by frinik Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:29 pm
I agree with you about the dead end argument. Rather than use the Heinkel, the k98 or the BF109 I would have used the MP40, the Stg 43, the Messerschmitt M 262 Schwalbe, the 1 and V2 or the Walter submarines as good examples of designs that influenced post war weapons up until now...
I can't help but think that Panther as much as the T34/85 inspired post war tank thinking if not design. The best MBTs are fast and mobile , have a powerful long barrelled gun and excellent armour protection just like the Panther .The Panther was the victim of war, being rushed into service without a proper teething and testing period .German shortages of fuel and metals and raw materials aggravated the mechanical flaws of the Panther. Still the kills versus death ratio of the Panther is 5.1 to 1 which is testament to the quality of that machine.
The observation about the Panther 's ideal role being a long range tank killer also applies to the Tiger I and II. In the end the Germans might have been better served concentrating all their heavy tanks on the East front where such long range kills were possible and just use the latest version of the Panzer IV which would have been enough to adequately deal with most US and British armour deployed in Italy or France.
I think von Bayerlein said the Panther is too wide and too high.