Was the Panther a ‘heavy’ tank?

I’ve seen online and also in books statements of the type ‘well the Panther tank was better than the M4 Sherman and the T-34 but it was much heavier than them so it should actually be compared with Allied heavy tanks like the M26 and IS-2’.

Was the Panther a ‘heavy’ tank? Should it be compared to the Allied mediums or with their heavy tanks?

In terms of weight the Panther at ~45t was definitely heavier than the Sherman and the T-34 (28-33t depending on the model). The Panther was also considerably heavier than the standard German medium tanks Pz III (23t) and Pz IV (25t). So in that sense the Panther was a heavy vehicle.

However whether a tank was classified as a medium or heavy was dependent on its role in the battlefield. There are two reasons why the German classification of the Panther as a medium tank is correct:

1). Heavy tanks like the Tiger were used in specialized Heavy Tank Battalions (Schwere Panzer- Abteilung). These units were small (about 45 tanks) and were used at the points of main effort. The Panther on the other hand was used in the standard Panzer Divisions. The goal was to completely reequip the Panzer divisions with the Panther as the main vehicle but due to production shortfalls each division had one battalion equipped with the Pz IV and one with the Panther.

2). The Tiger I and King Tiger tanks were built in small numbers. Panther production on the other hand was substantial. In the period 1943-45 we have 6,132 Panthers which can be compared to 6,686 Pz IV and 1,761 Tigers.

Sources:  ‘Panzertruppen’ vol2, ‘Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II’, ‘Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933 – 1945’

Lies, damned lies, and statistics - The case of the unreliable Panther tank

The Panther is often castigated because it had a low serviceability rate, especially when it was first introduced in 1943. For example:

1). ‘Panther Vs T-34: Ukraine 1943’, p33 says: ‘In contrast no German panzer unit equipped with Panther Ausf D or A model tanks was able to sustain an operation readiness rate above 35 percent for any sustained period in 1943.’

2). ‘Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944’, p10 says: ‘The Panther's operational rate rose from an appalling 16 percent at the end of July 1943 to the merely wretched rate of 37 percent by December 1943.’

Hmmm only 35%-37%? That is embarrassingly low.

Or is it?

What was the general serviceability rate for all the German tanks in the East in the same time period? According to ‘Panzertruppen vol2’, p110 the German rates peaked in June ’43 at 89% and then collapsed. The average for the second half of 1943 was 44%.

Not much difference between 44% and 35% is there? Did the other German tanks also suffer from mechanical problems or were there other factors at play?

Maybe the low rates were mainly caused by the heavy fighting and lack of maintenance? Just a thought…

Some facts on the Panzer V Panther

Every time I read in a forum that the Panther tank was too heavy ,slow ,expensive and it broke down all the time I lose IQ points.Now I’m close to zero so please take a look at the data and stop burning my brain cells.

Type	Pz IV H-J	Pz V D-G	T-34/76	T-34/85	M4 Medium (75mm)
Combat Weight (tons)	25	44.8-45.5	26.3	30	30.4
Maximum Speed (km/h)	38	55	47	47	40.2
Power (hp)	300	700	500	500	400
Power/Weight (HP/ton)	10.6	15.5	19	17	13.2
Ground Pressure (kg/cm2)	0.89	0.73-0.75	0.64	0.87	0.96
Range on Road (km)	235	200	455	300	193
Range cross country (km)	120	100	260	160

Data is from ‘’Panzertruppen vol 2: 1943-1945’’ by Jentz p292-295

So was the Panther heavy? Compared to the Pz IV and the Allied medium tanks it was.

Was it slow ? Table says no.

Was it too expensive ? Regarding cost : From ‘Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis’’ p61 the price of the tanks without a gun and radio : Pz IV – 103.462 RM ,Pz V – 117.100 RM .

From "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945" p41 price of Pz IV F2 – 115.962 RM , p46 Pz V – 117.000 without gun ,however in p52 the price of kwk 42 is given as 12.000 RM.

From ’Panther & Its Variants’’ by Spielberger p144 batch price for period starting 1 June’44 : chassis – 62.000 RM ,superstructure -14.000 RM ,total – 76.000 RM .

Regarding manhours : from ‘’Panther & Its Variants’’ by Spielberger p244 ‘’It took a total of 2.000 working hours to produce a single complete Panther’’.I don’t know if ‘’working hours’’ are different from manhours.

Considering that the Panther had superior frontal protection compared to the Tiger plus its Kwk 42 gun had better armour piercing capability it’s price is very low.

Now the last issue is the most important one. Did it break down all the time? During it’s service it saw a huge number of improvements both by the factories and by units in the field. Just an example :

 

Source : ‘’Germanys Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy’’ by Jentz.

The result :

		Percentage Operational At The Front:
		EASTERN FRONT				WESTERN FRONT
		Pz IV	Panther	Tiger		Pz IV	Panther	Tiger
31-May-44		84	77	79		88	82	87
14-Sep-44		65	72	70		80	74	98
30-Sep-44		65	60	81		50	57	67
31-Oct-44		52	53	54		74	85	88
15-Nov-44		72	66	61		78	71	81
30-Nov-44		78	67	72		76	71	45
15-Dec-44		79	69	79		78	71	64
30-Dec-44		72	61	80		63	53	50
15-Jan-45		71	60	73		56	45	58
15-Mar-45		54	49	53		44	32	36
Average		68	62	70		71	65	65
		Source: Jentz "Tiger I and II combat tactics' (from tanknet forum)

Although in it's first year of service it suffered from mechanical problems it should be kept in mind that it had to operate in the unforgiving environment of the Eastern front ,with mud damaging vehicles of all kinds.From '44 operational rates are very close to the Pz IV and Tiger.Lack of spare parts should also be investigated when looking into the serviceability of vehicles