I don't think it is fair to compare German 45 tons Pz.V Panther with Russian 31 tons T-34/76 Model 43. By Soviet standards Pz.V was heavy and Pz.VI Tiger was super heavy armored vehicles. It would be more accurate to compare Panther with Russian IS-2(JS-2) and/or T-34 with German Pz.IV. The latter comparison would be more interesting since there are several different modifications of the each tank had been built during conflict from the begging and to the very end.

It is arguable should Germans focus on Pz.IV mass production and further improvements rather than rushing newer Panthers into the battle. From the middle of 1942 Pz.IVF2 was at least a match for the T-34 and with a better tank crew training it definitely gives Germans an advantage over the Soviets on the battlefield at the equal numerical opposition. On the other hand newer heavies and super heavies placed an immense strain on logistics. Moreover, once a Panther or Tiger had been committed for the counter strike far ahead of the support and repair echelons, the chances of recovery if it broke down or was damaged were less than reasonable. On another side from the middle 1943 Russians assured of a constant general advance which could guarantee the recovery of their tanks within normal operational circumstances.

One-on-one somewhere in the open step of South Ukraine Panther would be a deadly opponent for T-34 considering its tremendous firepower, excellent crew training and front armor protection. However, operating among wooden area and small villages Panther could be easily ambushed or outmaneuvered by experienced T-34 crew with a good chance of success. I truly believed that accurate comparison of one battle tank with another should be made considering multiple parameters: fire power, armor protection, mobility, reliability, suitability for the mass production and quick repair of the damaged machines within the primitive conditions. By looking on the subject under such perspective T-34 would be easily considered the best tank of WWII overall. Yes, Panther had much better firepower, King Tiger had much better armor protection, Sherman was much more technological, but combination of them is what makes real difference!

On a page 63 it could be proposed slightly different continuation of T-34 engagement sequence against a Panther: ...Commander sees a brief spark as his second round strikes the Panther's gun mantlet and ricochets into the roof of the hull penetrating the thin armor, killing the driver and causing a fire. The fire was quickly localized, however the crew has to abandon the damaged armor vehicle and retreat respecting Russian massive tank attack. The Panther needs to be destroyed by the crew using special internal explosive charge. Such "ricochets" German crews discovered unfortunately for themselves only during the initial battle engagements. This serious problem in the design was addressed with introduction of the "beard" in the latter more reliable and probably the best version of the Pz.V, Panther G.

On the front cover of the book there is an art work of Russian T-34/76 (Model 43) medium tank without a commander's cupola that was very common in the 1943 model and with auxiliary detachable fuel tanks on sides of the hull for the extensive range. By the summer of 1943 when the T-34 and Panther finally met on the battlefield almost all T-34s were finally granted a command hatch (as described in the book) and it was very risky to go into the battle with spare fuel tanks aside unless Russians were caught by surprise. Again, on a page 34 there is a drawing of T-34/76 Model 41 instead of Model 43 lacking a modified hexagonal turret with commander's cupola.

I don't think it is fair to compare German 45 tons Pz.V Panther with Russian 31 tons T-34/76 Model 43. By Soviet standards Pz.V was heavy and Pz.VI Tiger was super heavy armored vehicles. It would be more accurate to compare Panther with Russian IS-2(JS-2) and/or T-34 with German Pz.IV. The latter comparison would be more interesting since there are several different modifications of the each tank had been built during conflict from the begging and to the very end.

It is arguable should Germans focus on Pz.IV mass production and further improvements rather than rushing newer Panthers into the battle. From middle of 1942 Pz.IVF2 was at least a match for the T-34 and with a better tank crew training it definitely gives Germans an advantage over the Soviets on the battlefield at the equal numerical opposition. On another hand newer heavies and super heavies placed an immense strain on logistics. Moreover, once a Panther or Tiger had been committed for the counter stroke far ahead of the support and repair echelons, the chances of recovery if it broke down or was damaged were less than reasonable. On another side from middle 1943 Russians assured of a constant general advance which could guarantee the recovery of their tanks within normal operational circumstances.

One-on-one somewhere in the open step of South Ukraine Panther would be a deadly opponent for T-34 considering its tremendous firepower, excellent crew training and front armor protection. However, operating among wooden area and small villages Panther could be easily ambushed or outmaneuvered by experienced T-34 crew with a good chance of success! I truly believed that accurate comparison of one battle tank with another should be made considering multiple parameters: fire power, armor protection, mobility, reliability, suitability for the mass production and quick repair of the damaged machines within the primitive conditions. By looking on the subject under such perspective T-34 would be easily consider the best tank of WW II overall. Yes, Panther had much better firepower, King Tiger had much better armor protection, Sherman was much more technological, but combination that what makes real difference!

On a page 63 it could be proposed slightly different continuation of T-34 engagement sequence against a Panther: "...Commander sees a brief spark as his second round strikes the Panther's gun mantlet and ricochets into the roof of the hull penetrating the thin armor, killing the driver and causing the fire. The fire was quickly localized, however the crew has to abandon damaged armor vehicle and retreat respecting Russian massive tank attack. Panther needs to be destroyed by the crew using special internal explosive charge." Such "ricochets" German crews discovered unfortunately for themselves only during the initial battle engagements. This serious problem in the design was addressed with introduction of the "beard" in the latter more reliable and probably the best version of the Pz.V, Panther G.

On the front cover of the book there is an art work of Russian T-34/76 (Model 43) medium tank without a commander's cupola that was very common in 1943 model and with auxiliary detachable fuel tanks on sides of the hull for the extensive range. By summer of 1943 when actually T-34 and Panther finally met on the battlefield almost all T-34 were finally granted a command hatch (as described in the book) and it was very risky to go into the battle with spare fuel tanks aside unless Russians were caught by surprise. Again, on a page 34 there is a drawing of T-34/76 Model 41 instead of Model 43 lacking a modified hexagonal turret with commander's cupola.

Robert Forczyk did a very good job with Panther vs T-34. Easy reading, with just enough technical information to make this book worth reading.
I have enjoyed all the Osprey books on Tank vs Tank series. Other's in the series are Panther vs Sherman, and Sherman Firefly vs Tiger.

My father was the radio-operator in a Panther tank during 1943 untill the end of the war. He has engaged many T-34's in battle and he stated that ONLY through sheer numbers they lost it from the T-34. The turret of the T-34 had to be turned by hand instead of mechanical power with the Panther. The Panther had, as already stated, much more firepower to destroy the T-34 on greater range than the other way round. T-34 lacked radio communication in the beginning of their apperance (later they had radio) and the crew had not sufficient training in combat, therefore loosing many T-34.s and crew. Look at the numbers of T-34's the Russions lost in comparison with the amount of Panthers. My father was engaged at the battle of Maciecow in Polland and there they shot 125 T-34's with their division, without losing ONE single Panther. Read the book he participated in: Standartenführer Johan Mühlenkampf and you can hear his own account. The T-34 lost the battle with the Panther if they were 1 on 1 anytime. Yeah, they should have used diesel engines, but mobility itself doesn't make a tank the better one of the two. I agree with; Good book, incorrect outcome

I found the author's premise thought provoking and interesting, but in the end, a bit hollow. He contends that the Panther was a failed design when compared to the basic T-34, and therefore a waste of resources that the Third Reich could ill afford.

So the Panther was not "the best tank of WWII". Fair enough. But to make the book more interesting for WWII wonks, Mr. Forczyk could have discussed potential alternatives available to the German military in lieu of the Panther. Just a few more pages on this issue would have been fun.

He also seems to give short shrift to the fact that the German armored forces' qualitative advantages in training, radios, guns, and gun sights througout 1943 led to significant losses in the ranks of the Red Army which could have been avoided had the Soviets upgraded to the T-35/85 six months earlier. Given the number of tanks the Soviet Union built in 1944, it's difficult to believe that an earlier upgrade would have appreciably slowed overall production.

Very good book. However, the Panther's achilles heal was actually the thickness of her side armor(50mm). Her mechanical problems were remedied soon after the battle of Kursk. But whatever she may have given up in armor,her powerful KwK/42 (L/70) 7.5cm main gun more than made up for it. This gun actually had more penetrating power than the main gun on the Tiger I . The Panther could engage and destroy frontal plate armor on all T-34 versions at 2,000 meters while the Soviet counterpart had to get to 500 meters to do the same to the Panther. It was the combined tactics of the Soviets to outnumber the Panzers five and six to one and then "get in close" regardless of losses that ultimately doomed the Panther and all the great german tanks . This is an advantage in numerical superiority and not mechanical superiority. One on One, the Panther was the most deadly tank of WWII. I would respectfully disagree with the outcome of the Author.

"Panther vs. T-34" gives readers the story of the epic showdown between two legendary tanks. The Russian T-34 met the German panther for the first time in the brutal battles in Southern Russia and the Ukraine. By the end of 1943, the flawed but powerful panthers had destroyed droves of Soviet tanks, but ultimately Soviet strenght prevailed. The book is thin, but contains quite a bit of information in a very readable form. The production of the vechicles is described as are the armored battles in which they faced each other. Additional features include brief descriptions of tank commanders and two interesting computer generated images of the tanks targeting one another. The book has numerous photos of the vechicles, including some I haven't noticed in other books. There is only one piece of artwork depicting an engagement, but it is very well done (much more detailed than the one featured in the "Duel" book featuring the firefly and tiger I). Overall, I recommend it to anyone interested in World War II armored vechiles or the epic tragedy called the Eastern Front.

I don't like very much the book because I expected more tecnical data bettwen these two AFV's

An excellent overview of both machines in 1943. I was quite impressed with the quality of the writing & art work. What impressed me even further was the inclusion of a bibliography. Many Osprey titles suffer from the lack of one; which leads the reader to wonder where the author got his information. Not this one though, Dr.Forczyk has obviously researched his subject carefully.

A must for anyone interested in the history of these two AFVs.

Robert Forczyk's PANTHER VS. T-34: UKRAINE 1943 is a pick for any military library focusing on equipment and action. A blend of first-person perspectives and digital artwork chart the progress of the two greatest tanks of World War II. Three new to the `Warrior' imprint are picks for military libraries specializing in early combat history.

This thin volume, containing a mere 73 pages of text, is a mini-encylopedia of information, insight, and analysis on these two feared weapons of World War II: the German Panther and Soviet T-34 tanks.

The book provides an excellent (if not unparalleled for a book of this size and cost) review of the design, development, strengths, and flaws of each of these fighting vehicles. It discloses the politics (as well as the favoritism and nepotism) that hindered the design and development of each vehicle, with the result that both were initially knowingly sent into battle with major weaknesses. (Indeed, the Panzers were sent to the front despite the refusal of Heinz Guderian, Inspector for Panzer Troops, to certify them as combat ready. Guderian was over-ridden by a Nazi bureaucrat working under Speer who was anxious to please Hitler and had promised Hitler that Panzers in sufficient numbers would be available for Operation Citadel (the attack on the Kursk salient) by May 1943. Despite this promise, the attack was repeatedly delayed while the Panzers (and Tigers) underwent further testing and refinement until Hitler finally ordered that Operation Citadel would begin on July 5th no matter what.)

The book also ably discusses in detail the specifications for each tank during the period covered (June-December 1943), with excellent line drawings of the main guns (75 mm for the Panther, 76mm for the T-34), and additional drawings of each vehicle from one side, the front, and the rear. (There are no drawings of the interiors of either vehicle, but there are some interesting ones of the views offered to the gunner of the Panther and the commander/gunner of the T-34 as he looked through the sights of his gun, as well as a two-page spread of a battle scene between these tanks from the German point of view.) An interesting chapter on the training of the crews for each tank is also included.

A third of the book contains a well-written discussion and analysis of five major engagements between these two vehicles in 1943, including Kursk and Kharkov, that includes first-hand perspectives of veterans of the conflicts.

All in all, an engaging and well-written look at these two fighting machines, one in its infancy and the other in its prime (at least until the advent of the Panther). The Panthers had a far greater kill ratio over the T-34s but the Panthers were far less reliable mechanically and far less mobile than the T-34s. (The Germans lost far more Panthers to mechanical breakdowns and hasty retreats than they did in actual combat as Hitler had a standing order to destroy any Panthers that might fall into enemy hands.) In the last six months of 1943 the Soviets could build 1,300 T-34s a month, while the Germans could only produce 200 Panthers a month in the same period. (I.e., for each Panzer the Germans built, the Soviets were able to build more than six T-34s in the same amount of time.)