Capt. Toleran Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 I've noticed that in all of my PBEM games, my Tigers seem to severely underperform, while the Panthers shine in combat. For instance, my Tigers will regularly chicken out of a head on duel with a Churchill or Comet, and never seem to hit anything with any consisten degree of accuracy. Panthers, on the other hand, seem to do very well. Has anyone else had this experience? If so, is there any point to using a Tiger over a Panther? Perhaps I am using the Tiger in the wrong capacity. I don't know a terrible lot about WWII equipment, and I have noticed that the Tiger falls after the Panther in classification (Mark VI vs. Mark V) -- there must have been some reason it was made. Grognards? Otherwise, I don't really see why I should ever use a Tiger again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagdcarcajou Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Hey, Well, the Tiger has several advantages. 1. Higher blast effect (51 as opposed to 34). 2. More ammo (11 more shots). 3. Better armor on the hull. The Tiger is a Heavy tank, the Panther is a medium. The Tiger is a terror for the Shermans, but has a very hard time at significant ranges against Churchills and Comets. I usually use Tigers in close support of infantry when advancing, and I have little experience using Panthers to be honest, but have had success with them in an armor hunting role. Just some thoughts, Chris ------------------ What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Also, the Panther's 75/L70 gun actually has better AP performance than the Tiger's 88/L56. It's faster, too. I like 'em! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuka Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Ditto, I originally planned on using all the german armour at some stage but after the panther's success, I've never seen the need to go the tiger routine.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 One thing to remember with the Tiger is that it is basically an armoured box, and is hard to kill from all sides. The Panthers are very hard to kill from the front, but have weak spots. I have taken out Panthers with Stuarts and Greyhounds with somwhat lucky rear and lower side hull hits (the lucky part is getting the greyhounds into position to hit these areas! ). The Tiger on the other hand is tougher in these areas, and if I recall correctly only vulnerable to the US 37mm in a very close lower side hull shot. The best was to use the Tiger in my opinion is to keep is as far back as possable and in a Hull Down position. This was you take full advantage of the Tigers stronger (I believe its now rated between 100-200mm) frontal turret armour whilst reducing the effectiveness of the allies heavier AT guns. Panthers are nice, but you need to keep the sides and rears protected or you *will* loose them Personally I would have prefered to be in a Panther, all things considered. Oh, and I *think* the Panther was developed (or at least deployed) after the Tiger, and as can be seen took much more advantage of sloped armour. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Turret speed is a BIG factor in CM. Tiger's turret is considerably slower than Panther's and many times that makes the difference who gets the first shot. Also that is why I have been asking BTS to make Panther's turret speed faster, because several historical sources claim that it was much faster than it currently is in CM. BTS hasn't given their take on this, but if they increase P's t-speed it's point cost may require some adjusting. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 I hate Tigers mostly due to their turret speed. I've often watched a Tiger slowwwly traverse to a target - only to have the target pop smoke and back up just as the Tiger is laying on target. Then another target appears some distance to the right or left of the first, and the process begins all over again with the end result of nothing being hit! Panthers have slow turrets too, but they don't seem to be as bad as the Tiger when it comes to this "Turret Ping-Pong". ------------------ "The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 I tend to like Panthers on the attack, Tigers in an overwatch position. At a longer distance, less turret adjustment is needed to lay in the Tigers gun, and it's got the range. Panthers on the attack, but you absolutely must watch your flanks. [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 09-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 One thing to do with tigers, is to always engage the enemy with your tank in a slightly tilted angle. Say, 30 degrees, then you'll have the front 100mm at 30 degree angle and the side at 60 degrees. Improves survivability tremendously. But historically, panther was the better tank. That's why they made 3 times more of them than tigers. Tiger is a much better choice against infantry, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: That's why they made 3 times more of them than tigers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Partly. It's true that production of the Tiger stopped in Aug '44 and Panther continued to the end of the war. However, Tigers were twice as expensive as Panthers and took twice as long to build. A lot of people think the Germans would have been better off if they had never made the Tiger and had allocated all that production to making more Panthers instead. ------------------ So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Why do Panthers cost more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ted: Why do Panthers cost more?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because they rock harder? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: Partly. It's true that production of the Tiger stopped in Aug '44 and Panther continued to the end of the war. However, Tigers were twice as expensive as Panthers and took twice as long to build. A lot of people think the Germans would have been better off if they had never made the Tiger and had allocated all that production to making more Panthers instead. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That may be some people's take on the Tiger but try convincing any German tank commander of the reason why he still has to toil around in the Western Destert in his Pz III is due to awaiting the development of the Panther. It is worth remembering that the Tiger I was issued to the Panzer divisions in late 1942 compared with the Panther which wasn't ready until Kursk in 1943 ( & even then it had a whole heap of bugs that needed ironing out). My view on the Tiger compared with the Panther is I prefer the Tiger in most instances since it is more of an allrounder than a Panther due to its anti tank AND anti infantry capability. The Panther is probably better if you're in an all out attacking situation due to its manouverability & turret speed but then it is awfully vulnerable once anything with an anti tank capability gets on its side. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts