this fact. Panther is a German idea to cope with superior design and engineering of the Russian by simply copy its concept. Like many military machines that the designer copy the superior concept from other such as Turbine engine in M1 tank is a copy of T-80 concept. Some people can't accept this because they has a strong bias toward some people they think inferior to them but in reality there is no superior nation at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.207.222 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted your edit. I do not doubt your good faith but your edits are unsupportable. The Panther was obviously a response to the T-34. It was not a copy as you stated (rather ungrammatically), and you will not find a credible source saying so. On the contrary, the competing Daimler-Benz Panther prototype was much closer in design to the T-34 and was rejected. In the absence of a credible citation for this edit it is original research and therefore cannot remain in the article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

DMorpheus sums it up well. —Michael Z. 2008-12-31 07:41 z

There's nothing about the Panther that is copied from the Russian T-34 tank. Sloped armour was not invnted by the Russians. The Germans used it since the very beginning for light armoured cars because it was well known that sloped armour gives good proection for less weight. Russians applied this on heavier tanks, but in my opinion: if the Russians really knew that sloped armour was such a big deal, they would not have had to copy the SdKfz 222 to build an adequate armoured car, BA-64, and they would have kept sloped armour for further tank developements, such as the IS-2 - but somehow the Russians had to relearn the effect of sloped armour and redesigned the IS-2. The T-34 showed the Germans, that sloped armour could give an high advantage at tank designs , which simply caused a German design that depicted sloped armour as well instead of armoured cars only. Anything else about the Panther having copied design aspects from the T-34 is speculativ. Big wheels were just caused due to the width of the tracks. And wide tracks were simply necessary because of the weight of the tank. The suspension and turret was totally different anyway. As firepower, armour (weight) and anything else was. So I don't see your point.84.163.93.243 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure all of that is entirely accurate, but no matter. We're here to describe what is in published, reliable sources, not our own opinions. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well my point is, that if you take a look at it there are just certain design similarities which also occured on other tanks (of other nations) without influences of the T-34. It's like the Stg 44 and AK-47. Every gun expert will tell you, that although the AK-47 was designed after the Russians studied the Stg 44, it's no copy but completly different on a closer view - nevertheless there are design similarities. It's the same for the Panther. 84.163.124.3 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Germans actually copied the T-34 and rejected it. Jonathan Chin

Direct Appeal To DMorpheus

This is a fellow tankneter, Jonathan Chin. Hello there. Don't you feel the assertion that the Panther was superior to the IS-2 in frontal fire utterly absurd, as both Steven Zaloga and Jentz concurred that the Panther must fire at 600m to ensure killing hits, but the IS-2 could kill a Panther at 1,000m, as is stated in German tactical manual for Panther crews?

It is well recorded in the Russian Battle Field site that while Panther D could resist IS-2 tank fire at ranges greater than 700m, but after the Germans begin to suffer shortage in rare metal elements for steel alloys. Panther Gs could take damage at even 14,000m.

Right now that statement is just staring at me every time I look at this page. Ugh. Jonathan