"Slobbering German Freak"

[James Tainton]

I wonder what some the reactions may be to this "letter to the editor" from Cookie Sewell. It was in this months (vol.34 no. 13) Military Modelling

[Matt L]

Sounds like he's a GWMCOS- 'Guy With Monumental Chip On Shoulder' Instead of bolstering the position that US armor was better than people think, he chooses the rather weaker tactic of trying to trash the idea that German armor was excellent. I can see him just getting more and more annoyed that 'everyone' thinks German armor was so great. The whole thing's a silly argument anyway because 'best' is a completely subjective idea; it's totally dependent on what the claimant considers relevant parameters...

What the hell is a naif anyway?

Matt

[James Tainton]

What the hell is a naif anyway?

Matt

[DennisJMW]

Seems that he is indirectly attacking the person rather than the argument. It would be interesting to see the letter he was replying to in order to make a concrete judgement.

[James Tainton]

Seems that he is indirectly attacking the person rather than the argument. It would be interesting to see the letter he was replying to in order to make a concrete judgement.

Here are the other two items- My reason for posting this is to determine the accuracy of Mr. Sewell's facts.


and the original reveiw,

[Matt L]

Okay, now I'm really confused about Mr. GWMCOS's (aka Cookie Sewell) raving reply- in his original article ABOUT MODELS, he only mentions two issues with the Panther- non-interchangability of parts, and slow turret traverse- neither of which I've ever even heard of before. There are no complaints in print from former Panther crewmen or mechanics that I'm aware of on either issue. I would think that if these issues were so serious that they'd be mentioned quite regularly in anecdotes, but in fact, just as is the case with most machines, the users' opinions are for the most part quite high.

I was totally expecting Mr. Hone's letter to be a major trash-job of US armor vs. German armor or even have some kind of statement(s) that put German armor on an unrealisticly high pedestal, but he only addresses the issues mentioned by Sewell in a very mild-mannered, matter-or-fact fashion; he simply states a some facts that contradict Sewell's poorly referenced statements... hardly the response of a "Slobbering German Freak". It actually looks like it's Sewell who's an Slobbering Anti-German Freak.

Statistics and Specifications are all well-and-good for direct, strictly theoretical comparisons of capabilites, but but these should be considered in the context of actual, practical experience. It has long been my opinion that the best people to consult about how good or bad something is are the actual users because those whose lives depend on something are likely to be the most critical. This being the case, wouldn't you expect to hear a huge number of complaints or insults from those people if something were truly bad? Does anyone know of any major reporting of dissatisfaction with the turret traverse speed or the interchangibility of parts- or anything more than the underpowered engine (after the initial, granted numerous, design flaws were worked-out I mean)?

Just to answer your question James- I have never heard there were any parts problems with the Panther. I find thiw quite odd considering Sewell claims that Jentz says this; I don't recall anything about that in his book Germany's Panther Tank. If this were really a significant problem, I'd expect to have heard of lengthy repair delays and semi-functional equipment at the front, but as Mr. Hone states, German repair units seem to have been quite adept at keeping the majority of vehicles combat-ready. This should have been extremely difficult if not impossible if part fit was a problem. The turret traverse issue is also one I've never read any complaints about. As Mr. Hone correctly mentions, the Panther's 7,5cm Kw.K 42 L/70 had very similar performance to the Tiger's 8,8cm Kw.K. 36/L56 meaning that it had a very long reach. Targets could thus be engaged at long range and the longer the range, the smaller the angle change necessary to switch from one target to another. In such cases a slower power traverse wouldn't make much difference. Only at very close range would this be a problem- but I would think the drawback of slow turret traverse could be all but negated if the vehicle turns as well as the turret. All the Sturmgeschütze and Panzerjäger had virtually no gun traverse and relied mainly on moving the whole vehicle- and they fared quite well for themselves. Add the ability of a traverseing turret and I'd think a tank could acquire new targets even more quickly.

Sewell's conclusion that the Panther was not a very good tank is a perfect illustration of my first statement- that such a label is largely dependent on the point-of-view of the claimant. Here it sure looks like a case of sour grapes more than anything. Sewell seems to be quite annoyed that most people believe that the Panther was the best medium tank of the war, or even best overall, and it is for that reason, at least in part, that he has chosen to dislike the Panther.

Matt

[Generaldirektor]

I was just thinking, for me, the basic reason why the Germans lost to the Allies was due to "tank shortages". I think that the Germans had better tanks but considering their factories were interrupted by bombings, the production, quality and R&D activites were surely affected. Added to the fact that there almost was no time for tests, so in effect, the Germans suffered technical problems. But I think the "design & engineering" was excellent.

So with this, the Germans had good tanks in limited numbers versus virtually unlimited US and Russian tanks. No matter how many the Germans kill, it doesn't matter since there will always be a continuous flow of Allied armor. As said, quality didn't win with quantity.

Well, just a thought.

Jay

[DonC]

Just for the record - a "naif" is a polite way of saying "ignoramus", roughly. One other minor point - most of the pictures of "overturned" German and Allied tanks in Normandy, the Ardennes, etc are photos taken AFTER many of these damaged/destroyed/abandoned tanks had been bulldozed out of the way on roads. Just think of how many pictures show them overturned on the side of a steep road embankment - they overturned while being pushed aside. Not that it didn't happen, but these things weighed up to 60 tons!

Don

[cbo]

Just to answer your question James- I have never heard there were any parts problems with the Panther. I find thiw quite odd considering Sewell claims that Jentz says this; I don't recall anything about that in his book Germany's Panther Tank. If this were really a significant problem, I'd expect to have heard of lengthy repair delays and semi-functional equipment at the front, but as Mr. Hone states, German repair units seem to have been quite adept at keeping the majority of vehicles combat-ready.
This should have been extremely difficult if not impossible if part fit was a problem.

It is a rather silly discussion, that one, isn't it

I haven't heard about the "hand-built" quality of the Panther either but I'm somewhat puzzled at the statements with regards to the efficiency of the German repair units. Granted, there are reports that the maintenance personell did a good job, on the other hand the Panther also required highly skilled personell for repair and maintenance AFAIK.
What I find odd is how someone can claim that they were particularily efficient in getting their tanks back on the road. In order to find that out, you'd have to have acces to reports about the repair of individual vehicles and I doubt there are many of those around (though they would be very interesting to see!). Looking at some data for operational tanks vs those under repair for units in Normandy, it seems to me that many German units often experienced a massive drop in operational strength once they entered combat and often had half their vehicles in short-term repair and some in long term repair as well. It could be, that they just had a high turn around, suggesting effectiveness, or it could mean that they had a hard time bringing up the numbers between battles, which could suggest any number of things (maintanance being a bunch of slops, lack of spares, lack of tools and equipment etc.).
I just dont see the same thing Mr. Hone does when looking at those numbers from Normandy, nor do I see how they can be used to estimate the efficiency of German maintenance personell. So perhaps we have here an example of "SGF"

The turret traverse issue is also one I've never read any complaints about.

The traverse of the Tiger I and Panther D were slow, no doubt about that, but the Panther Ausf. A onwards got another, much faster system which was just as fast as any other, even if it required a skilled crew to coordinate it for maximum efficiency. Speed was dependent on engine RPM, speed setting on the hydraulic motor and the gunners regulator, but once all was coordinated, it was very fast!
But it appears that many allied tankers thought it slow compared with their own mounts, leading to the myth that Panthers (and German tanks in general) had "hand-cranked turrets", a statement that you often see in memoirs and such. I suspect the reason was not traverse speed as such but rather a comparatively slow target aquisition process, particularily if the Panther crew was not well schooled in the finer points of Panther operation. The problem was that the Panther gunner was practically blind, having only a very narrow view of the world through his telescopic sight. That meant it was up to the commander to guide the gunner very precisely on to the target. It probably also meant that the gunner had to traverse the turret slowly (probably using the hand-crank for precision laying) once he had a ball-park bearing on the target. This process was reported as being much faster in the Sherman because the gunner had a much wider field of view due to his periscope and because the Shermans powered turret traverse was much easier to use.
So I can see how Sherman tankers would get the impression, that the Panther had a slow traverse. But the scenario mentioned by the editor to Mr. Hones letter where a Panther finds five Shermans on its tail is a non-starter. Here, the Panther Ausf. A-G gunner could bring his gun around from front to rear very fast. Though he would probably be better off getting the hell out of there

As for StuGs and such, they used different tactics and occupied a different role from tanks and combat reports suggest that if they were deployed as tanks, they could easily get into trouble due to their lack of a turret. But you are right that if the engagment was a long ranges, turret traverse speed was not much of a problem. On the other hand, it is in the nature of WWII tank combat that tanks often ended up fighting the enemy - whether he was another tank, a gun or infantry - at uncomfortably close ranges. Here, fast turret traverse (and target aquisition for that matter) would've been a blessing.

Sewell's conclusion that the Panther was not a very good tank is a perfect illustration of my first statement- that such a label is largely dependent on the point-of-view of the claimant. Here it sure looks like a case of sour grapes more than anything. Sewell seems to be quite annoyed that most people believe that the Panther was the best medium tank of the war, or even best overall, and it is for that reason, at least in part, that he has chosen to dislike the Panther.

Could be that Sewell takes out his anger at those SGF'ers on the poor Panther .
I think we all know what people he is talking about when referring to SGF'ers, it certainly rings a bell for me, but that is no reason to transfer the blame for their sillyness to the object of their desires.

FWIW I think the Panther causes so much argument is because it is an enigma: In tactical mobility, firepower and to some degree protection, it was a very powerfull vehicle. In terms of operational and strategic mobility (which were of decisive importance to the Soviets and the Western allies) it was not so good (I've read veterans accounts about how they preferred to load their Panthers on railcars for any movement beyond 20km), the reliability started out as utterly horrible, moved on to bad and ended up as below average due to some basic design flaws and a difficult rawmaterial situation. It had some brilliant design features and others which were just plain dumb (why did they bother tacking on a final-drive breaking clutch-&-brake steering onto the otherwise brilliantly simple steering system?) or needlessly complicated (the powered turret traverse was kinda silly) and a certain element of over-engineering (even though the double-torsion bar suspension and interleaved roadwheels gave magnificent performance, it was really over the top).

As for memoirs from crewmembers, I get the impression, that the goods and bads of their tanks were often not that much of an issue unless it was really horrible or a daily nuissance. While you can use their comments when they adress certain issues directly, I think it is a fallacy to assume that just because no one complains in their memoirs, there was no issue. That is called "arguing from the silence of the sources" which is a definate no-no in historical research.

Claus B

[Matt L]

I'm somewhat puzzled at the statements with regards to the efficiency of the German repair units.

Whoops, okay my statement about how adept German repair sections were at getting machines back into service is definitely incorrect- I should have written 'keeping the maximum number of machines possible combat-ready' not the 'majority'. My mistake. Certainly large numbers of machines were always under repair of one kind or another, but I have never read of vehicles remaining unservicable simply because parts didn't fit. On the contrary, one can often read of badly damaged machines being cannibalized for parts to get others back into action.

But it appears that many allied tankers thought it slow compared with their own mounts

Indeed, this illustrates my point about the subjectivity of 'good' and 'bad'. For something to truly be 'bad' I'd expect a universal feeling, but as I wrote, I've never read of a Panther crew complaining abou this issue.

Could be that Sewell takes out his anger at those SGF'ers on the poor Panther .

Hear that something is 'so awesome' enought times if you don't agree, it's easy to just snap and take the equally excessive 'no, it SUCKS' position like Sewell did. Often there is insufficient evidence to support either

It certainly would be good if everyone practiced a little more moderation in their opinions because things are rarely starkly clear or sharply one way or another. In the example of German tanks one can definitely say they had some very good points, but they did also have some rather bad points too. One might LIKE them a lot, but it's fallicious to say that they were far superior to any others.

I think the Panther causes so much argument is because it is an enigma:

Absolutely- that's the best way I've heard why the 'pro-' and 'anti-' Panther positions can be so VERY far apart at times explained. The poor Panther

I think it is a fallacy to assume that just because no one complains in their memoirs, there was no issue. That is called "arguing from the silence of the sources" which is a definate no-no in historical research.

Well yes, of course- lack of evidence is never evidence of a lack; we were commenting on issues described as being quite significant and I was simply saying the same thing that you did: that I'd have expected to have read of an issue were that the case- not that there was no issue.

Matt

[derspiess63]

Beaver Rules!!!!

[Marc Garlasco]

I was watching "TYCOON TOYS - TANKS!" on Discovery Channel and there is a guy restoring a Panther...

[SJP]

It is easy to recite instances like Mr Sowell.He cannot accept the fact that the Tiger&Panther were superior Allied armor despite all the noted short comings.I am sure there wasnt alot to learn from captured "General Lee" "Churchill","Matilda" tanks.With allied air superiority the Wehrmacht was still able to move its Panzer Divisions by rail almost till the end of the war.The fact remains ,the panzer divisions did so much with so little.Cheers Steve

[James Tainton]

I was watching "TYCOON TOYS - TANKS!" on Discovery Channel and there is a guy restoring a Panther...

http://www.afvnews.ca/cgi-bin/web-bb....pl/read/58507

[JosefII]

i'm definately with you guys.

From what a gather this was a topic of which was the best tank? To mitigate the german armour he instead talks about the logistics problems they had, the poor training of troops and poor field tactics, the poor quailty of the armour and finally, i love this, how little big guns and armor matter when a bomb is dropped on them.

well duh.

Not entirely objective is he? I love the snide "who won the war" remark too. nice touch.

I think if you are going to criticise *the design*, it must be done in isolation. The poor materials used because of its use late in the war doesn't count - nor the precarious positions it was placed in by its crew, or the fact that allied air superioity nailed them from the sky. On this criterea, perhaps only the engine/transmission and its underpowered nature can be critised. Perhaps even the "soft spots" in its armor which he did touch on (but this didn't entirely discredit the tank, since any decision to place the thicker armour is a give and take pro/con situation)

In short, he outlined Germany's weakness at the end of the war co-inciding when these were coming out, more than outlining the inherent weaknesses of the vehicles. Also, as said here, he did nothing to contrast the percieved weaknesses of the german tanks with the strengths of any other tank.

Wonder why he made no mention of the Kursk tank-battle if he wanted to rip the panther a new one?