I should’ve just commented “Talking about all the logistical / mechanical issues of the Panther in 3-2-1” because boy did i see this coming…

What are you saying OP that Roseluck isn’t still the best pony? Shame on you!

@TexasUberAlles  
@Background Pony #693B  
Ergonomically inefficient?
 
Come on, at least the Panther had a turret basket.

That’s one great tank, and also a Panther.
 
I wish I could find the source for a quote I saw once from an oldster who’d been a Panther commander on the way back from Moscow; it went something like “The Panther was a fine tank, as long as you didn’t have to ride in one, or repair or maintain one, or obtain the fuel for one, or command a platoon of them, or rely on there being a full platoon of them all in working order at the same time. Other than that, a very fine tank.” He went off in an interview about how he basically never fielded a full unit of them because they broke down so often, and the insides were so ridiculously cramped and crowded that his crews spent as much time fighting their own tanks as they did the Russians’.

@Background Pony #693B  
Looks like you need to have your faith restored.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkUkiZBWOlc

Bigger, but also falls apart when made to run father than a mile. Oh yeah, and it’s so ergonomically inefficient that the crew performs horribly. The Russians issued orders specifically to only use captured German tanks until they broke down, then abandon them. The RUSSIANS, the kleptomaniac hoarders who still have warehouses full of artillery from the Second World War stored away for a rainy day, refused to keep German tanks.
 
Wehraboos cry some more.

@Kowalskicore
 
The Panther is also older and slower and more prone to mechanical problems. Plus it’s far less comfortable and has less safety features (e.g., spring-loaded hatches, blow-out panels) than the Pershing.

@Kowalskicore  
And ladies love the compensator. Despite the connotations of the name.
 
(Yes, that was a phallic innuendo. Not sure if should spoiler this. Might as well play it safe)

Depends on what you mean.
 
Tank, yes  
Armour thickness, yes  
Gun caliber, no  
Barrle length, no

Il Duce Anchovy will turn you into pasta!

A bigger TARGET

@CyanLightning  
Honestly, I’m surprised no one else has. The restraint of you folks is admirable.

Nope, i just don’t wanted to put sex joke here.

@Mister Friendly  
Based on is a weird word in this case, because the kwk and Flak had very little in common beyond general mechanism. Even the recoil system was different.
 
In any case, it’s the shell that makes the diffrence. Different guns are just better tuned for different shells.

@Dangerous Amoeba  
Well, if you look back, the tiger’s 8.8cm was originally based on an AA flak cannon, so it makes sense. Though, to achieve an air kill in a tank is still damn impressive.

@Background Pony #5ABD  
M3 90mm was a 53 calibre length
 
There were three 73 calibre 90mms, all had the same balistics
 
T15E1: Very long single piece rounds. Used on the T26 E1-1 Super Pershing (the one that got the applique armour)Required external springs.
 
T15E2: Two piece rounds, still very unwieldy due to length of propellance casing. Used on T32 and the 25 T26E4 Super Pershings. More compact mount/recoil mechanism eliminated external springs.
 
T54: Return to one piece rounds, with shorter, fatter propellant casing. Mount further compact for more space. Used on single M26E1 vehicle. Uses single baffle muzzle brake, some photos with a bore evacuator as well.

M26 albiet with the wrong cannon, M3 90mm was a stubby thing or maybe the M26E1 with the T54 90mm? and Panther II with the KwK 43 (PaK cannons were the TD designation - different mounting stystem to the KwKs)
 
Ya’ll are welcome.

@Dangerous Amoeba  
Didn’t question that bit.

@Agent Tasmania  
The one that shot down a po-2, was a tiger 1 with l/56, The commander of that tank actually died this year. Otto Carius, May 27, 1922 - January 24, 2015. He wrote a book, called tigers in the mud.
 

@Dangerous Amoeba  
There were two 8.8cm tank guns, the L/56 from the Tiger I and the KwK 43 L/71 from the Tiger II, and (as PaK 43) the Ferdinand/Elefant and Jagdpanther. Which the Panther II would have used is unclear but most likely the KwK43, given the later Nazi tank design philosophy of MORE!

@PanzerschreckLeopard  
To be fair, the Panther II was designed to use the acht-acht, 8.8cm gun, The same as the Tiger. Plus it was uparmored and such.
 
It would have basically been a heavy tank, just with less armor thus more mobility. The 88 can take targets over impressive distances and could chew threw pretty much anything , there was even a case of a plane being shot down with a tigers 88.

@Mr. Bait  
Without the brackets.

@Dr_Robotpony  
….Actually I guess that’s pretty self evident now, isn’t it?

@Mr. Bait Or like
 
 

@Dr_Robotpony  
So like this?
 
!(http://robocraftgarage.com/media/build/original/101951/695d6b9cad3b9a6a5906f81ee1.jpeg)!