Talk:Panther tank

Respect for Panther leading to the conception of the IS-2, Pershing and Centurion

Relevant. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier. The first version was in the introduction for more than a year. It's no even in the history page any more. We need to pay more attention for such dubious statements. From what I understand, that sentence was a bad way of saying that the arms race lead to the creating of better guns and armour. Does anyone want to put it back? If so, it has to be heavily edited to make more sense. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I simple reverted the IP edits, and cited to Zaloga. However, that doesn't last long, the Ip editor revised it again. Kheynom (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this right, you tried to remove that part but the anonymous editor reverted it? If so, we should ask for a block on his IP or something. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to open communication with the IP in the first instance WP:BRD, then consider further action if it continues. The article has deteriorated since some of us worked on it last year. Irondome (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you expand on how the article has deteriorated? I am uncertain about what you mean by that. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It has gained a lot of fat again, needs pruning a bit. See archives. Irondome (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, both on the obese and the crap part. I did try to fix some of the more blatantly wrong parts, as with the panther reputation thing that I had previously missed, but pruning is a far more difficult endeavor. Still has to be done, though. I must admit that I did notice some repeated things and redundant information. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is, crap creeps in over time, even if its on your WL, one can't be here 24/7. Happy to help out on a trim. We could lose a few hundred words while making the article even more readable. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Centurion was designed after British encounters with the Tiger I in North Africa, and the 1943 specification for what became the Centurion specifically called for frontal armour proof against the Tiger I's 88mm gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.141 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Panther final drive

Are you sure we're looking at the same book? This is the page I was looking at. It states poor final drive reliability. It also states the Germans approached the french for improvements but nothing came of it. So we can easily deduce that the final drive was never fixed. Littlefield even states it would be impossible to improve it. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition: Also, page 231 states the final drive unreliability and even mentions the analysis Moran talked about in his French Panters World of Tanks article. At the very least, it's obvious the final drive was prone to breakdown, that much we should agree on, even if you don't agree it wasn't fixed. Additon2: Page 233 further tells of how desperate the Germans were and the request to the french to fix it mentioned in the 2005 book. So it's undeniable the final drive was crap. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we can not easily deduce that the final drive was never fixed. That's only your assumption and nowhere confirmed. I agree that the early Panther's were prone to break down, however, but the postwar french trials does only cover early production series of Panther A and D, which "Fahrgestellnummer" are publicated by Spielberger. The french also had two Panthers of the "Zwischenlösung", with the automobile drive train and suspension (and turret) of an Ausf. D but with an Ausf. G hull and engine.

However, according to Jentz, the German industry made a number of modifications to the final drive for the Panther Ausf. G in September and October 1944 to increase the durability. So it remains unclear if it was resolved or at least improved the situation. What's more interesting, there were even captured Panther's by the russians, which lasted at least 500km without dreakdowns. ( Was knocked out and put back in combat ) Kheynom (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Then lets write just that. Early production was prone to breakdown, but there were modifications in 1944 to increase durability, although to what extent they were successful is unknown. Either way, we should write something on this. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should make a clear note that it remains unclear. Kheynom (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Google books, "panther final drive problem" query returns a mass of sources. All seem to agree there was a major early problem, but one source mentions a fix in october 1944. Contemporary memoirs as late as 1945 mention final drive breakdowns. I am on and off tonight, but I would suggest a compromise along the lines of "The final drive was always the major mechanical weakness of the Panther, despite efforts in 1944 to rectify the final drive design" I think that statement, in the lede, can be sourced using the google query returns I have stated above. Irondome (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Google books, my best source for finding citations in books I do not own, and also my curse, because not all of the google books searches return the page... Yes. I agree with Irondome on this one. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, but take caution that those mentioned break downs in late 1944 does not refer to the postwar french trial. Kheynom (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Kheynom, One is a German combat report. "Hold the Westwall:The history of Panzer Brigade 105", and this we can definitely date to september 1944 . Zaloga in Panther vs Sherman:Battle of the Bulge, pg 30-31, claims that in fact by Dec 44 the problem had got worse, due to shortage of critical alloys and increasingly poor quality control. I think we can safely say the problem was never fully rectified. None appear to mention the French trials. Regards Irondome (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but accounted for which tanks Irondome? The modification to increase durability took place on production of newer Ausf.G which started in October 1944, so you have to take attention not to confuse with Panther A and D, (spare parts) which were predominatly available in Normandy. Less than 40 tanks in Normandy were of newer Ausf. G's types. See Jentz Panzertruppen. Kheynom (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Zaloga, pg 31 above claims that 29% of Mk V's allotted were inoperable before the German December attack. They were all new builds manufactured between september and november. I think we are seeing a lingering mechanical problem that was never fully fixed. Irondome (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Spielbeger published some "Fahrgestellnumbers" for Normandy, and Jentz claims only around 40 were of newer types there. Anyway, that would mean that Jentz made something up with claiming that they tried to increase durability of the final drive in September to October 1944. Something which I'm not inclined to belive. And how the russian managed to get the Panther beyond 500km (without proper logistical support in spare parts) when it should break down every 150km as Zaloga states? (The 150km number acutally comes only from the French trials of around 50 Panther A and D tanks.) Kheynom (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway I'm out, I hope you guys will find the right middle for it. Goodbye! Kheynom (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can definately source an attempt to fix the issue in October by industry, it just didn't seem to pan out as well as hoped. No desertion Kheynom! You are needed at the wikipedia "front" :) Hope to work with you soon. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean, we are speaking of 6000 Panthers after all, if they all lasted only 150km, despite several efforts and modification to the drive train; why they didn't droped further production? Anyway, thanks for the conversation to both of you, and it was nice to meet you Simon. Regards Bogdan Kheynom (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason they produced Tiger IIs and tried to build the Maus. The leaders of Nazi Germany weren't exactly thinking straight. As for the Archive Awareness article, it's citing a report of the 198th Independent Tank Regiment for June 1944. Sure it's a primary source, but so was the journal entry of the German machine gunner in WW1 that said the British were calming walking the no-man's zone, with an officer carrying a walking stick. Maybe there is a mistake, maybe that particular Panther just got very bloody lucky. Either way, I'd rather trust Zaloga on this one. And since we're all on a first name basis now, you guys can call Max (I guess I'm the only one who uses part of his name in the username) --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any connection from the Archive Awareness article, to the German machine gunner. Are you trying to say that report is faked? Or that this praticular Panther was the only exception? How so it can be that the Tiger II which weighted 68 tons had the same awkward upscalled transmission and backward automotive drive train of the 30's as found on the Panther, was able to pass 113 km (444km tachometer) in the hands of the Russians before breaking down? I'm not contesting Zaloga,(he's an excellent reference) I'm just saying that the issues is far more complicated and far-reaching as we suspect. May or may not be resolved, Zaloga does take the French trials (early Panther A and D) into account for his conclusion. However, I'm just skeptical to the subject, and I hope thats allowed? Regards Bogdan Kheynom (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed to be skeptical. I'm still skeptical that Carruthers plagiarized Wikipedia, but I didn't insist on keeping him as a source. Really, more than half of that conversation had nothing to do with the article. Maybe the Russians had magical ways of working the tanks. No, but seriously, those could be exceptions. And I'm not trying to say that the report is faked, maybe there's a mistake in there they didn't intend. I don't know. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. Simon, what do you think? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bogdan and Max. (Maybe I should have username Simodome}. The Soviet citation talking about the 600km "march" of the panther puzzles me. It maybe a typo for 60km.. I am assuming from date of actions that it is describing operations in Operation Bagration. It is possible that final drive units were salvaged from other Mk V's. The citation reports that the Soviet tankers became extremely proficient in servicing and maintaining the vehicle. In other words, it may have not been the only F/D unit it went through. I was trying to find the locations mentioned, with no real luck. I am accustomed to thinking in miles, pounds, etc. Nearly 400 miles. That would be an amazing movement for one unit on the Eastern Front in one operation. The Tiger 2 report on final drives is less ambiguous. They were both "totally destroyed". It is puzzling stuff. Regards Simon, or..Irondome (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Max and Simon. I have seen the document by myself and if you are interested, you can find it under the title: ЦАМО фонд 33 опись 793756 дело 50. However, I can assure you, that it is definitely not a typo. It's hard to tell how Lt. Firsov managed to keep his trophy tank running that far. It sounds reasonable that he could have salvaged other tanks in order to gather spare parts replacements. On the other side, the Soviets didn't bother much with foreign tanks, once they broke down, as shown in the case of two captured Tigers. Nonetheless, the achievement is quite impressive.

Another interesting claim is found on a forum post of a Bergepanther driver, (around same weight as a Panther) which was apparently honored in a maintenance commission report to Guderian in summer 1944. However, historian Peter Turza (Tanky nemeckého pôvodu vo výzbroji č s. armády v rokoch 1945–1959 p.90) describes the troublesome way of eighty Panthers in the Czechoslovak army during the postwar years. In 1958, there was a military trial to compare the T-34-85 with the Panther. It was claimed, that under good maintenance, the Panther would last 350km in rough terrain, before sheering off parts in the differential housings.

Anyway, as I said before, I belief that the issues is far more complicated and far-reaching as we suspect and as it is currently displayed in the media. It might be even a bit overstated, but it seems, that when appropriate logistical support was provided, the Panther did hold well up against all odds and flaws it had. However, I didn't intented to discuss that issues in that length, or about who might be right or wrong. And if I'm honest, I wanted to leave quite a time before. My english is not quite well as yours, due the language barrier in my head, (czech, russian) and I feel to have some trouble to express myself. However, thank you for your understanding and I hope to hear from you both soon. Regards Bogdan Kheynom (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I mean too when I talked about the validity of the report. Maybe he accidentally wrote 600 rather than 60. I think we should ignore this example as a statistical anomaly. For the most part, we can said with certitude that a Panther couldn't reach 600 km. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, early Panthers used helical-cut gears in the final drive, these proved insufficiently strong in service resulting in stripped teeth, and so the gears were replaced with straight-cut gears in later vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Armor thickness

The article states (in reference 3) that the 80mm of armor at a 55° is equivalent to 205 to 221mm (also strange since there should be no variance as that's the beauty of math, it deals with absolutes) of vertical plate, but according to the protractor and paper I just used it's equivalent to 141mm of armor plate. So unless this is assuming there is ballistic normalization involved, this statement is wrong. If it is factoring in normalization, this needs to be stated, and it would probably be helpful to link to a page that explains what ballistic normalization is, which I don't think exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.vanharper (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to improve the article in any way you see fit. A person with knowledge of ballistics would be most welcomed! I am tagging the reference to reflect your concerns. Article Sloped armour may be of some use here. Have you looked at it? Regards Irondome (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This 200+mm effective plus the same "effective" armor in the infobox look utterly bogus and should be reverted to real armor values. The effective strength should be explained in the armor section. Using the Panzerworld calculator I get ~140mm effective for bow/glacis armor plate.--Denniss (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to fix it Denniss? It was well spotted. Irondome (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Such characterization, termed as "ballistic normalization", does not exist in the field of ballistic study. That's a term entirely given by "World of Tanks" to describe their simplified simulation of penetration. The correct description for what you are looking for, is called terminal ballistics. Also, Denniss, you seems to confuse the line-of-sight (LOS) thickness, (demonstrative example for T-34) to the effective armor resistance in relation to a fired projectile. The LOS thickness for the Panther is 80/cos (55)° = 140mm. In the study of terminal ballistics, however, the Panther has an effective armor resistance against a 76 mm APC projectile of 221 mm. - Nothing wrong here. I say, the values in the infobox can stay, because they are informative, one could also add the regular thickness next to it, but the values in the lead can be deleted. The difference given there, does account the variance in the brinell scale during steel manufacturing, e.g. tempering. HueHuey (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Being BOLD and removed detail in lede, however I have left the supporting cite. Is this consensual? Happy for any reversions. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't show armor resistance vs specific projectiles (just too many of them), we show plain armor thickness and may additionally show the effective thickness (LoS). Especially in the infobox we have to show some real thickness and not resistance vs 5 different types of projectiles. 200+mm is bogus because it's only vs the 76mm projectile but not vs other bigger ones. So the generic 140mm effective thickness has to be used in intro and infobox reverted to 15-120mm. Any further information/explanation about effective strength belongs to the armor section.--Denniss (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We? How dare you to speak about the community as whole. Who are you? Wikipedia is made by you and me, and there's no directives to prohibit valuable information to our readers, or ignorant pricks like you. Why to start an entirely new section, like demanded on the T-34 page, when the regular and effective thickness can easily fit in together, without starting a whole new explanation in the field of ballistics. But, I guess you simply don't like it. I'm done here, ******** ! HueHuey (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Is "ballistically efficient" broadly accurate as a stopgap edit? Responses would be appreciated from the experts Irondome (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now restored the intro phrasing from an older article version + restored the broad armor summary in infobox (from several months ago). An armor comparison for tanks of this era should always be made vs vertical steel plate.--Denniss (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop speaking for your colleagues and insist that the additional armor value is unneeded. Would have you expressed your personal dissatisfaction in the first place: "No. I don't like it, we must try to find a different solution." I surely wouldn't have replied so harsh to you, otherwise. But instead, you went ahead, ignoring completely the clear consensus between Irondome and me, and kept "outlasting" your colleagues, with further reverts. Whatever you might have seen, it does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. After reverting once more of your edit-wars, you accused me of WP:OWN at my own talk page. Are you nuts? You behave like somebody who wants to own the article!

Again, stop acting against the consensus, and if you keep doing so, feel free to report me, but I assure you, you will shoot yourself in the foot. HueHuey (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is going to report anyone. Come on guys, this is just a content dispute, we can fix it here. I just finished with that IP who was attempting to take over real ownership of the article, so no more boards, please people. We can sort this out here. At least we communicate and know what the issues are. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You know my standpoint Simon, and I even made a proposal before [sic] how to handle the additional content. We easily can fit the regular armor next to the terminal ballistic results in the infobox. Why is that such a big deal? Reto HueHuey (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a beer. I understand everyone's standpoints, just need a compromise that everyone's good with. Here are some thoughts. Denniss, would it being in the infobox be ok to you if it was just vertical thickness, with a N1 (note) added that goes into some explainatory depth about diff projectile effects? All this would be sourced. My feeling is that this should be in the armour section and not mentioned in the lede. Any thoughts on a Notebox incorporated in the infobox? Simon Irondome (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Check my recent proposal, Simon. That's how I intented to make... Reto HueHuey (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As said above intro and infobox should contain simple, easily understandable values (which is standard thickness and a simple explanation of angled armor in the intro). Any further detail belongs to the already existing armor subsection. This is actually standard in most (WW2) tank articles. I don't know how good or bad this ballistics book is which claims these resistance values but these look questionable to me.--Denniss (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care what you are thinking about the source, but I dare you to damage the reputation of the two experts and their 25 years of empirical research for their equations of prediction in effective resistance to the most common WWII tanks. HueHuey (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at Tiger I. Infobox does not go into this level of detail. If it has to be in infobox, hat it as N2, I'd say. Maybe this belongs in Armour section. My concern Reto, is that i'm not seeing comparable info in other tanks articles infoboxes..Simon Irondome (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Scrub that..I'm seeing it on M4 Sherman. I think we may have a broader problem here. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

For a history buff, I say, such details of terminal ballistics are marvellous, without digging almost endlessly through the article. HueHuey (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's hatted and well sourced in note form maybe. Relax Reto, no one is challenging reputations I'm sure. We may have a problem of inconsistancy. How many tank infoboxes have this and how many do not? Denniss, ok if this stuff is hatted as a note? We may need an RfC on this from MILHIST. Simon Irondome (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Simon, could you please do me a favor and put a hyperlink to those two shortcuts? Thanks in advance, Reto. HueHuey (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its just the armour sections in the infoboxes I noticed Reto. Tiger I, M4 Sherman. Note M4 infobox armour part seems to have info on armour resistance. Tiger I is more basic. There may be more anomalies in our tank articles. Having a look now. Simon Irondome (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The M4 infobox is a recent change from another troublesome editor, LeuCeaMia, who did this 4 months ago. Again - such a level of detail belongs into an armor subsection (which the article has). The infobox is for a general overview, not endless detailed data. Plus nobody knows what exactly this ammunition is whose resistance is shown there. Why only resitance vs 7.5cm and not vs 5 or 8.8cm ?--Denniss (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Huehuey, I don't pretend to be a terminal ballistics expert, I was paraphrasing the Allied Ballistic Tests in France about where they talk about the "Ballistic Normal" (their words, not mine, or War Gaming's) of the front glacis on a Panther Tank being about 185mm. My statement is simply that the explanation of how the armor thickness works (the terminal ballistics of the sloped armor) isn't clear when one doesn't clearly understand how terminal ballistics work. When someone who just does the math sees that (like I did), they question the validity of the article. I would reference the section of the sloped armor article at some point to clarify it to the reader if they care to take the wiki walk to learn more. Ian.vanharper (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, the edit battle on the article reminded me of my battle with Denniss back on the KwK 36 page. He sure likes to undo revisions without explaining, doesn't he. I even reported him on the edit war page back then, and it's only then when I got his attention and got a response. I really don't know what to think about you, Denniss, mate. At times you come off as a wehraboo, then you do the opposite of what a wehraboo would do, then you revert without explanation, then you kindly discuss on the talk page. Make up your mind, are you a good guy or a bad guy?! As for the armour subject, I'm not sure I understand who wants what, but I'm for simplifying the data in the table and putting the details deeper in the article. EDIT: Hahaha, Dennis went on Huey's talk page and accused him of ownership. This should have been kept on the talk page, mate. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Image of Speer and T-34 tank

This is indeed a Soviet T-34 Model 1940 tank w/76.2mm L-11 gun. A fairly clear image can be found here [1]. You can also note the HUGE Soviet headlight, as opposed to German blackout headlights.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)