Commissar Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I was playing a quick battle last night when I noticed a perpluxing thing. In the buying phase, I was trying to get my self a late model Panther. I couldn't because I didn't have enough points. However, I could buy a late Tiger. I looked at the cost and found that the Tiger was actually cheaper than a Panther? Is this a bug? Were Tigers actually a little more likely to be seen in Normandy than a Panther?? I just always assumed that that Tigers would be the most expensive tank a German player could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I thought prices also reflected the attributes of the unit, not just the historical availability. Check the armour stats on the two - the Tiger actually had less armour than some of the later model Shermans. And about half the frontal armour of a Panther. The Tiger had a mystique about it, like the 88, out of proportion to its relative merits. The Tiger was also introduced a lot earlier, and so that mystique was built up from the first time Allied troops encountered them (early 1943 for the Americans), whereas the Panther was a relative newcomer in June 1944. Which is why you hear so much about "Tigers" in movies, TV, comic books and veteran's recollections. The Panther was a better tank in most respects. The reason the Tiger was better than a Sherman had to do with the guns they carried - the German 88 could cut through the armour on a Sherman like butter; the American 75mm was far weaker in terms of penetrative power. With that as a comparison, the Tiger was far superior to a Sherman, but in terms of armour protection alone (ignoring the question of what was used to shoot at them), the Tiger and Sherman were much closer to each other than the mystique surrounding them would suggest. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I thought prices also reflected the attributes of the unit, not just the historical availability. I also think that it is the "effectivness" of the unit and not anything to do with the "availability" of the unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Probably a dealer discount. Likely trying to offload the early war models. Be sure to read the fine print in the consumer literature on the APR. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Historical rarity has NOTHING to do with unit point values. It's ALL based on Steve and Charles' judgment of the combat effectiveness of the unit. The Panther's advantage in speed/mobility, combined with its equivalence in firepower and (frontal) armor means it's judged more effective than a Tiger, so is more 'spensive. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I thought prices also reflected the attributes of the unit, not just the historical availability. Check the armour stats on the two - the Tiger actually had less armour than some of the later model Shermans. And about half the frontal armour of a Panther. The Tiger had a mystique about it, like the 88, out of proportion to its relative merits. The Tiger was also introduced a lot earlier, and so that mystique was built up from the first time Allied troops encountered them (early 1943 for the Americans), whereas the Panther was a relative newcomer in June 1944. Which is why you hear so much about "Tigers" in movies, TV, comic books and veteran's recollections. The Panther was a better tank in most respects. The reason the Tiger was better than a Sherman had to do with the guns they carried - the German 88 could cut through the armour on a Sherman like butter; the American 75mm was far weaker in terms of penetrative power. With that as a comparison, the Tiger was far superior to a Sherman, but in terms of armour protection alone (ignoring the question of what was used to shoot at them), the Tiger and Sherman were much closer to each other than the mystique surrounding them would suggest. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-16-2001).] Just to point out: The panther wsa around long before June 44. "In July of 1942, MAN produced two prototypes (only one was fitted with the turret), which were extensively tested and proved prone to many technical problems. In late 1942, small pre-production series of 20 tanks was ordered - Null-Serie (Zero Series). All were lightly armored (60mm thick frontal armor), armed with the early version of 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun (with single chamber muzzle break from 75mm KwK 40 L/43 gun) mounted in a turret with bulged drum cupola. They were powered by Maybach HL 210 P 45 engine (21l). Those 20 tanks were designated as PzKpfw V Panther Ausf A and technically were different from later produced models. Interesting conversion was Ausf D1 (some sources state that it was an early model Bergepanther) fitted with bolted on PzKpfw IV Ausf H's turret (that could not be traversed), which served as a command tank of schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 on the Eastern Front in early/mid of 1944. In December of 1942, new and improved model, designated Ausf D was ready and in February of 1943, 20 Ausf As were redesignated Ausf D1s. Ausf D1s (former Ausf As) were exclusively used as test vehicles and later as training tanks. It was quickly ordered that by May 12th of 1943, 250 Panthers had to be produced in preparations for the Operation "Zitadelle (Citadel)", while 750 were still to be completed as soon as possible. In December of 1942, Ausf D entered production and on January 11th of 1943, first serial Panther Ausf D left factory. Its armor protection was improved (in comparison to Ausf D1) and newer version of 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun was mounted in a hydraulically powered turret. First, 250 Panther Ausf D were powered by Maybach HL 210 P 30 (23l) and were referred to as Ausf D1 as well. Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf D(D1) and Ferdinand, along with other new machines, made their debut in July of 1943 during the Operation Citadel with Panzer Abteilung 51 and 52. Due to the technical problems (especially gearbox, transmission, suspension and engine fires), which were not fully solved, many Panthers broke down before and during the action." "...they burnt too easily, the fuel and oil systems were insufficiently protected, and the crews were lost due to lack of training." - Heinz Guderian. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 My reference was to American troops not seeing them until June 1944 (especially those that served in Normandy vice Italy). Sorry for the confusion - How many Panthers did American troops have to fight between their introduction to the Tiger, and the landings in Normandy? I would guess very few. Tigers were also very much present in Sicily (HG Division) just as they had been in North Africa. I was speaking from an American perspective, I should have been clearer. The fact remains - Tigers are firmly entrenched in the American consciousness because GIs faced them for over a year before having to battle Panthers in large numbers (June 1944). Not sure how many Panzerturms based on the Panther were encountered in Italy by US units (British 8th Army ran into a lot in the Hitler Line in May 1944, for example) - nor am I aware of how often Panthers were encountered in Italy. I do remember reading that Canadian armoured units "met" Panthers for the first time quite late in the war - will need to recheck my source but quite possibly they did not see Panthers in Italy until after D-Day in Normandy. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Tiger I's are a real barbain IMO opinion. Though eclipsed by the Panthers and the Tiger II's there's two things it has over the Panthers: 1. The 88mm gun though excellent in the AT role performs better than the 75mm in the anti-infantry role. 2. The Tiger I has thicker side armor than the Panthers. I can't tell you how many times the thicker side armor of a Tiger has saved them in the games I've played, whereas a Panther would likely be lost to a good flank shot. But of course the trade off is the already mentioned frontal armor which is angled vertically. ------------------ "Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Mike, I think that Allied soldiers often mixed up the Tiger with the IV. Both are "boxy" and are not entirely disimilar at long range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: Mike, I think that Allied soldiers often mixed up the Tiger with the IV. Both are "boxy" and are not entirely disimilar at long range. Precisely; we discussed this in the general forum too. Was it you that said something like "if it was big and metal and shooting at you, it was a Tiger"? That's what I mean by mystique. I saw this in the scenario I am playtesting with Justin - it is a night scenario and whenever the German PIVs would come at me, they were identified as Tigers by the computer for several turns until I got close enough to see them. Very realistic and a great touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I've noticed that under poor visibility conditions practically any German vehicle spotted gets 'recognized' as a Tiger for the first couple rounds. That's probably historically accurate! If you were to pick up the classic book "Is Paris Burning" you'll also find that every anti-tank gun in every haystack was an 88. That repeated 'fact' become rather distracting while trying to read the book. I threw up my hands when the Panther aufsA under the obilisk on the Place de la Concord (sound familiar?) starting firing it's "88mm cannon" at opposing armor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 The often praised Stephen Ambrose also made the mistake of awarding the Panther with an 88 as well, which pretty well busted his credibility with me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I don't have much respect for that guy. I've seen several examples of him attack the Patton method of leadership, without noting even the idea behind what he was attacking. Secondly, on the cover of "Death Traps" he says something to the effect of "I quoted this book extensively in one of mine, which is the highest compliment I can give it." Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that sounds fricken' arrogent to me, and I don't like it. ------------------ busboy CO, 99th Dragons A Warbirds Squadron 'We will heat you up' "It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts