Repairing Tigers
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- Sponsored by World of Tanks! Register here ► tanks.ly/3eqpamr to receive a Tier V Premium Tank Matilda Black Prince, 7 days Premium Access, 1 Garage Slot, a 100 % Trained Crew, 2 Rental Tanks for 10 Battles each, namely the famous Tiger 131 and the Sherman Firefly with the code FIREAWAY Applicable to new users only.
Also be sure to check out virtual Tankfest Stream here: tanks.ly/3dojE2z
Maintaining and repairing the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung E Tiger was a big deal, yet, usually the topic is discussed by mentioning the interleaving track wheels and then moving on. Here we look a bit closer, namely the organization of the maintenance units, which unit was responsible for what. Additionally, some of the equipment like trucks and halftracks with cranes are mentioned, as are gantry cranes and the use of the Bergepanther. The interleaving track wheels also get an illustration in terms of how complicated it was to change them.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribes...
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/...
» SOURCES «
Schneider, Wolfgang; Köhler, Frank: Tiger im Kampf. Band III. Schneider Armour Research. Verlag Wolfgang Schneider: Uelzen, Germany, 2013.
Fletcher, David; Willey, David; Hayton, Mike; Gibb, Mike; Hayton, Darren, Vase, Stevan; Schofield, David: Tiger Tank. Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger I Ausf. E (SdKfz 181). Haynes Publishing: Somerset, UK, 2017 (2011).
Historical Division, EUCOM: German Tank Maintenance in World War II. Department of the Army Pamphlet, No. 20-202. Department of the Army: Washington D.C., USA, June 1954.
Gary A. Dickson: Tank Repair and the Red Army in World War II, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 25:3, 2012.
Fletcher, David (ed.): Tiger! The Tiger Tank: A British View. HSMO: London, UK, 1986.
Spielberger, Walter J.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Panzer V Panther und seine Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Gerlingen, Germany, 2010.
Friedli, Lukas: Repairing the Panzers. German Tank Maintenance in World War 2. Volume 1. Panzerwrecks: Sussex, UK, 2013 (2011).
Wilbeck, Christopher W.: Sledgehammers. Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II. The Aberjona Press: Bedford, PA, USA, 2004.
Kavalerchik, Boris: The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa. Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front. Pen & Sword Military: Barnsley, UK, 2018.
#Sponsored #ad #WorldOfTanks
Sponsored by World of Tanks! Register here ► tanks.ly/3eqpamr to receive a Tier V Premium Tank Matilda Black Prince, 7 days Premium Access, 1 Garage Slot, a 100 % Trained Crew, 2 Rental Tanks for 10 Battles each, namely the famous Tiger 131 and the Sherman Firefly with the code FIREAWAY Applicable to new users only.
Also be sure to check out virtual Tankfest Stream here: tanks.ly/3dojE2z
>> Errors & Corrections
so you let the most toxic, microtransaction riddled, pay to win, game ever short of raid shadow legends sponsor you?
i dont know if this is something that is typically covered in the historical books on logistics, but id be quite interested in what all goes into the education/training of logistics personal, in comparison between the difference countries perhaps. it seems like different societies would have different philosophies regarding education.
It'd be nice to see a video on the British, American and Soviet tank units and their associated or organic support to get a feel for just how much higher maintenance the Tiger was compared with it's opposition.
My impression from watching some Hilary Doyle vehicles is that the German system expected tanks to be withdrawn to specialized repair and refit units with special tools for everything rather than the work being done by less specialized mechanics nearer the front. I do agree that it would be a great topic to be explored on this channel.
Our esteemed expert recently mentioned an allied study that found 30% of afv losses on the western front were non combat losses
@@Bochi42 Heavy tank battalions were created specifically for Breakthrough and had planed 2 weeks R&R. But they were used as Firefighters...
>> Errors & Corrections
Having just watched Mark Feltons latest video
czcams.com/video/c844En8XvC4/video.html
We see that the RAF raid on Chateau La Caine specifically, steals the initiative from Panzergruppe West, and they never regain this initiative. Code breaking hugely decisive in the Normandy campaign, with many fuel dumps also being discovered and destroyed in this way.
Also, it strikes me that the topic of the staggering number (675) of German general officer casualties in World War II isn’t something you have discussed all that much on your channel.
« were staggering and adversely affected unit proficiencies. Due to these losses, divisions were often commanded by colonels, regiments by majors, and battalions by captains Retired General Josef Foltnann, a leading expert on German officer fatalities, presents the following summary of these losses: [5] »
apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a211610.pdf
Would love to see some content on this topic.
In comparison few American Generals were KIA. blogs.denverpost.com/library/2015/03/30/denver-remembers-wwii-hero-maj-gen-maurice-rose-killed-70-years-ago/10291/
Yes, we like Garfield, but we like him in Jon's house not ours.
I recall reading that broken down Tigers were often blown up by their own crews due to either, the rapidity of the allied advance, the lack of the requisite towing vehicles or the lack of available bridging that could support the weight.
Thank you for this detailed insight.
The more I learn about the logistics of warfare the more I admire the work of the transport, maintenance and logistic units.
I can not imagine how the guys who are making the plans and decisions in this areas reacted to the news of the Tiger or Panther beeing aproved for production.
GooglePlusLet'sYouChoose AstonishingLongUserNames They had to be put on suicide watch.
They just accepted their fait.
You should read Richard von Rose's memoirs. He served on a Panzer 3, then took command of a Tiger 1, eventually commanding 20 Kings by the end of the war.
The Tigers weren't out of service any more than the other Panzers, despite continually bearing the brunt of the Soviet and Allied attacks. Actually, the recurring biggest threat was mud, which any offroader knows is very problematic - and trucks weight much less than heavy tanks
@@T4nkcommander but German tanks as a whole took more maintenance time than Allied tanks.
Quoting the great mustache, must be true. Sir David is a treasure.
And people say cats aren't needy 😉
Just imagine if all these resources and effort went to helping man instead of destruction. The amount of work that goes into war is mind boggling
The quality of what you put out is superb. Many thanks.
Tiger repairs, It seems we'll be here a while...
Ah well, worse places to be.
TheIfifi Always with the negative waves!
Thank you for this video. A couple of years ago I read an interview where there were told that he once had spoken with a mech from a german Tiger tank unit. And this guy claimed to had been told that it took 10 hours of maintenance for each hour a Tiger was in battle. Really put things in perspective regarding of people needed behind the front compared of those at the front.
Next I had also read that tracks needed to be replaced after 2500 km and the engine after 5000 km. What a big work to have thiese cats running :-)
Ahh, like any tank was in WW2 wasn't the similar.
The lighter the less maintenance of course.
@@AKUJIVALDO I really don't know. But I know that a "heavy tank" in that period was considered new high tech for all countries. So I guess that the tech wasn't as good as now. so they more easy broked down. And reading about the troubles with Tiger and Panther there were no similar stories about the medium and ligth tanks in the german arsenal.
@@henrikhilskov so it was no trouble for 3rds and 4ths? Oh, it was. Except they evolved trough the long time unlike cats. Search readiness percentages on Panzers.
Light tanks in Germany in 1944-45? LOL
Of course, first Panthers were horrible as it was brand new ones, who jumped up by 20 tones from previous Panzers. New models improved reliability greatly.
Tigers were a bit different story. They were designed as breakthrough tanks and were not supposed be mainline. Specifications for them was fight in heavy combat and then take rest, repair, resupply for couple of weeks. And then Heavy Panzer battalions were used as fire brigades.
Of course, worst story was that Germany never had enough fuel, spare parts and spare Panzers. Otherwise their tank readiness would be at 95-100%
@@AKUJIVALDO Yes you are absolutely right here. You go into more details that is not suited for this communication plugin youtube have. I just understrecht that heavy tanks was new technology for all countries at that time. Actual the intelligence of England had reported that germany was not able to produce heavy tanks at all.... I am not absolutely sure why it was important for germany to prove them wrong. However the germans was so keen of showing the world that they was able to produce heavy tanks that they send some soft steel "heavy" tanks to the invasion of Norway. And off course they performed very badly beeing in soft steel and not tanke steel or even surfaced hardende steel. It was the Neubaufahrzeug
@@henrikhilskov it was trial vehicles who then was used for propaganda. Multi-tureted Panzers weren't viable. And they weren't "Heavy".
And of course, when you have limited manpower and fuel, you will build less but better quality tanks, like Germany did.
Would you be able to do a video on the most common failures on tiger 1 and 2, straight from factory and inexperienced tank crews had higher incidents, what caused them ? Many thanks 🇬🇧
This is an awesome channel Please keep up the great work !!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for this wonderful video.
Hey Greg!
In a recent video the guy from the tank museum wondered if the problem with the gearboxes of Tiger and Panther was crew training because their experience of operating 131 was it was quite robust if used properly
It seems to be a combination of poor production quality and inexperienced drivers. Even a robust vehicle will get trashed by an incompetent driver. Considering the intense situations these tanks went thru, they did quite well considering, especially when compared against modern tanks which still have very frequent service requirements.
@@T4nkcommander silly fact the reason the Tiger had a steering wheel is the gear box was originally designed for a heavy artillery tractor half track. A British artillery tractor! That's what I've seen in print anyway.
If the Germans had used helical cut final drive gears in tiger and panthers, AkA Sherman m4 the reliability would have been immensely improved, also in ww2 field lifting capabilities were still developing for heavy vehicle, I remember changing m60 a1 main gun assembly with a 2 man ordnance crew and 1 ,5ton wrecker operator 15 hours the 105 mm weight was 3 1/4 tons approximately
@@boarzwid1002 I read somewhere that the Germans simply didn't have the tooling and machines to make helicoil gears, so they had to make do with weaker straight cut ones.
That's probably true but no ones shooting at 131 while it's trundles slowly round a flat dry oval once a year at tank fest. I doubt they take it on 50 mile forced marches through muddy hilly goat tracks either while under constant threat of ambush from the air or in the bushes.
It's a good point about the crew but at the end of the war Germany didn't have seasoned veterans to man these machines, it sounds like it was some rushed basic training then off you go
vielen Dank, hochinteressant, Bilder der besprochenen Sonderfahrzeuge im Einsatz wären eine schöne Abrundung!
Dang, already hooked on WoT. Not a bad offer for those thinking of trying it out.
Great video. For some reason I never thought of the fact that these were WWII era vehicles. They are going to have the reliability issues inherent in all vehicles of that era.
you should check out war thunder
As a former driver, gunner and later tank commander I've always laughed at the footage I've seen of world of tanks, if a driver actually behaved like that in a real tank, he would have mote to worry about than the enemy. Tank interiors are full of hard and often pointy objects with few if any purpose built bracing points for the rest of yhe turret based crew, the driver is also sitting in a very vulnerable position in relation to the rest of the crew. And that's not forgetting the point made in this otherwise excellent commentary, they break easily.
Bad design also made the Tiger high maintenance. Complaints from tank crews were the rapidity of breakdown.
Well, as a austrain or southern german mechanic you know the expression "es pressiert"...they probably got that a lot.
Just subscribed. All of your content is absolutely superb. Thank you
Oh man this is going to be good. I reckon keeping those things in good repair was a nightmare.
To repair a Tiger ? It takes just 10 to 20 seconds in the videogame Heroes and Generals... GOSH !!!
And do not forget: Kingtiger had only 2 layers in suspension. :)
Later the Panther 2 would had less or splitted layers.
Panther 2 was cancelled before Tiger II entered production tho ;)
Not mechanically inclined here, what’s a layer in suspension? Is it the number of shock absorbers between track and frame or what?
@@reteip9 It still doees not change a fact: they planned a better track layer ;)
@@nomobobby The "wheels" are connected to the torsion bars. If the tank reach a bump, only that wheel will rises, not the whole tank, like as for a T-34.
Consider doing a video comparing the reliability and durability of US, German, and Soviet tanks of the era.
Nah fam all you need is a blowtorch and you can use it on any part of the tank for it to count for repairs.
Make sure there's at least one guy in the tank to get the unlock points for it though.
Why don't you use gestures?
I think the panzers should have been designed in modular, scalable fashion from the get go, than ad hoc fashion as it happened later. Interleaved track version should have been built during peace time for the coming war, for well trained panzer crews, but once war phase happened, the interleaved track should have been abandoned for non-interleaved version, and wider track adopted as well. In fact, the Germans should have concentrated on TDs with open turrets, 88s, with thinner armors, to be attached to panzers units, and TDs with open case mate, 88Ls to be attached to panzer grenadiers, but using the same suspension, engines, to take maximum advantage of economy of scale rather than panthers and tigers, more Panzer III or IVs and far more TDs, and squad portable assault mortars, but no Panthers, no Tigers, no sturmtigers. With III or IVs leading the way, to be backed up by TDs with open turrets, and further behind TDs with open case mates, and even further behind assault mortars.
This would have maximized both movement and fire power, but also economy of scale, reliability, durability, lower/easier maintenance. IIIs and IVs providing direct fire power against infantry, light fortifications, and enemy artillery, TDs with open turrets providing fire power against enemy tanks, TDs with open case mates, providing even further reserve fire power against enemy tanks, and assault mortars providing flexible fire power against both enemy infantry supporting the enemy tanks, and against the dense concentration enemy tanks themselves, at a relatively safe distance.
Just what i needed right now
Excellent as always! The variety of panzer-related cranes .. more interesting than I'd thought.
Has your lighting setup or video colour grading changed perhaps? It seems a bit different this time around.
I used the stuff somewhere else, so yeah, I couldn't reproduce, also I change the settings in the editor every time as well.
I understand removing more wheels makes it more time consuming but how long time did it take to remove the wheels? On the Leo 2 we can do it quite fast but does anyone know how they did it and what tools they used? How did they get the wheel into the air, would they have to lower the tension?
hahaha repairing Tigers? You never need to do that, they are invincible! Aren’t they? Herr propaganda minister told me so!
But Hanz, tse transmission broke
Lol
- Every wheraboo ever
Does anyone know what kind of repairs could be done by the crew alone? What about other ww II tanks? Also did. the Germans or others use some sort of schedule for basic maintenance?
This may just be tangentially related, but I thought your comments section might have some good answers (or perhaps an idea for a video)
What was the reasoning behind the creation of the Bergepanther? I can understand Germany retrofitting old chassis of Panzer 3 and Panzer 4s with cranes to make armored recovery vehicles, but I've always been confused as to why they would waste the potential of having an operational Panther that is capable of fighting by making it into an armored recovery vehicle. The infamy of the Panther's reliability just makes it all the more confusing to me. Is the reasoning explained in any documents from the time period?
there were Panzer 3 and 4 Berge variants, but I don't think they worked well with pulling Tigers. Also Panther was heavily optimized for mass production.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you for the answer! It makes sense to me now that I know the Panther was built for streamlined mass production. I had the misconception that it was an overly complicated and complex to produce design, like its other Big Cat brothers. I would have thought Bergepanzer 4 could fill the role until I saw how much more horsepower the Panther had.
Maybe Thats Why:
A Bergepanther drove 4200 km without new spareparts and 1000 km from 4200 km it was towing other panthers.
(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55.)
"There is an article on this subject in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (News sheet: Armoured troops):
Performance of a Panther-recovery tank driver.
Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has up to 3 May 1944 driven his Panther recovery tank - Chassis No. 212132 - 4,200km without an engine
change or damage to the transmission, including the final drive units, gearbox and drive shaft. Approximately 1,000km of this was made towing a Panther tank.
The vehicle and engine are still in excellent condition and continue to be operational.(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55).
To assume that panzer III and IV in 1944/45 were that much more reliable than the panther is a misconception.
They started to suffer from the same late war limitations as the Panther.
"From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t). Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100.
General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem.
He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation. (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger).
According to Hartmut Knittels Book "Panzerfertigung im Zweiten Weltkrieg", the officials in the Nibelungen Werke (Panzer IV production) were clearly aware that they made use of final drives, which did not meet the quality standards. The german war industry was forced to experiment with the hardening processes during the steel production, because they were short on certain resources. This could be the reason, why all late war german tanks (38t, Panzer III and IV, Panthers, Tigers) suffered from broken finald drives and bad bearings.
Were the final drives to weak or a flawed designe. I dont think so:
Some people claim, that the final drives of the Panther were bad by design, but the Centurion, which was 7 tons heavier, used the exact same type of final drives. Like many other tanks too. M26 Pershing for example.
The theory that the drivetrain of the Panther was overstressed, can explain why Panthers had big reliability problems.
But this theory can not explain, why large percentage of Panthers made it easily beyond those often claimed 150 km before the final drive gave up or other parts of the drivetrain broke down. This theory can not explain why a Bergepanther drove 4200 including the stress of towing another 45 Ton Panther without receiving any damage.
I think production quality, available resources and crew training were the true limiting factors.
@@HaVoC117X Frankly, I've never trusted that French report (Le Panther 1947). The criticisms made just do not appear in German reports at the time or from veterans recollections.
says its not visualised, procedes to visualise (kidding)
Moriarty says that a Tigers fuel system leaks.
But it is a mother beautiful tank😂
I was hoping to see a comparison of how long it took to repair any given issue on a Tiger vs another tank. Yes it would be a pain to go through all those wheels but are we talking hours or days. How great is the impact of the longer repair time realistically.
I've read of one instance of the Germans using a captured Sherman as a towing vehicle. It seems like a good choice because they probably lacked ammunition for it and it had a relatively high power to weight ratio. How common was this practice?
I read that too, I think two Shermans actually with their turrets removed. At one point I thought about putting it into the video, but I did not. I don't think it was common.
not common due to a) regularly getting access to fully intact Shermans and b) I know captured tanks like Shermans were also pressed in service, yet, I don't know how, where and who exactly determined what to do with captured material. Then of course there is the question, was this authorized use, "grey area", kinda tolerated use (like towing Tigers with Tigers although forbidden) or forbidden and not really tolerated at all.
Summary of this video: It was a pain in the ass..
Are there any figures from maintenance units specifying types of damage on the tanks?
Apparently the Germans never heard of the KISS principle.
I work with German cars. If the Germans had designed the paper clip, it would have many moving parts each requiring a special tool
Weather you like the American Sherman or not they where rebuilding a Sherman tank from 2 different tanks wielded them down the middle and it works the first time they try.
5:25 what a BS.
When mine goes off it will not damage only that specific, most innermost road wheel...
Many vehicles discussed but no pictures ☹️
Check the channel name xd
And no air bags!
Big cats. Big upkeep.
Why should increased weight make for lower reliability? If everything is upscaled at the same level? I do understand that bridges, towing, and cranes is an issue, as well as useing things built for a smaller modell.
> If everything is upscaled at the same level?
ok, even if that was so simple, go ahead - without a computer - and upscale a 10 ton vehicle to 30 ton vehicle, remember all the parts are 3D... and physical equations.
its called square-cube law
I know Tiger and Panther have a rep for poor reliability, however I've read that the transmissions on the early T-34 were so bad that they often carried a spare tied to the tank. We don't hear about this after the first few months of battle. Did the quality control get better so that it was no longer a problem, or did quality control improve to the 'good enough' level where there were still problems but it could be fixed before the next day's battle?
They changed the design to improve reliability. Maintaining Shermans or T34s was like maintaining an aircooled VW Beetle, swap out the faulty engine/gearbox/gun/radio for a reconditioned unit very quickly.
@@andrewallen9993 yeah, dropping an engine from a Cromwell and replacing it, it had a merlin, everything had a merlin, "see that plane over there, go see what its engines like and take the super charger and nitrous off" 😊
In terms of reliability i think we are a bit hypercritical in the Panthers case. Lets compare it to other tanks:
The russians turned the war around with tank engines (The V2-series), which had a service life of only 300 to 400 km between 1941 until mid 1944 (T 34 vs Stug III by Steven Zaloga). Percentage of T34 tanks reaching 300km during factory trials (Zaloga, Page 14):
Apr 43 = 10.1%, May 43 = 23%, Jun 43 = 7.7%
This number slowly imporves to 79% in February 1944. But only 33% reached 1000 km before a breakdown in Feb. 1944.
The Churchill was accepted for frontline duty in 1941, after its engine reached a service life of 500 miles (800 km) . The first Churchill production batches had a service life for the engine and transmission of 250 miles. Cromwells, Matildas and Valentines are also not shining examples in terms of reliability (also less than 1000 miles). (British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934-1945 by Benjamin Coombs)
What do you call the gunk that gets stuck in the track and road wheels of the tank? Answer: Slow infantry.
Ewwww, the Matilda BP
is this a DIY Turtorial?
Surprisingly with the M4, "Precision Measurements" were used. It's that it was when OrdBru & Ground Forces established RIGID standards to the Manufacturers, & ALL parts were "Gauged" before leaving the factory & frequently before leaving the Continental US to be shipped to the theaters. That meant maintenance groups & unit mechanics were able, if the part wasn't "Drop-IN" could with elbow grease, a file & a hammer(possibly a BIG hammer) could use any part from ant factory or any other tank to repair a M4. While I am ABSOLUTELY sure it is more complicated than just that, this is one of the big reasons that "American Logistics" ended up scaring the crap out of all the other major powers in WW2.
Did I hear "rubber sprung steel track", the Tiger was using a "live track"?
He means the road wheels, Tigers from February 1944 onwards used steel rimmed road wheels with internal rubber tires
He says "rubber-sprung steel track wheels", you just missed the "wheels".
this is a not tank repair but just mouth work
Try this format with a Panther..... .
If only Tigers needed lasagna to run...
I nicknamed German SUV's panzer kampfwagens because they're so over size and weigh twice as much as a normal car lol.
Here is something I never could figure out so maybe you know...WTF was up with the Germans making their transmissions so damn hard to get to? Both the Soviets and the Americans went out of their way to make it easy to swap out transmissions (there is even a photo of a T34 carrying a spare on the back of the tank) but right up until the end of the war the Germans seemed to go out of their way to make it a royal PITA to swap transmissions, but why? Surely they must have seen by Panther and Tiger you would need to be able to work on the damn thing.
I think you are on the wrong track Mate: Transmission replacement.
As we learned the Panther transmission was very robust like most german transmissions and had an service life of 5000 km between overhauls.
The chance that a tank survives long enough, that transmission replacement becomes necessary was actually very low, given the intensive fights the germans were involved in. The Panzer IV had bogie suspension and a transmission which could easily pulled out through a front hatch (somewhat similar to the Sherman, but they dumped that concept). czcams.com/video/F76AwBTS6W0/video.html
The russians turned the war around with tank engines (The V2-series), which had a service life of only 300 to 400 km between 1941 until mid 1944 (T 34 vs Stug III by Steven Zaloga). Percentage of T34 tanks reaching 300km during factory trials (Zaloga, Page 14):
Apr 1943 = 10.1%, May 1943 = 23%, Jun 1943 = 7.7%
This number slowly imporves to 79% in February 1944. But only 33% reached 1000 km before a breakdown in Feb. 1944
The british stopped their long endurance Tests of the M4A1, M4A2 and M4A3 after the tanks had reached 2500 miles, because they did not expect that the tanks reached that mileage during deployment. (Chieftain published the original british documents a few years ago somewhere on the WOT forum).
So if we are speaking of transmission replacement, we are speaking about an event which was very unlikely to happen.
And still the US wasted production capacity and time to produce a Sherman tank with a transmission that was easy to access and mounted it in a separate unite which was bolted to the front end of the tank.
They had to cast serval large hull parts (instead of just one, Patton tank family for example) and invested a lot of effort and material to drill holes through the serval inches thick armor to put the separate pieces together with giant bolts and nuts. Those bolts and nuts don't grow on trees
and had to be produced too. All this increased the overall count of parts for the vehicle. The US industry went the extra mile for every tank which left the factory and invested time, effort and resources for an event which rarely happened.
So tell me, who has wasted more man hours and resources on this specific task called transmission replacement?
The Russians, the germans, the british or the US which were probably a bit too cautious in this regard?
Basic maintenance and adjusting the steering could be done with the transmission installed (in the Panther as well as in the Sherman).
So what if you really had to replace the transmission because of battle damage. If a round or a mine impacts at the front a sherman,
bolts can be damaged and the force and the heat of the impact, can put tennsion into the metall. As a result things which should separate easily wouldn't move at all.
That's where the real fun for every mechanic begins. I know its a very special case, but people like to create those events for german tanks, too. Like mud could freeze in between the road wheels. Ohh what a great disadvantage, crap system, bad tank.
Every tank with metal tracks can freeze to the ground if parked on wet surfaces, it even happens to modern bulldozers. It's even noted in most tank manuals.
The US american ignorance is sometimes so annoying to me. If your are not doing it the way we like do it, you suck.
Sometimes they don't even try to change perspective.
The next common misconception is that you have to strip down the whole tank to have access to the final drives. The truth is you only have to remove the drive sprocket and you are there.
i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/c8/e7/1ec8e7c5227bc3d29c37c3cc69202302.jpg
The accessibility of the Transmission was also less critical as many described it, even Nicholas Moran aka the Chieftain cleared this up in his latest Video. He probably got a bunch of informations from Doyle about how the germans did things.
czcams.com/video/X7cUsRdr5cE/video.html Chieftain Advantages of rear engine tanks with front drive sprockets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-280-1096-33,_Russland,_Reparatur_eines_Panzer_V_(Panther).jpg
@@HaVoC117X Your assertion that maintainability represents "wasted resources" is not borne out by the facts. The Sherman and T-34 weren't engineered for maintainability, they were engineered for mass production. The design features intended to make them easier to assemble also made them easier to maintain. Faster & Cheaper production was the goal, maintainability was a side benefit. And it did provide real benefits. Sherman units had a relatively high availability rate and only the tanks that are actually make it to the battlefield count. Most of the issues that would deadline a tank aren't catastrophic damage. As for "wasted resources", both the Sherman and the T-34 required far less fuel, labor and materials per unit than their German counterparts which weren't designed for mass production. That's efficiency, not waste. And it wasn't just a Russian or American thing, the Germans also achieved efficient mass production for things like the MG 42, the Kubelwagen, and even things as big as railroad locomotives and U-boats, just not tanks. The Germans certainly took that lesson to heart; the Leopard and Leopard 2 are both highly maintainable vehicles. As for the overlapping road wheels, you'll notice that no one has used them since, though that's as much due to improved metallurgy for torsion bars as anything else. And if you've ever had the dubious privilege of actually trying to free a frozen bulldozer in subzero temperatures you'd appreciate how anything that makes such a miserable job even more miserable would feature prominently in postwar recollections. It one thing to contemplate sitting at a computer and something else entirely lying in the snow whacking at the undercarriage of a D7 with a crowbar.
@@danielstickney2400 Dude you cleary doesnt know what you are talking about and keep on reapting some old myths.
Since spring 1944 the Panther and the Panzer IV achieved almost the same combar ready rates (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz).
The Panzer IV had the reputation of being reliable and easy to maintain and was in many ways very similar to the Sherman.
The Battle at Kursk shows that germany was in fact lacking the resources and the manpower to supply the tank force they already had.
Every additional tank needs a crew, fuel, ammunition, spares and the logistics to provide all that.
Just screaming for more tanks does not help. Nevertheless germany produced more tanks in 1944 than in all the years before.
The Panther was streamlined for mass production. The Panzer IV was not. Only 8500 Panzer IVs were built from 1939 till wars end. But they built over 6000 panthers in less than two years. 4500 in 1944, despite the bombing campaign and shortage of resources. In comparison the Russians built 11000 t34 85 in 1944. Given the average tank exchange ratio of 1/4 in favor for the Germans, the panther was a reasonable option. The US build around 12500 M4 Shermans in 1944.
The M4 Sherman can be seen as a logistical nightmare and it was not easy to produce or cheaply made (I would guess that the total number of parts was even bigger compared to a Panther)... they made like 8 version with 16 subversion of it during ww2, two completely different suspensions,
casted and welded hulls, 75mm, 76mm, 105mm and 17pounder guns, different turrets ...not to talk about 5 different engines
in a single tank design...and every mechanic laugh his ass of claiming that a Sherman with radial engine, a twin diesel or 30 Cylinder Chrysler Multibank (30 CYLINDER) engine is easyier to repair or maintain ... you need to lift the radial engine out of the tank for a simple spark plug change ...
The british had to ask chrysler to redesign their M4 engine because the 5 carburetors (Fu... 5 carburetors for one engine, holy moly) were inaccessible as long the engine sits inside the tank. The radial and the Multibank engine have many cylinder heads facing down into the tank hull and were not accessible for maintenance and repairs.
The twin diesel M4A2, were two diesel engines mounted back to back to save space, but the driveshafts needed to be on the same side, so the right engine was the exact mirrored copy of the left engine. The GM 6046 was built using two straight-six engines that were separately clutched to a single output shaft, which was itself clutched to the transmission unit.
The needed every subsystem like fuelpumps, belds ..., spare part twice, one for the left engine and one for the right. All parts were marked with little l's and r's to identify them.
Germany used two type of engines. The HL120 for Pz III and IV and all the subversions of it and the HL210/230 for the
Panther, Tiger, Kingtiger, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger...just normal V12s, like the russians and the british tank engines.
Even though the germans came up with a lot of variants, the automotive components (engines, transmissions, road wheels, tracks...) were very standardized.
Hilary Doyle pointed out several times that the germans knew what they were doing when it comes down to tank maintenance.
(Chieftain and Doyle in the Panzer Museum Munster, on Chieftains youtube channel). The replacement of the engine took only 8 hours in a Panther under field conditions. For a Centurion you need 15,5 hours in the field. Spielberger wrote that the germans disliked the idea of an radial engine for a tank, because of difficult maintenances. They even built a prototyp Panther with a BMW radial engine.
The French guys of the Tank Museum in Saumur were interviewed by Bernhard at the Tankfest 2019 about their Panther and their experiences with it.
Didn't they admitted that they prefer to work on the Panther than on other tanks of the same time period. Unlike the common believe, they admitted, that the Panther was actually build with ease of maintenance in mind, especially the engine bay. I think it is really surprising that they mentioned maintainability as big pro for the Panther design. But there must be something to it, because the Panther achieved the same combat ready rates as the Panzer IV since spring 1944 (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz). Part of the reason is, that the Panther wasn't utterly complex or over engineered and could be maintained in the field if the needed supplies are available, it was lacking many of the fine features of early german tanks or of a Sherman.
The logistical situation was bad for all german Tanks, in does not really matter if it was a Panzer IV, a Panther or a captured german Sherman.
The Panther also fits perfectly on every railroad car. Tanks like Panthers, T34 and Shermans were to heavy for the average bridges in central europe anyway, which had a weight limit of 25 tons and less (the reason why Panzer III/IV chassi maxed out at 24 tons)
Given the fact that the Panther has the highest fording depth by far, more than twice as deep as the Sherman, its tactical mobility on battlefield was even better than that of a Sherman in this regard.
The Panthers operational range is also on par with other petrol powered tanks (Panzer IV, Sherman, Centurion, M26, M47, M48). Compared to other tanks in the 40 to 50 ton range like an M26 or a Centurion its fuel consumption was actually quite low, because of its seven speed transmission and better power to weight ratio.
The 6th and the 7th gear were mainly used as a overdrive to save fuel on road marches, and were never meant to give the Panther a higher top speed in the first place. The Panthers steering system wasn't even ideal for speeds beyond 40km/h (its top speed of 48 to 55 km/h only looks impressive on paper.). But the steering system gave the panther an advantage when going cross country and reduced crew fatigue.
The interleaved roadwheel design and the large road wheels were chosen to minimize driving and ground resistance. 600 to 700 hp and 1900 Nm of torque were just not quite enough to achieve the desired mobility for a 44 ton tank. The Leopard had 830 hp and almost 1000 Nm more torque, so they could use smaller and fewer road wheels.
Dont you think the germans would have just stopped producing interleaved/overlapping road wheels after the Winter of 1941 and 1942, if the problematic of jammed road wheels were that dramatic?? They stayed with it until 1945!! Halftracks, Tanks, APCs, Tractors!!!
@@HaVoC117X thank you for your detailed and highly informative comments, I gained a lot of new information!
Has over 1k hours in WT, still takes product placements from WOT lul
Leopon team wants to know your location...
Mechanics would Rarely ever fix a tiger they would see the damage and then shoot themselves
Except for Fiats and Jaguars.
No, you just hold f.
Can you make a epizod about the Macedonian fornt 1916/18 and the effectivenes of bulgarian and german units to defend for first time in history 7 nations in one front (greeks, french, english, australian, serbian, indian and canadian troops) Bulgarian and germans have that bad supply north to south because the balkan mud roads but the entante have the sea supply and some not bad rails south to nord. How Bulgaira bad equiped nation (every 10 soldier will have martini henry rifle) whit even lack of boots defend vs well equiped french and english soldiers whit good bolt action rifles and machine gun? Of course and мountain terraine
issue.
Ognian Ivanov who won the war?
NEXXXXXXXXXT
Tank videos on YT abound.
Yemeni Houthis knocking them out.
Syrian neighborhoods knocking them out.
It's not easy being a tank. Can't hide. Rather loud. Conspicuous. Obviously a tank, everytime you are seen.
Armor. Good. Shaped charges and put indirect fire from above knock you out.
The Russians produced a few hundred thousand 'tank rifles'. A tank with a shot or 2 in it's tracks is a pillbox. Pillboxes burn.
That is why Germans introduced Shurtzen... Which nicely countered Russians anti-tank rifles.
is it just me or is his accent getting thicker? lol
Is June 25 German/Austrian April Fools? Repairing tigers ha