Panther or Tiger

[Sublime]

Yeah, it's just like with them girlies, I reckon..

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

So true. Just like airplanes. Lotsa people think the Phantom II was ugly. Me? Not so much, I think it looks mean like a fighter should.

[Sgt Schultz]

In my experiences to date, Tiger and King Tigers have more nooks and crannies to catch AP rounds than the Panther. That sloped glacis and thick gun mantlet, coupled with uber-optics and a high-velocity cannon, make the Panther(VAlate) my favorite all-around choice.

TigerI may penetrate a target, but Panther will punch through into other things, hills, counties...

[Seedorf81]

Maybe there are people who know something about crewsurvivalpercentages in regard to WW2tanks? Or where to find such info?

I've got this unsubstantiated feeling that being in a Tiger I gave the crew a better survivalchance than most other tanks. Could that be true?

[Seedorf81]

So true. Just like airplanes. Lotsa people think the Phantom II was ugly. Me? Not so much, I think it looks mean like a fighter should.

There you go! I really love the P47 Thunderbolt (and the F-15 Eagle), but a lot of others will say they're awful to look at, and choose something like the P-51 (rather a plain plane in my view) as their favorite.

Good thing to differ.

[Sublime]

I personally also like the P38. I always like A10s too. heh.

[BLSTK]

Vanir Ausf B or MikeyD,

What about a king tiger vs a tiger or panther? I know little about the advantages of this behemoth in comparison to the tiger or panther? However, I imagine that the king tiger has the side and front turret armor of a tiger as well as the long range 88mm tiger gun combined with the front hull sloped armor of a panther (i.e. the king tiger is, as Mylie Cyrus put it once 'the best of both worlds' when comparing it to the tiger and panther). Is this accurate or am I way off in assuming this?

Also, how's the off-road performance in-game of the king tiger?

Undoubtedly the first - and hopefully last - reference to Billy Ray's kin on this forum. No need to lower the bar any further.

[BLSTK]

Oh, and back to the thread. My vote goes to the ever-versatile Panther.

[agusto]

Maybe there are people who know something about crewsurvivalpercentages in regard to WW2tanks? Or where to find such info?

I've got this unsubstantiated feeling that being in a Tiger I gave the crew a better survivalchance than most other tanks. Could that be true?

In 1942 and 43, i think that could be true. The allies in North Afrika had almost nothing that could threaten the Tiger I, and the combat ranges in the desert were probably very long, so to the Tigers advantage.

In Russia '42 and '43 the T34-76 varaints were not able to penetrate the Tigers frontal armor and needed to be within 100m meters to penetrate the sides. The Su 122 also was unable to effectively fight the Tiger afaik.

In the later stages of the war (1944-45) both western allies and the USSR had developed weapons to effectively counter the german heavies, so the surviveability of Tiger crews was probably not that much better than the surviveability of Panzer IV or Pnzer V crews.

[Silkwraith]

'Do you know about Tiger-1 repairability? He was very heavy, always have problem with transmission and running gear. It was very difficult to evacuate this monster form field if your tank was damaged(needs 2 tractors and 1 Pz4 tank), it was very difficult to repair tracks on field (need loading crane), it was very difficult to transfer Tiger battalion, because to transport Tiger you need special railway platforms and you need change battle tracks on transport tracks and take off outward rollers, for this you need 48 hours. Tiger was nightmare for German surround services))) Panther was better but with similar problems, Germans have no time to fix all bugs in Panther. Germans should be build more Pz4 tanks and don't waste time and money on Tigers.'

Railway tracks in Russia differred from those in Europe - this posed a difficulty to the germans on a much wider scale.

'I don't remember any successful offensive operation with Tiger.'

My god ...the first time they appeared - Kasserine Pass

Get your history books out matey

[baron Jacquinot]

Michael Wittman did the offensive action in a Tiger, at Villers Bocage.

It was not offensive operation, just little advance of few tanks and they catch Britons in ambush before advance.

[RT North Dakota]

Yeah, it's just like with them girlies, I reckon..

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

So there is no objective science and empirical evidence to military equipment? I think plastic modellers are all about looks and feel, but military science can tell which are bad tanks/planes and which were good/good enough.

[baron Jacquinot]

'Do you know about Tiger-1 repairability? He was very heavy, always have problem with transmission and running gear. It was very difficult to evacuate this monster form field if your tank was damaged(needs 2 tractors and 1 Pz4 tank), it was very difficult to repair tracks on field (need loading crane), it was very difficult to transfer Tiger battalion, because to transport Tiger you need special railway platforms and you need change battle tracks on transport tracks and take off outward rollers, for this you need 48 hours. Tiger was nightmare for German surround services))) Panther was better but with similar problems, Germans have no time to fix all bugs in Panther. Germans should be build more Pz4 tanks and don't waste time and money on Tigers.'

Railway tracks in Russia differred from those in Europe - this posed a difficulty to the germans on a much wider scale.

'I don't remember any successful offensive operation with Tiger.'

My god ...the first time they appeared - Kasserine Pass

Get your history books out matey

1) Thanks God that Russia have differed railway tracks.

2) First time Tigers was appeared under Leningrad,

21 September 1942 1 company of sPz.Abt. 502 was given to 170 Infantry Division. The following day, the Tigers went to the attack. Moving single file along a narrow road, German tanks came under Soviet anti-tank artillery flank fire. One Tiger was destroyed and three others stayed due to breakdowns. These machines seems to be broken, for technical reasons, they was evacuated , and the fourth tank remained in no man's land, where it has stood for nearly a month. Then on the personal order of Hitler it was destroyed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It was only a medium sized battle. I had a panzergrenadier company and a pair of tigers. The map was fairly open so I plonked them on overwatch in hull/partial hull down positions. Both got taken out at 500 - 600m frontally by 76 shermans.

At 500m US 76mm will penetrate the Tiger most of the time except on the mantlet, which can be penetrated only occasionally at that range. The front hull will resist penetration well at a oblique angle, ~30°, but the TacAI tends to square up to enemy units.

[Silkwraith]

2) First time Tigers was appeared under Leningrad,

You asked for the first offensive - Kasserine Pass.

They appeared first in Leningrad (unfinished) but they where offensively used in capable numbers in Kasserine Pass

[baron Jacquinot]

2) First time Tigers was appeared under Leningrad,

You asked for the first offensive - Kasserine Pass.

They appeared first in Leningrad (unfinished) but they where offensively used in capable numbers in Kasserine Pass

But it was local success, Rommel go forward just on 20 miles, and after 8 days was pushed back by 6 British division.

[Silkwraith]

KILL CHART:

Otto Carius 150+

Walter Shroif 160+

Kurt Krispel 168+

Joannes Bolter 139+

Michael Wittman 138+

Many Tiger Units achieved an average kill ration of 10:1 some others even rated at 14:1 -although this was not enouph to match allied production.

I dont recall any tank commanders reaching that level of supremacy on the battlefield against the german army.

[winkelried]

maybe to give this discussion another direction (to compare the tanks I use the LOS armour which is calculated as LOS = armour / COS(slope angle))

Concepts

Conceptually the Tiger I (Sd.Kfz. 181) was an up-armoured and up-gunned Pz. III/IV tank. The idea for a heavy tank like the Tiger I dated back to the concept of the Durchbruchswagen (breakthrough tank) in 1938. Development went then through different phases (one could count VK.6501, VK.3001(H), VK.3601, VK4501(P) amongst those) until it reached a point when serial production of the new tank started in August 1942. The armour design for the new tank differed only marginally from the design of Pz.III/IV (e.g. almost vertical armour plate for the driver) and e.g. the KV-1 - the main difference was the thickness of the armour all around. The tank had wider tracks and a new wheel design - and naturally a heavier weapon the 88-mm-KwK 36 L/56. By 1944 the Tiger I was – to some extent – obsolete.

The Panther Sd.Kfz. 171 (in contrast to the Tiger I) was a completely new design for a medium tank based on the experience with the T-34. Conceptually it was based on an excellent gun, strong frontal armour (where most of the engagements would take place) and relatively high mobility with the compromise of limited side armour to keep weight low (still reached 45 t). It fielded sloped frontal armour which increased the frontal LOS armour by almost a factor of 2 (in addition to the effects on deflection). The side LOS armour of the hull didn’t differ significantly from the Tiger I and the Tiger II (despite all rumours) – the side armour of the turret was weaker than Tiger I and II, but still significantly stronger than the Pz IV. This concept influenced a lot of post war tanks and is still implemented today.

The Tiger II (Sd.Kfz. 182) was the replacement for the heavy Tiger I, but was a new design based on the concepts of the Panther – not an evolution of the Tiger I, but of the Panther – and developed in parallel with the (later cancelled) Panther II. It made a big jump again in the frontal armour. The side armour didn’t differ significantly from the Panther (hull) and the Tiger I (hull & turret).

Operational Use

Both Tigers were used almost exclusively as heavy tanks in the schwere Panzerabteilungen of Heer and SS (some Tiger companies in specific divisions as an exception) and were used for the “Schwerpunktbildung” and usually attached to Corps, Army or even Army Group level.

The Panther was designated to become the successor of the Panzer IV in the armored formations – a plan which could not be executed due to production issues (tooling/refurbishing of production lines?). This “mass”-deployment came to the surprise of the U.S. forces in Normandy which assumed, after the experience in Italy where Panthers showed up only in small numbers, that the deployment of the Panther would be just like the Tiger.

Comparison Tables

I did two comparison tables for LOS armour where you can see the difference between the German tank types (LOS F = frontal LOS armour, LOS S = side, LOS R = rear):

In this graph you see, that the LOS side armour does not differ significantly for the German tanks. I would not be surprised to see similar results for other nations. On the other hand, you see the jump frontal armour makes with the introduction of sloped armour with the Panther and later the Tiger II.

In turret armour the difference between the heavy tanks and the medium tanks is most obvious. Here both Tiger I and II offer more protection than Panther or Pz. IV/III - but the Panther still is significantly better than Pz IV/III.

Various

The production cost of a Panther was not significantly higher than a Pz. IV. The Tiger I roughly the double of the Pz. IV.

The issues with clutches and transmissions were common to most of the tanks in WW2 (e.g. it seems that each T-34 was shipped with spare clutches and transmissions from the factory!) and grew even more important with the weight of the tank (e.g. KV-2, Tiger, …).

[winkelried]

KILL CHART:

...

I dont recall any tank commanders reaching that level of supremacy on the battlefield against the german army.

Here the statistics for the schwere Panzerabteilungen

Einsatzstatistik

Verluste im Kampf = combat losses

Selbstzerstörung = destroyed by crew

Sonstige Verluste = other losses

Gesamtverluste = total losses

Feind-Abschüsse = kills

Kill/Loss-Ratio Kampf = K/L-Ratio combat

Kill/Loss-Ratio Gesamt = K/L-Ratio total

[baron Jacquinot]

KILL CHART:

Otto Carius 150+

Walter Shroif 160+

Kurt Krispel 168+

Joannes Bolter 139+

Michael Wittman 138+

Many Tiger Units achieved an average kill ration of 10:1 some others even rated at 14:1 -although this was not enouph to match allied production.

I dont recall any tank commanders reaching that level of supremacy on the battlefield against the german army.

This is Doctor Gebbels propaganda I think. How we can check this score?

[winkelried]

This is Doctor Gebbels propaganda I think. How we can check this score?

a bit too simplistic but a good try

even with a bit of overstatement the kill-ratios sound ok when looking at the total kill-ratios and the reports of the western allies - i am sure that there are some interesting figures available in soviet archives too.

[baron Jacquinot]

a bit too simplistic but a good try

even with a bit of overstatement the kill-ratios sound ok when looking at the total kill-ratios and the reports of the western allies - i am sure that there are some interesting figures available in soviet archives too.

Maybe truth in Soviet archives, because I don't trust to Germans, how they can do right calculation if they always retreat after summer 1943 and battle field was always keeped by red Army.

[Duckman]

Tiger units had above average personnel and often fought under quite favourable circumstances in 1943. Compare this to the Panther which was introduced later, had extensive teething problems and from at least late 1944 equipped quite a few below average units.

In other words, you have to look at statistics in perspective.

[Silkwraith]

This is Doctor Gebbels propaganda I think. How we can check this score?

When a person decides to call another names and ignores the subject in question - then certainly my ignore button starts blinking.

Pity, and, since I am a gentleman, I shall ignore what you are implying.

Follow what the scholarly Winkelried wrote and you would certainly get the figures you require.

[GLynn41]

about the Kill ratio according to Tigers on the eastern Front--the Russian said an average T-34 lasted about a week -- someone was shooting something

[winkelried]

You asked for the first offensive - Kasserine Pass.

Another offensive action is for example:

7. January 1943 attack of the s.Pz.Abt. 503 with II./Pz.Gren.Rgt. 128 attacked with 17 Tiger I (out of 20) and 20 Pz.III (out of 31). Successfully reached the assigned targets, destroyed 18 Soviet tanks against the loss of 1 Pz. III.

9. January Successful reduction of the Soviet bridgehead at Wessley. Destroyed 8 T-34 at the loss of 2 Tigers and 1 Pz III. All other Tigers except one had to go into repair due to AT fire damage

Between 16 and 20 February the s.Pz.Abt. 503 conducted several counter-attacks around Rostov. Destroyed 23 T-34 and 11 AT-guns at the loss of 1 Tiger.

During these operations the s.Pz.Abt. 503 destroyed 23.4 enemy tanks for the loss of each Tiger. They seem to have been very good to recover damaged tanks from the battlefield as the lost only one Tiger to self-destruction.