76mm Sherman V.S. Panther

[E25280]

Even in the later mark Leopard I the Panther's influence is obvious.

(Image removed from quote.)

Obvious?   

Looks more to me like the suspension of this:

and a turret from this

than anything like this


and the leopard I prototype here:

looks quite a bit more like this:

or this:

or this:

than this:

in my opinion.

So, no, I don't think it's influence is "obvious" at all.  Quite the contrary, you could pick any number of WWII and post-war tanks that seem to have more in common with it than the Panther.

[Nemisis]

Kinda a close up shot, but still, I can see a little resemblance between the leopard and the panther, but you are right.

[Die Hard]

That's the "Prototype 1", one of three designs that competed for the contract. The prototype that won the contract and entered production as the Leopard I was the Porsche "Prototype 2" which I posted on page 8.

[GtoRA2]

Automatic loaders now do the job of a WW2 loader so there is no need for the 5th man also many other WW2 tank designs have evolved into front engine placement and tranny layout because of it.

LOL, maybe you should just bow out of this now.  Die hard is here, and he atleast can back his arguments with references and knows his stuff.

US tanks don't use Auto loaders, as far as I know the only western 'tank' that does is the S Tank. Westen tanks have a four man crew, Commander, gunner, loader, driver. The bow gunner/radio operator was dropped from most designs in the late 50s because the gun was a weak spot in the hulls frontal armor.

Only the russians really use auto loaders.

 

[BigPlay]

Obvious?   

Looks more to me like the suspension of this:
(Image removed from quote.)
and a turret from this
(Image removed from quote.)
than anything like this
(Image removed from quote.)

and the leopard I prototype here:
(Image removed from quote.)
looks quite a bit more like this:
(Image removed from quote.)
or this:
(Image removed from quote.)
or this:
(Image removed from quote.)
than this:
(Image removed from quote.)
in my opinion.

So, no, I don't think it's influence is "obvious" at all.  Quite the contrary, you could pick any number of WWII and post-war tanks that seem to have more in common with it than the Panther.

Most tanks after WW2 went to cast turrets like the ones you pictured. I am not sure but I would imagine that building cast turrets would need a  larger manufacturing facility then welded steel turrets as well as a longer production process. We all know the limited manufacturing capabilities of the German war machine so I also would imagine that designs had to go hand in hand with manufacturing capabilities.

[GtoRA2]

Name one tank from the 1940s that fit that criteria... It's a moot point. The "DNA" of the Panther evolved into postwar designs that evolved further. However there is one point I'd like to make: You mentioned the Panther was "overly complicated"... Tell me, are "real modern tanks" medium-weight, simple and cheap, or are they heavy, gas-guzzling, complicated and expensive? Yeah... The Panther was the M1 Abrams/Leopard II/Challenger/LeClerc of its day and it blasted M4s and T-34s like they were Iraqi T-55s.


That particular Panther served for three months with the 4th Battalion of 6th Coldstream Guards Tank Brigade, North-West Europe in late 1944 and early 1945. The Free French scavenged every Panther they could and operated a force of Panthers until the late 1950s. In 1944 the Panther was not more unreliable than any other tank its size.

I really don't see it.

The good features of the Panther were common in other tanks.  The gun was great but, the 17 pounder, us 90MM and russian 100 were all pretty good.

No one copied the suspension? Why is that? (you don't need all the wonky road wheels to make a tank ride well, torsion bars and shocks work pretty well, just look at (the M26, m46, m47 m48 m60 , and m1 not to mention all the modern German, and brit designs.)
Not a single tank after the war used power packs in the back drive train in the front.  (The reason being the drive shaft makes the tank taller and more complicated. Every German tank of the war has this flas, the Leopord 1 does not. It is far closer to a M26 or Centerion in design.)
The Engine was nothing special, everyone came up with their own engine designs after the war.

Now if you want to argue that german tactics changed tank design then I will agree, the Cent and M26 are direct results of the Germans doing tanks better, just like the Panther and Tiger are results of the russians doing it better first.


You got me on the french, and I hadnt heard the other unit, do you have a link or a book reference it sounds like an interesting read. The french even have a few of the Panthers they fought with in museums.

[GtoRA2]

Most tanks after WW2 went to cast turrets like the ones you pictured. I am not sure but I would imagine that building cast turrets would need a  larger manufacturing facility then welded steel turrets as well as a longer production process. We all know the limited manufacturing capabilities of the German war machine so I also would imagine that designs had to go hand in hand with manufacturing capabilities.

Casting takes less time then welding and is cheaper.

[BigPlay]

LOL, maybe you should just bow out of this now.  Die hard is here, and he atleast can back his arguments with references and knows his stuff.

US tanks don't use Auto loaders, as far as I know the only western 'tank' that does is the S Tank. Westen tanks have a four man crew, Commander, gunner, loader, driver. The bow gunner, radio operator was dropped from most designs in the late 50s because the gun was a weak spot in the hulls frontal armor.

Only the russians really use auto loaders.

 

. A simple wiki search will provide you with the info, here is a clip

Autoloaders are often implemented in an attempt to save on tank size. The T-64 is an example of this. The current generation of tanks using autoloaders (Russian T-90, Japanese Type 90, Chinese Type 98, French Leclerc) all weigh between 45–55 tons. Tanks that do not use autoloaders tend to weigh in the 55–70 ton range (American M1A2 Abrams, German Leopard 2, British Challenger II).

No need to continue to make remarks about knowledge. I am positive that my position in life is far advanced to yours so lets just stay on topic.

[BigPlay]

Casting takes less time then welding and is cheaper.

Maybe if you have the facilities to cast turrets, I did not mention anything about money. If you can't do castings then you have to resort to other procedures.

[GtoRA2]

. A simple wiki search will provide you with the info, here is a clip

Autoloaders are often implemented in an attempt to save on tank size. The T-64 is an example of this. The current generation of tanks using autoloaders (Russian T-90, Japanese Type 90, Chinese Type 98, French Leclerc) all weigh between 45–55 tons. Tanks that do not use autoloaders tend to weigh in the 55–70 ton range (American M1A2 Abrams, German Leopard 2, British Challenger II).

No need to continue to make remarks about knowledge. I am positive that my position in life is far advanced to yours so lets just stay on topic.

LOL so basicaly like I said with the Japanese and french thrown in, but all the other real Western powers don't use them.... and you had to search wiki for this? The reason for the 4 man crew is pretty clear and the tanks with auto loaders generaly have 3 man crews.  

[GtoRA2]

Maybe if you have the facilities to cast turrets, I did not mention anything about money. If you can't do castings then you have to resort to other procedures.

What major power didnt have factories advanced enough to do big castings?


Well other then the germans?

Cost is a huge part of tank design, and is taken into acount on all aspects of the design.

[BigPlay]

What major power didnt have factories advanced enough to do big castings?


Well other then the germans?

Cost is a huge part of tank design, and is taken into acount on all aspects of the design.

Russians, Americans. T-34 had a cast turret as well as the Sherman. 2 tanks that were produced early during WW2. I once again made no remark to casting turrets as advance technology, just the facility size to accommodate this procedure.  Both of these countries factory's that manufactured tanks were not limited in size and not under constant bombing. I would imagine that a very large foundry would be needed to pour molten steel into casts right there at the factory. Not to say the Germans didn't have large foundries but moving a cast turret from a foundry to an assembly area was not a luxury the Germans had so having a foundry right at the tank factory would have been a required component in casting tank turrets.

[BigPlay]

LOL so basicaly like I said with the Japanese and french thrown in, but all the other real Western powers don't use them.... and you had to search wiki for this? The reason for the 4 man crew is pretty clear and the tanks with auto loaders generaly have 3 man crews.  

You also forgot the Chinese. From my understanding all western MTB's have autoloaders planed in their next model . Also other AFV's from the US already use autoloaders it's just now the MTB's do not.

[Ack-Ack]

Only reason why most Western armies are going to be using an autoloader in the next generation of tanks is that planned 140mm main gun that most will use requires it.


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

Only the russians really use auto loaders.

New model german tank has as semi auto loader. Give you 2 secs to stick something in (can't remember what it is) along with the shell.