Author of subtitles, poster of video: Renhanxue
Hello everyone,
Renhaxue (well-known for his Swedish tank research) posted this amazing Swedish video, showing the trials and terrain passability of numerous vehicles, including the mighty Panther (and its famous terrain passability) and the Sherman. There are English subtitles, turn them on, unless you speak Swedish of course :)
First!!!
Hell…
To get trolled on and banned
Donkey and 113!
You forgot about lorrein ;)
It’s funny that in WoT it works quite the opposite, all my heavy tanks got problems overcoming even smallest obstacles, while all my light tanks can climb the hills like mountain goats :)
But i understand that this is for game play sake.
Excellent video. Oh, Panther, so sexy and well performing tank :-).
So basically the Sherman is awful at terrain.
Partly down to the US’s relative inexperience with designing tanks, but also because the VVSS/HVSS suspension system they used is pretty terrible.
Easy to manufacture, doesn’t intrude into the fighting compartment, reliable and very easy to repair/replace when damaged, but as far as actual performance goes its very poor.
The wheel travel is crap, they leave room for only few roadwheels to distribute the weight and by the nature of their design the front roadwheel always have to climb obstacles in its way rather than be dragged up them.
Excellent video! Thanks for sharing.
Yet another reason to be in a German Panter rather than Sherman in WWII
Poor Sherman… In the end, I was partly expecting for the Panther to put her out of her misery.
(Great video, thanks for sharing!)
well that depends on where and when :-). You Panther ass could be easily bombed due to the Allies air supremacy, but yes, tanks vs tanks, especially on the Eastern front (more open distances), very much so.
Oh… so You think Panther had it easy on the Eastern front? ;)
http://tankarchives.blogspot.fr/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html
Interesting video, thanks for sharing!
Panther forever!!! :-)
WG needs to take a look at its terrain resistance for German tanks again. According to this video the Sherman has worse terrain pass-ability than both the Churchill and the Panther. Once can assume that the Tiger would have similar if not better terrain pass-ability than the Sherman too.
dat music though
Very periodic, like in news reels.
Panther was considered to be a heavy by the sweeds? Romanians had it designated as a heavy as well.
Interesting video. I hope to see the tracks moving like that (2:44 onward) in the game as well.
And yet both Panther and Sherman are classed as mediums…?
Sherman performs here on par with a light :P
Now I see why the Muricans struggled in the Bocage…
(Perhaps Zaloga has a point when he classes Panther as the first main battle tank? Instead of heavy I mean; discussion further up)
A couple of points:
- what happened to the Churchill after the first bog test? Would have been interesting to see it more, since Brit tanks were supposed to be good climbers.
Also, why no gun in its turret(or did I just miss it)?
- I wonder how the T-34 would have performed in these tests?
- And what about the Czech export tank for Peru, made for mountainous terrain, I get that it would struggle to knock down trees and go over solid walls, but what about snow, bogs, steep slopes? Comparisons like these, cross-country (double meaning! :P ) is neat.
– Interesting to see that larger weight isn’t necessarily a draw-back in rugged terrain, but were is the limit; I suspect that for example Tiger II would struggle in some of these tests?
What about IS, Tiger I?
Sweden knew the panther was a medium tank but it was the heaviest tank in the trials so it was called a “heavy tank” even though its not.
I dont know what was up with the churchill but possibly it wasnt used more due to it not being a medium tank, anyhow it was a incomplete tank sold to sweden for testing.
Sweden didnt have access to any IS or T34 and only got a barely functional Tiger 2 in 1948 i think.
The Czech export tank for Peru is actually the Strv m/41-SII which is the swedish version of the Pz38t and was built under license in sweden, it differed quite a bit from the german version
didn’t the Tiger II break down during tests?
I would also like to see t34 there, but i think it would perform similar to Panther rather than Sherman. T34 got Christie suspension, with 5 wheels on each side, and tank weight of 32t (34-85 variant), compared to Panther that got more wheels, but much more weight. According to Wiki T34-85 got 0,85 km/cm pressure, dunno about the maximum, but other thing to remember is that T34 was a Soviet design, and all soviet designs needed to perform outstanding in rough terrain, and also be idiot prof, otherwise they would be useless in hands of soviet soldier, on soviet ground.
No one noticed that it’s a Firefly?
The longer barrel should have given it away I guess :P
That and the box on the bustle.
Dammit beat me to it.
I realy liked this one. Suprised the panther was this good, and that the sherman tanks where rubish. Now i wonder how the e8 would have done with wider rubber tracks
Nice video. (that’s all, stop reading my comment now)
I was beaten to it but the Sherman was a Firefly.
First thing I noticed was the box on back of turret, and the unusual muzzle brake.
The Sherman in the vid also had the VVSS suspension and thus had the 420mm wide tracks and not the 580mm wide tracks the HVSS equipped E8 used.
The Firefly Sherman has a Chrysler multi-bank that weighs almost 5300 pounds. A US Sherman would have a more powerful Ford GAA engine that weighs 1200 pounds. The later Shermans also would have HVSS suspension with 580mm tracks instead of the early war 420s. this changed their ground pressure from 13.5lbs to 11lbs. (I took the measurements from the same source… no one seems to use the same measurements so you can google it and come back with infinite different answers)
Also for snow or mud conditions they had Duckbill track attachments that added 2 inches a side to the track width.