Knocking out a WW2 tank

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Actually, with about 6,000 Panthers produced in 1943 to 1945 compared to the Pz.IV's wartime production of ~8,300 (~7,500 in the 1943-45 period), in the late war is was absolutely a 'typical' German tank.

The US assumption before D-Day and the invasion of France that the Panther was a 'special issue' tank had a lot to do with their choice to largely stick with the low-velocity 75mm on their M4s. This proved to be less than ideal at least in part because there were a lot more Panthers in service than expected, as it was built in large (for Germany) numbers.

The numbers are always a bit wobbly depending on source and how they're defined, but yeah, it does look like you've got a point. Assuming Panthers weren't too disproportionately out of action for mechanical reasons they'd at least have made a very large minority of tanks encountered.


By the late war the Tiger was also pretty obsolete. A big, dangerous obsolete, but even so. Production was stopped around the middle of 1944.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by clu2415

Search for The Chieftan on YouTube.

*Chieftain

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by clu2415

Search for The Chieftan on YouTube. He has done outside and inside walkthroughs of a large number of tanks and his experience as an actual tank crewman gives a great perspective on the layouts of these vehicles and what it’s like in battle.

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

*Chieftain

"Oh, bugger. The tank is on fire!"

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The numbers are always a bit wobbly depending on source and how they're defined, but yeah, it does look like you've got a point. Assuming Panthers weren't too disproportionately out of action for mechanical reasons they'd at least have made a very large minority of tanks encountered.

Serviceability rates were lower than the Pz.IV (or Tiger, for that matter), but by 1944/45 the Panther's weren't significantly worse than the others. One thig that would make a difference is that in 1945 very few Panther units were left in the west - they were shifted to the eastern front, for what little good it would do. Thus for the western allies in 1945 they became a rare tank to meet (and there weren't many German tanks of any kind by that point).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

"Oh, bugger. The tank is on fire!"

leading to a "significant emotional event"

Originally Posted by Rupert

Serviceability rates were lower than the Pz.IV (or Tiger, for that matter), but by 1944/45 the Panther's weren't significantly worse than the others. One thig that would make a difference is that in 1945 very few Panther units were left in the west - they were shifted to the eastern front, for what little good it would do. Thus for the western allies in 1945 they became a rare tank to meet (and there weren't many German tanks of any kind by that point).

It had another specific issue, it final drive system was weak and prone to breaking if not handled carefully enough. Not so much an issue if you have an experienced driver used to handling tanks in variable off road conditions (not to mention the stresses of combat) etc, but by 1944/45 the Germans were running out of those and less able to train their replacements as well. Put too much pressure on it / get too excited with it and it will go and the tank stops, trying to recover a stuck tank when you lack resources and you are generally retreating isn't easy.


There is an anecdote from some tank expert I heard quoted, to paraphrase (warning generalisations ahead):

"It often not about the tanks but about the 18 year olds driving them.

Your average American 18 year old in 1944 has likely driven something at some point at home, probably done some work on engines and has some kind of practical hands on knowledge of how vehicles work.

Your average 18 year old Russian would be tank driver has possibly driven some crappy 1930's era soviet tractor and has experience in keeping the thing going in bad conditions, so they give him one to drive (T34).

But your average German 18 year old in 1944 has been living in a society with domestic fuel, rubber & lubricant shortages for years, limited private vehicle usage and likely has never been behind the wheel before in his life and has had little to zero experience of driving, engines etc"

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Your average American 18 year old in 1944 has likely driven something at some point at home, probably done some work on engines and has some kind of practical hands on knowledge of how vehicles work.

Your average 18 year old Russian would be tank driver has possibly driven some crappy 1930's era soviet tractor and has experience in keeping the thing going in bad conditions, so they give him one to drive (T34).

But your average German 18 year old in 1944 has been living in a society with domestic fuel, rubber & lubricant shortages for years, limited private vehicle usage and likely has never been behind the wheel before in his life and has had little to zero experience of driving, engines etc"

Also, if you desperately needed to, you could pull a logistics driver and put him in a tank. The Russian or American driver would be intimately familiar with GMCs and Studebakers, but the German driver would have trouble figuring out which end you put the hay into (exaggeration, but not by as much as you'd think). The German army was one of the least motorized militaries in Europe, except for a brief period where they were able to keep hordes of Russian trucks running without access to spare parts.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

It had another specific issue, it final drive system was weak and prone to breaking if not handled carefully enough. Not so much an issue if you have an experienced driver used to handling tanks in variable off road conditions (not to mention the stresses of combat) etc, but by 1944/45 the Germans were running out of those and less able to train their replacements as well. Put too much pressure on it / get too excited with it and it will go and the tank stops, trying to recover a stuck tank when you lack resources and you are generally retreating isn't easy.

Despite that, it had acceptable serviceability rates up until Germany was unable to keep tanks in field of any type, once the major problems with the engine and transmission had been mitigated. Yes, it had defects, but it had strengths as well, like having very good cross-country mobility, and getting bogged down puts a tank out of service too, and M4s bogged down quite easily because their tracks were thinner than they really should've been.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Despite that, it had acceptable serviceability rates up until Germany was unable to keep tanks in field of any type, once the major problems with the engine and transmission had been mitigated. Yes, it had defects, but it had strengths as well, like having very good cross-country mobility, and getting bogged down puts a tank out of service too, and M4s bogged down quite easily because their tracks were thinner than they really should've been.

Oh don't get me wrong it's a great tank (after they iron out the initial technical issues but frankly it's hardly alone in that). and as you say after that it's biggest problems were due to being part of wider systemic issues within the German armed forces full stop.

But my point was really specific issues can be due to unusual things, and they can combine badly with those larger issues. Knowing the issues with logistics training and fuel, was a 44 Ton medium tank that's a bit finicky to drive and with a fail state result of that requires needing a major repair. especially when numbers are already an issue:

The overstressed transmission system resulted in the third gear being stripped prematurely in its service life.[51] This problem was compounded by alloy shortages which made gears more brittle and prone to failure.[51] This led to the complicated task of accessing the transmission which was fully enclosed by the Panther's frontal armor.[51] In order to access the final drive the entire driver's compartment and transmission had to be disassembled[51] and lifted out. This is sharply contrasted with accessing the Sherman transmission which only required the armor cover to be unbolted in the front.[51]

EDIT: why I actually posted that snippet So you have resource problem (choice of transmission and material issues), training issues (drivers less able to accommodate for the weakness and increased failure) design issues (having to to do all that to access the fault when it occurs), logistics/support issues (trying to do all that when it's needed), all of which compound.

[adm]

The Panther was a good tank that cost too much to build for what you got out of it.

They would have been better off putting the Panther's gun on the Panzer IV sooner, and building more of them.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Tessen

If I want to knock out a WW2 tank say a Tiger or a Panther and the tools I have at hand are:

A bazooka

A Piat

A teller mine

A panzerfaust

At what effective range would I have to be , how realistically near to knock it out and where do I aim the shot or place the mine to do the job?

Wait til the tank is past and start wrecking fuel trucks.

Actually if you do that you have just become a partisan rather than a soldier. But the point is the Axis armor was usually stopped by interdiction rather than direct engagement.