Reminder that when the T-34 was introduced during Operation Barbarossa, it had a higher rate of mechanical breakdown than the Panther did during Operation Citadel. Not to mention all the mechanical flaws that were present in the Panther during Operation Citadel were fixed afterwards vastly reducing the Panther's breakdown rate.
Not to mention the Panther had a ridiculously higher K:D ratio than the T-34
well no shit the panther would defeat the t-34 head on, but look at the logistics. T-34 was a great tank which was easy to assemble with a country that had a wealth of material. On the other hand, the Panther was expensive and difficult to build and had low production values due to Germany not having a lot of resources.
It is ridiculous to assume that the Panther had a bigger effect on the outcome of the war than the T-34
which one won the war?
What's the point of comparing a medium tank to a much more expensive heavy tank? I'm not a T-34 fanboy - I actually think the Sherman was the best medium tank of the war. But comparing the T-34 to the Panther doesn't make a lot of sense.
For me, it is the M4 Sherman. The best medium tank of WW2.
>K:D ratio
Fuck off.
I was under the impression that the final drive unit continued to be a problem all the way until the end of the war.
The KV series on the other hand dwarfed its Axis counterparts in the k:d ratio, with confirmed reports of single immobile units taking out several enemies holding up the advance for days.
But so what?
tanks don't win wars, money does.
oh look it's this thread again
the different is when the t-34 broke down you hammered the transmission and it was back in action, you broke your panther and you could signal for the bergepanther already
note, on the strategic or even the tactical scale breakdowns DID not matter, no commanders were writing angry reports about useless tanks, this is yet another issue that comes from popular history being the mainstream, and its shit
>vertical organization
Organization of what? Production? Then it's vertical anywhere. The state makes orders, the factory owners give orders to workers.
>taller than T-34
>easier to fall to the side
>vertical flank and rear armor
Reminder that Germans were so taken back by encountering T34 that they had to invent new tanks and guns to counter.
>muh panzers
>can't even invent sloped armor
Why is it so tall?
You probably think Betamax was better than VHS as well. Get a clue, loser.
>Why is it so tall?
they needed to fit a radial aircraft engine inside
>taller than T-34
by whooping 20cm
sure, it's a flaw, but not even anywhere near as bad as people would make it out to be
it was also 80cm shorter and 40cm narrower than T-34
>easier to fall to the side
indeed, it is a well known fact that 80% of tank loses were caused by simply tipping over due to breezy wind
>vertical flank and rear armor
so what?
Panther side was so paper-thin that it could have been penetrated by anti-tank rifles
and if your tank is getting shot from the rear, your are fucked no matter what shape it is anyway
>trying to compete aesthetically
*breaks down*
>worse gun
>worse armor
ummmmmmmmm
Stay mad, ugly.
It was extremely reliable, could be produced cheaply and in great numbers and the long guns were absolutely sufficient. The armor was insufficient from 1943, thats true.
All in all it was the best tank of the war.
>It was extremely reliable
because american factories weren't bombed 24/7
T-34 is obviously a better design since even germans tried to copy it
No, it was unreliable, had shitty optics, was very cramped and didn't even have radio equipment initially.
>because american factories weren't bombed 24/7
Russians could penetrate the tank from the side with ptrd rifles so germans wanted to make a new Panther II until some genius told them to put side plates+ 16 fucking interleaved road wheels on each side waste of resources and annoying to fix if the back wheel gets fucked t 34 had 5 i think. Also they putted zimmerit onto the panther so the enemy couldn't throw magnetic mines on it although Germany was the only country to use magnetic anti-tank mines , also zimmerit could catch fire when hit so they removed it later but atleast it looked cool . At least they got the frontal slope armor right
The T-34 being cramped has nothing to do with factories being bombed. The original design just didn't take the importance of ergonomics into account very well.
>
trips means /thread
early 1941 models were shitty
tiny 2 man turret means that the commander have to do shit like loading the gun,less reliable etc
eventually the T-34/85 became one of the most well rounded tank in the war. it could reliably take on most tanks that they encounter and was cheaper than earlier models
It did, and the tracks being able to go in opposite directions while innovative put a lot of stress on it
>panther
>heavy tank
Zoinks!
You get one Raseiniai story and then it turns into 'units'. Also zero source on the 'dwarfing'.
Army organisation
See: mission tactics
But the Panther was built specifically to fight the T-34, granted they changed the design and added another 18 tonnes to it because Hitler was fucking retarded, but it's not a heavy tank
Yeah some of the smaller guns and lighter tanks were ineffective against T-34s and KV-1s, but realistically they were only 1/10th of the tanks faced.
Find 1(one) source about zimmermit catching fire
He's overstating it, but the solvent did catch fire on few days old Zimmermit
Oh cool, where did you read that?
I remember reading about it in an Osprey book, they tested 2 T-34s they painted with Zimmerit to test if the rumors about it being flammable had any truth and all they found was the solvent burned on the top layer
>comparing a perfect medium tank to a perfect heavy tank
definitely fair comparison, next OP compares a sedan to a city bus and concludes the sedan is a piece of shit because the bus carries far more passengers
Osprey books really are the foundation for an enthusiasm for knowledge
Not one single source will cite a Panther as being a heavy tank
Tank weights...
T-34: 27 tons
Sherman: 30-38 tons
Pershing: 42 tons
Panther: 44 tons
KV-I: 45 tons
Tiger I: 54 tons
Tiger II: 68 tons
Draw your own conclusions. Yes, technically the Panther wasn't classified as a heavy tank. However, it weighed more than 1.5 times as much as the T-34.
I'm glad you'll no longer be calling it a heavy tank
Do you call the KV-I a medium tank?
I don't, what's your point?
It's about the same weight as the Panther. So what makes the Panther a medium according to you, if the KV-I is a heavy?
You can look up the differences between medium and heavy tank classifications on your own time, I'm not going to bother.
But those classifications vary between times and nations.
>can't refute point
>B-BUT IT WASN'T DESIGNATED H-HEAVY
it's so fucking borderline a heavy tank it's autism to even quibble, also compared to the T-34 it's heavy
Theyre classified heavy or light or medium by their weight but crucially relative to and depending on the time they were produced.
An early war heavy tank is like a late war medium or maybe light in terms of actual weigh.
The only question was whether it was a heavy or a medium and that has been settled. You can call it 'bigger' all you want, but try to use the correct terminology.
Are you going to argue that the B1 was a medium tank because it weighed as much as a T-34? It's really a very simplistic understanding.
Except it was a medium tank.
The tanks weight doesn't matter when classifying tanks, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. It's the armour, speed and most importantly designated role that creates the designation.
Otherwise what, all Modern MBTs are Super Heavy Tanks then?
t-34-85 was god tier
Why does designating a tank medium or heavy matter anyway? If you see it on the battlefield in numbers and it's shooting at you, I hardly think Soviet tank commanders consoled themselves by saying "No problem, heavy tanks shouldn't be compared to mediums".
You can make an argument that the extra weight required more resources and may have impaired mobility but just discounting comparisons because of weight difference doesn't make sense.
Its armor was intermediate between medium and heavy - heavy in the front, weak on the sides. Its speed was mediocre, with good battlefield performance but bad operational readiness and radius pulling down the average - and its heavy weight was a major contributor to its maintenance problems. Its role was the same as that of a Tiger or Elefant - to snipe at enemy vehicles from long range using its high quality gun and optics. I'd say there's plenty of reason to call it a heavy.
>MBT
an MBT doesn't fit into light/medium/heavy tank classification because we don't use that metric anymore
On the other hand, it wasn't meant to be a breakthrough tank, and the mobility and maintenance problems were consequences of a fucked up design process rather than the original intention, which are some good reasons to call it a medium.
I just watched that video too.
And that's why the t34 is superior
Aren't light/medium/heavy tanks modern classification for older tanks? People now are eager to categorize things, people back then didn't give a shit. That's why you will find many medieval weapons called the same, but some of them will vary a lot. The same goes for 2WW.
Threads about tanks get more and more retarded every time
removable bogies are fucking genius and should be brought back into use to counter IED threats
you know how much of a fucking chore it is to replace a shattered torsion bar?