Panther or Tiger

[$Pec5]

Regardless of Tiger kill ratios, in game I like the Panther better than the Tiger

[baron Jacquinot]

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.

All this local operations, I mean global offensive operations like Citadel, where Tigers play a main role.

[winkelried]

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.

sure - i never trust statistics either - but you can check them. have a look at the total soviet tank losses in WW2 (after Krivosheev):

Total tank losses 83'500 (5'200 heavy, 44'900 medium, 33'400 light)

Total SPG losses 13'000 (2'300 heavy, 2'100 medium, 8'600 light)

whereas the Germans lost 29'415 tanks and SPGs between 1942 and January 1945 (loss figures for the rest of 45 are very patchy) on all fronts.

Now when we compare 1942 and 1943 where there was some action against the Western Allies, but the main fighting took place on the Eastern Front we can get the following figures (again from Krivosheev):

Total Losses 1942 Soviet - 15'000 ; German - 3'284 ; Kill-ratio 4.57 (all over)

Total Losses 1943 Soviet - 23'500 ; German - 9'549 ; Kill-ratio 2.45 (all over)

if you include the 1'276 German tanks/SPGs which were refitted in the factory you get 8'318 losses for 1943 with a kill-ratio of 2.83

now these figures include German losses on the Western front, so the total kill-ratio favours the soviets. Comparing this kill-ratio of 2.4-2.8 with the average kill ratio of 6.3. for the Tiger battallions makes the Tiger figure to seem realistic.

[winkelried]

All this local operations, I mean global offensive operations like Citadel, where Tigers play a main role.

Then you didn't understand, that the Tiger was never intended to play the main role.

First he was designed to be a breakthrough tank based on Guderian's concepts elaborated in the late 1920s/early 1930s.

Second it was then used to create a Schwerpunkt in a battle through the deployment of the schwere Panzerabteilung.

Third it never was deployed in numbers to play the main role. The main role was assigned to the standard medium tanks Pz. IV and Panther as they formed the core of all operations.

[Silkwraith]

First he was designed to be a breakthrough tank based on Guderian's concepts elaborated in the late 1920s/early 1930s.

Third it never was deployed in numbers to play the main role. The main role was assigned to the standard medium tanks Pz. IV and Panther as they formed the core of all operations.

EXACTLY

[winkelried]

All this local operations, I mean global offensive operations like Citadel, where Tigers play a main role.

Another figure - just 5% of the tanks deployed in Citadel by the Germans were Tigers ...

[winkelried]

Regardless of Tiger kill ratios, in game I like the Panther better than the Tiger

as i mentioned above in 1944 the Tiger was to some extent obsolete ...

[baron Jacquinot]

sure - i never trust statistics either - but you can check them. have a look at the total soviet tank losses in WW2 (after Krivosheev):

Total tank losses 83'500 (5'200 heavy, 44'900 medium, 33'400 light)

Total SPG losses 13'000 (2'300 heavy, 2'100 medium, 8'600 light)

whereas the Germans lost 29'415 tanks and SPGs between 1942 and January 1945 (loss figures for the rest of 45 are very patchy) on all fronts.

Now when we compare 1942 and 1943 where there was some action against the Western Allies, but the main fighting took place on the Eastern Front we can get the following figures (again from Krivosheev):

Total Losses 1942 Soviet - 15'000 ; German - 3'284 ; Kill-ratio 4.57 (all over)

Total Losses 1943 Soviet - 23'500 ; German - 9'549 ; Kill-ratio 2.45 (all over)

if you include the 1'276 German tanks/SPGs which were refitted in the factory you get 8'318 losses for 1943 with a kill-ratio of 2.83

now these figures include German losses on the Western front, so the total kill-ratio favours the soviets. Comparing this kill-ratio of 2.4-2.8 with the average kill ratio of 6.3. for the Tiger battallions makes the Tiger figure to seem realistic.

But how we will know how many was killed by Tigers and how many was killed by panzerfaust, panzershreks, AT guns, other German tanks, luftwaffe. Soviets use many tanks to storm towns, and if I remember Red Army have heavy loses at panzerfaust like a US and Britons.

[winkelried]

But how we will know how many kill Tigers and how many was killed by panzerfaust, panzershreks, AT guns, other German tanks, luftwaffe. Soviets use many tanks to storm towns, and if I remember Red Army have heavy loses at panzerfaust, and Alies too.

i waited for this one sure, but the statistics show also that the relationship between the different types of weapons used to kill a tank is more or less stable over time. i would have to dig a bit deeper, but you could e.g. deduct (on both sides) xx% for AT weapons and leave the rest for tank-on-tank losses. In the end you would get to the same kill-ratio.

[winkelried]

First he was designed to be a breakthrough tank based on Guderian's concepts elaborated in the late 1920s/early 1930s.

Third it never was deployed in numbers to play the main role. The main role was assigned to the standard medium tanks Pz. IV and Panther as they formed the core of all operations.

EXACTLY

e.g. the mission for s.Pz.Kp. 312 (Fkl.) (subordinated to s.Pz.Abt. 505) in operation Citadel was:

• conduct agressive reconaissance
  
• detect minefields
  
• clear lanes through these minefields
  
• destroy hard to overcome positions such as fortified anti-tank positions and super heavy tanks
  

ok - they also had their Borgward IV to do this - but IMHO a typical breakthrough assignment.

[Sgt Joch]

The Tiger was at its best when it was sitting on top of a hill with an unobstructed view so it could kill other tanks at long range.

Unfortunately, once the Allies figured that out, they stopped attacking Tigers from the front and just went around.

The typical way for the Soviets to deal with a Tiger was to pierce the front where the german armour was not and to drive deep behind the german lines. The Germans were then forced to retreat. Most Tigers I and II were detroyed by their own crews when they broke down, ran out of gas or were encircled.

CM style battles only you show you a small window into a tank's overall effectiveness.

[Duckman]

Sure - i never trust statistics either - but you can check them. have a look at the total soviet tank losses in WW2 (after Krivosheev):

Total tank losses 83'500 (5'200 heavy, 44'900 medium, 33'400 light)

Total SPG losses 13'000 (2'300 heavy, 2'100 medium, 8'600 light)

whereas the Germans lost 29'415 tanks and SPGs between 1942 and January 1945 (loss figures for the rest of 45 are very patchy) on all fronts.

What stands out to me is the horrendous amount of light tanks the Soviets lost. They presumably made up a lot of the ones destroyed during 1941.

The 2.45 ratio in 1943 is decent, all things considered, and probably comparable to the Western Allies.

[baron Jacquinot]

Then you didn't understand, that the Tiger was never intended to play the main role.

First he was designed to be a breakthrough tank based on Guderian's concepts elaborated in the late 1920s/early 1930s.

Second it was then used to create a Schwerpunkt in a battle through the deployment of the schwere Panzerabteilung.

Third it never was deployed in numbers to play the main role. The main role was assigned to the standard medium tanks Pz. IV and Panther as they formed the core of all operations.

OMG! Germans build this expansive machines not for main role?

And the breakthrough tank it is not main role you think?

"Third it never was deployed in numbers to play the main role" - that's a finale doctors' decision to Tiger.))))))))))))))))))

[winkelried]

What stands out to me is the horrendous amount of light tanks the Soviets lost. They presumably made up a lot of the ones destroyed during 1941.

Your observation is correct - here the figures for the Soviet losses in 1941 (same source): total losses 20'500 (900 heavy, 2'300 medium, 17'300 light).

What is interesting too, is that the main part of the SPG losses (11'800) in 1944 and 1945 were light SPGs (8'000) - probably built on chassis of the then obsolete light tanks - the losses of light tanks drop to 11% of the total losses in 1944 and to 3% in 1945.

[baron Jacquinot]

i waited for this one sure, but the statistics show also that the relationship between the different types of weapons used to kill a tank is more or less stable over time. i would have to dig a bit deeper, but you could e.g. deduct (on both sides) xx% for AT weapons and leave the rest for tank-on-tank losses. In the end you would get to the same kill-ratio.

I think to check German's tankman aces score need deep investigations. We need statistics of Soviet tank looses in town assaults especial in 1944.

[baron Jacquinot]

The Tiger was at its best when it was sitting on top of a hill with an unobstructed view so it could kill other tanks at long range.

Unfortunately, once the Allies figured that out, they stopped attacking Tigers from the front and just went around.

The typical way for the Soviets to deal with a Tiger was to pierce the front where the german armour was not and to drive deep behind the german lines. The Germans were then forced to retreat. Most Tigers I and II were detroyed by their own crews when they broke down, ran out of gas or were encircled.

CM style battles only you show you a small window into a tank's overall effectiveness.

Agree with you on 100%.

[winkelried]

OMG! Germans build this expansive machines not for main role?

too true.

And the breakthrough tank it is not main role you think?

no. it is an important, but limited role.

"Third it never was deployed in numbers to play the main role" - that's a finale doctors' decision to Tiger.))))))))))))))))))

yes. most of the time during Citadel the engaged Tiger battalions were not deployed accordingly to Guderian's doctrine and orders - the battalions were fed into the battle piecemeal as companies attached to Panzer divisions. When they were deployed as battalions they didn't meet the expectations as breakthrough formations although they did achieve good results in destroying enemy tanks.

During and shortly afterwards of the battle doctrine was adapted, since the after action reports showed that the use of the Tiger battalions as point elements did not achieve the results expected since it was realised, that if the unit could achieve the initial breakthrough it would not be available to the following decisive battle due to battle damage.

[winkelried]

I think to check German's tankman aces score need deep investigations. We need statistics of Soviet tank looses in town assaults especial in 1944.

sure you can bring them

[baron Jacquinot]

too true.

no. it is an important, but limited role.

yes. most of the time during Citadel the engaged Tiger battalions were not deployed accordingly to Guderian's doctrine and orders - the battalions were fed into the battle piecemeal as companies attached to Panzer divisions. When they were deployed as battalions they didn't meet the expectations as breakthrough formations although they did achieve good results in destroying enemy tanks.

During and shortly afterwards of the battle doctrine was adapted, since the after action reports showed that the use of the Tiger battalions as point elements did not achieve the results expected since it was realised, that if the unit could achieve the initial breakthrough it would not be available to the following decisive battle due to battle damage.

So, if Tigers not compare with Guderian's doctrine, can we say that Tigers was mistake of German's engineering thought, and give points to Panther?

[winkelried]

OMG! Germans build this expansive machines not for main role?

And the breakthrough tank it is not main role you think?

btw - that's probably the reason why the role of the heavy tank/breakthrough tank disappeared in favour of the main battle tank - which was more based on the concept of the designs of the Panther (and therefore of the T-34). the specialised tank like the Tiger just wasn't worth its money and effort.

[baron Jacquinot]

btw - that's probably the reason why the role of the heavy tank/breakthrough tank disappeared in favour of the main battle tank - which was more based on the concept of the designs of the Panther (and therefore of the T-34). the specialised tank like the Tiger just wasn't worth its money and effort.

Agree, 5 stars to Panther!))))))

[winkelried]

So, if Tigers not compare with Guderian's doctrine, can we say that Tigers was mistake of German's engineering thought, and give points to Panther?

That's not the conclusion - The Tiger battalions were rarely deployed by Guderian's doctrine. Where they were they underachieved in the way, that they had bigger losses (due to damage, not full losses) than expected - mainly due to AT assets (not tanks).

But later in the war they were deployed mostly like normal tanks. and there IMHO the two Panthers you could get for the cost of one Tiger would have achieved the same results (at least). Thus the development of the main battle tank (T-55, Leopard) after the war which can be used far more flexible.

[winkelried]

Agree, 5 stars to Panther!))))))

At least here we have agreement - Most of the time I play the Allies and with my tanks i fear the Panther much more than all the Tigers was already like this with CMx1 - BTW my first kill in a PBEM with CMBB was a Kingtiger i zapped with a T-34/85 flanking shot naturally :cool:

[Sublime]

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

Uh thats an offensive operation. Yes, maybe not a large scale one, but Wittman took the offensive, and went into Villers Bocage. Sucessfully pulled out too.

I think it's actually an excellent example of a Tiger's capabilities. Other battles are tainted by other factors, poor supply, transport, air interdiction, etc. Which really have nothing to do with the issue of how does the tank fight once it's on the battlefield, and if it has fuel and ammo.

You could argue the T34 or Sherman was a lousy tank because of the horrible loss rates, etc. but its not true, it's how they were used and many other factors. In fact, in 1941 I dont think T34s were used in almost any successful offensive actions, yet that didn't stop the Germans from seeing a great tank.

[Sgt Joch]

Villers-Bocage is interesting, but it is an outlier, one of the few battles where everything went right for the Tiger.

OTOH, the Firefly which was a lot cheaper to build also scored outstanding victories, like the CAN. firefly on june 7 which knocked out 6 panthers with 7 shots breaking the back of the German counterattack. Wittman himself was most likely killed by a CAN. Firefly during TOTALIZE.

On the other extreme of Tiger performance, you have a unit with 14 Tiger I's which drove from Rome to Anzio and back in may 1944 (about 120 km total) and lost 12 tanks to complete mechanical breakdown. That is basically one breakdown every 10 km on dry roads. 5 broke down on their own and were towed by other Tigers which then broke down under the strain. 4 were destroyed along the way because they could not be towed. 10 made it back, 2 operational and 8 to be repaired, these 8 were in turn destroyed when the Germans left Rome. So 12 out of 14 Tigers lost without even engaging the enemy.

From a cost-benefit ratio, it is hard to justify the Tiger as a good investment. In 39-42, the Germans and in 43-45, the Allies were able to advance even though their tanks were "inferior" to the enemy.