The attached, derived from the 8th Army in Italy, was quoted in a Canadian Army Intelligence report issued in Nomandy 30 June 1944.War diaries : T-6680 - Héritage (Thanks to Ecalpald for putting me in touch with this site). It reveals what the Allies had picked up from their intel gathering and the value of their careful interrogation of prisoners. I hope the Panther restorers like the Wheatcroft Collection and Bruce Crompton see this!
I read some translated Soviet maintenance manuals for their captured Panzer IIIs and IVs that said that Tigers and Panthers were too difficult to maintain and only to be used until they stopped running and then scrapped. I can't find them now, of course, but did find this. Soviet Panthers | For the Record
Tsk....Germans know to handle German quality work properly However, we now prefer to export our tanks: experience has taught us that they always get lost in other countries anyway - so why not sell them there instead of starting completely pointless wars that we lose all the time anyway? And YES: without you Brits it would certainly be less difficult - In war as in football.... Anyway: Good luck!
Very practical! The late Lewis Grizzard had a roughly equivalent philosophy. "Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I really hate and give her a house and a car"
Having sent a grandson a photo of me at the Houffalize Panther from long ago, it was inevitable that he would get the associated Haynes Enthusiast Manual (I don’t know if alternative products are available). It’s perhaps a bit heavyweight for a five year old, but an interesting read last weekend, with quite a lot of detail about the various drive train issues and the attributed causes of the problems. His copy cost a fiver, so fair value.
Hooray. Another chance to wheel out the postwar French service schedule. (Never done that before... cough... ) 150km between complete gearbox rebuilds. Now, I fully appreciate they were likely dealing with some clapped-out machinery, using increasingly scarce parts, but they definitely put some work into appraising the thing. Hmmm. Now wondering about how much a French report made by people who I'm quite sure were yearning to get their own indigenous stuff back into production can really be relied upon... Might have to dig that out.
Frank Köhler has confirmed this in his book using original documents (including the French ones, by the way): The ratio of life expectancy of engine - gearbox was on average 10:1 Which is hardly surprising: unfinished basic concept, rushed into production, numerous components poorly alloyed or undersized, all cobbled together by slave labor...... The excellent running gear and the no less excellent optics in combination with the very powerful gun compensated a lot, but the fundamental weaknesses deep in the "DNA" of the Panther could not be eliminated under the conditions of the time. For deep penetrating tank raids like '39 - '41 the tank was therefore not suitable at all. However, since the Panthers were practically only used for defensive purposes and their life expectancy was not too long in view of the circumstances, this became less and less important.
Never mind the reliability. The designer of any tank in the size and weight class of the Panther has some questions to answer when it remains vulnerable to pre-1939 standard AT guns over the flanks. This was an inherent design weakness that was incurable. All the best Andreas
The problems were not limited to the Panther. All German tanks/vehicles had the same problems. Low production numbers/ lack of spares & suitable recovery vehicles/ defective final drives and chassis overloads were a lethal combination. The Pz IV was no better than the more widely known Panther and Tiger.
The Panther's vulnerability was exacerbated by shortages of critically important alloys such as molybdenum, essential in the 1940s for producing the hardest armours. Photographs of KOd Panthers with hits to their turrets show them cracked like Easter eggs. Despite all its flaws, well-expressed in the posts above, the Panther was in my opinion the finest looking tank of WW2.
This was probably less due to the incompetence of the designers than to the given main purpose: To prevail against the increasingly numerous hordes of soviet tanks A flank protection against their 7.62cm main guns was completely illusory. Therefore, one concentrated on immunizing the front at an angle of 45 degrees against direct hits of this caliber. This was the absolute limit of the chassis, however, if the required off-road capability was to be achieved. Also close combat against numerical superiority was deemed suicidal, hence the focus on lang range firefights: In other words, the concept was based on a combination of almost „bulletproof“ frontal armor and a truly superior main weapon system (range, armor penetration, precision). Under favorable conditions, this proved to be an excellent solution, especially in the defensive role. Unfortunately most conditions were far less than favorable from 1944 onwards..... I am also not aware of any report from Allied tank crews that would have dismissed the appearance of a Panther as a lesser challenge because of its mechanical susceptibility to failure or the weak side protection.... And with all justified constructive criticism: The hyper-modern (best, most powerful, bla, bla, bla) IFV Puma had a development time of 10(!) years under peacetime conditions and 5 years after introduction in the troops the operational readiness is on average >cough< 30 - 40% , with full operational readiness expected in >cough< 7-8 years.... Compared to this, the Panther seems on the brink of perfection
Which, if it valid would result in a very large number of photos of Panthers with deflections/gouges on the glacis. Even Panthers with side/rear penetrations should have deflections on the front. Though there are some they are not in the numbers that mean it was a sound decision. The number of Panthers in repair and unable to put in an appearance. is the 'lesser challenge'
I knew that something was still hidden in the thicket of my bookmarks: From the Editor: Panther Reliability
The Allies were also criticallly short of armouring alloys, because of the vast amount of armour they were producing for ships etc. The alloy content of Allied tank armour decreased throughout WW2, their strategy being to compensate for this with innovations in heat treatment and rolling etc. I suppose the Allies had greater resources to put into research, and they could plan their alloy reductions, whereas for the Germans it was more ad hoc.
Membership never had it. Forever edit is the option people have. (I think... It's a long time since I set everything up) Will flush this post & yours above later.
You would think I would remember posting oabout this function only a little while back............................
