Panther vs. Tiger unit cost

[Fishu]

I stumbled across a website telling of Tiger I development history and there were unit costs:

"The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios."

whew, Panther is actually less than half of the Tigers cost!

In CM, cost for Panther is 195 pts and Tiger I costs 178 pts.

I find this quite interesting that Tiger I actually is as cheap as it is compared to the Panther, even though there were alot more Tiger I's made.

(I also found out that Tiger VI H prototype had 75L70 cannon and Porches prototype had maximum speed of 30mph, but less maneuverable)

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

[jgdpzr]

Actually, there were many more Panthers produced than Tigers. This is just a ball park guess, but I think there were somewhere near three times as many Panthers.

The pricing in CM has nothing to do with real world cost factors. The prices are BTS' subjective valuation of the units. The Panther is more costly because it is faster, has a better gun, and superior frontal armor. The only advantages the Tigers have are the side and rear armor and superior HE.

[Panzer Leader]

How is the Panther gun better? It is 75mm but Tiger has an 88. :confused:

[jgdpzr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

How is the Panther gun better? It is 75mm but Tiger has an 88. :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple: Muzzle velocity

The penetration capability of a round (minus explosives) is determined by kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is, of course, determined by the mass of the round and the speed at which it is travelling. While the mass of the 88mm round is obviously greater than the 75mm, this difference is not sufficient to outweigh the much greater muzzle velocity of the 75, hence the 75L/70 is capable of penetrating more armor (except at very long ranges because of the velocity loss at those ranges while the mass of course stays constant, so at extreme ranges the 88 can penetrate more).

Now I am sure a real grog can shed much sharper technical light on this subject.

One more thing, I am comparing the 75L/70 with the 88L/56 of the Tiger I, not the 88L/71 of the KT. This last weapon was also very high velocity and was therefore more powerful than the 75L/70.

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[Jarmo]

The faster muzzle velocity of the Panther's gun also

means flatter trajectory and shorter flight time.

This maaking the gun more accurate than Tiger's 88.

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu:

[QB}

whew, Panther is actually less than half of the Tigers cost!

In CM, cost for Panther is 195 pts and Tiger I costs 178 pts.

I find this quite interesting that Tiger I actually is as cheap as it is compared to the Panther, even though there were alot more Tiger I's made.

(I also found out that Tiger VI H prototype had 75L70 cannon and Porches prototype had maximum speed of 30mph, but less maneuverable)[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually there were 5976 Panthers produced, with only 1355 Tiger Is made.

Shell energy is very dependent on muzzle velocity. It can be modeled by E=m(v^2). The Panthers shell mass for Pzgr40 was only 4.75kg, the Tiger was 7.3kg. But the muzzle velocity for kwk 42 cannon was 935m/s, the Tiger had only 773 m/s. Therefore the Panthers shell energy would be 4.75(935^2)=4152568.75 (Joules?). The Tiger would have 7.3(773^2)=4361961.7. This would make the Tiger seem better. However the Panther's energy is focused on an area of 4417sq mm, whereas the Tigers is on 6082sq mm. The Panthers shell would put 940joules/sq mm, with the Tiger only putting 717.02 joules/sq mm. Probably just confused you all more but at least I finally got to pretend to know alot.

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Fishu]

I were just quickly guessing that if its the number factor

I've read Tiger be bit better than that and it costs alot!

[JasonC]

"there were many more Panthers produced than Tigers."

Correct. More than 3 times though - more like 4.5 times, comparing the Tiger I to the Panther. If you meant to include the Tiger IIs as well, then you are about right - ~3.25 times.

Here are some production run figures for various heavily armored German AFVs -

Sturmtiger - 18

Jadgtiger - 77

Elephant - 90

King Tiger - 500

Tiger I - 1350

Panther - ~6000

Jadgpanther - 400

That is the heavy end of the German AFV mix. The overall mix was normally distributed, with as many lighter types (based on Pz II and Pz38(t) chassis) as heavy. The center of the distribution was between the Pz IV and Pz III chassis. In the late war that meant StuG&H, Pz IVs, Jadgpanzers. The center of the distribution moved toward heavier during the course of the war, but never beyond the Pz IV level.

Only the Pz I production lines were actually abandoned (they made a few SiG and also demo vehicles before that); all the others continued to make something, usually TD or SPA. Pz IIs turned into Marder IIs then Wespes, also a few SP SiG assault guns, and some Lynx again at the end of the war. Pz38(t) turned into Marder III then Hetzers, also some Flakpanzers. Pz IIIs turned into StuG and StuH. Pz IV continued in production the whole war, but the chassis also made Jadgpanzers, some StuG IV, Brummbar, Nashhorns, Hummels, and some Flakpanzers.

They kept making everything, rather than switching between types. All the older and lighter types were upgunned as TDs or SPA rather than tanks, and some of those TDs got better front armor plates (Hetzer and Jadgpanzer). The basic story is that heavier types were started up in addition to, not in place of, the older production lines. Giving the distribution of production the characteristic "bell" shape. The older types got the most useful common gun type they could carry, as TDs.

It wasn't a plan meant to minimize expense, or to maximize the fighting power received for the cost. Each type tried to do those things. But the overall plan was just to make everything that could be made, to squeeze as much quantity out of existing production lines as possible.

There was also reluctance to abandon any running production type, because each was the source of spare parts for all the early AFVs on the same chassis. Withdrawing a type would mean that type in the field would rapidly decline through breakdowns, only staved off be cannibalization of parts from other running vehicles.

It was all a very decentralized process, in which new ideas were authorized to draw on the rest of the economy for their needed inputs, but older types basically never lost their own "call" on resources.

Would Germany have been better off with 750 fewer Tiger Is and 1600 extra Panthers? Certainly, and in RMs that would have been an even swap. But it wasn't really a matter of RMs, and that "exchange rate" between them would not have occurred in practice.

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[jgdpzr]

Aw Jason, I was just providing you with a lead-in.

I knew you'd come through with the straight dope.

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Actually there were 5976 Panthers produced, with only 1355 Tiger Is made.

Shell energy is very dependent on muzzle velocity. It can be modeled by E=m(v^2). The Panthers shell mass for Pzgr40 was only 4.75kg, the Tiger was 7.3kg. But the muzzle velocity for kwk 42 cannon was 935m/s, the Tiger had only 773 m/s. Therefore the Panthers shell energy would be 4.75(935^2)=4152568.75 (not sure of units on these). The Tiger would have 7.3(773^2)=4361961.7. This would make the Tiger seem better. Except for all the Panthers energy is focused on a smaller area, giving it a similar effect to British sabot rounds, but not quite that dramatic. Probably just confused you all more but at least I finally got to pretend to know alot.

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzerwerfer42,

Here are the stats on them.

Cal/Len Type Name W(kg) MVel(m/s)

--------------------------------------------

75mm/L70 APCBC Pzgr.39/42 6.80 935

75mm/L70 APCR Pzgr.40/42 4.75 1,120

75mm/L70 HE Sprgr42 5.74 700

88mm/L56 APCBC Pzgr.39/42 9.5 795

88mm/L56 HE Sprgr42 9.0 820

NOTE:

Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap

Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

Thus, applying the energy equation E=m*v^2 you get...

75mm/L70 APCBC = 5944730.0

75mm/L70 APCR = 5958400.0

75mm/L70 HE = 2812600.0

88mm/L56 APCBC = 6004237.5

88mm/L56 HE = 6051600.0

So you can see the differences. While the 88mm has a slight edge in over all energy the 75mm is faster and thus more accurrate but you can also see why the 88mm is a awesome infantry weapon.

It would be interesting to see the armor penetration differences for these guns.

Jeff

[JasonC]

"It would be interesting to see the armor penetration differences for these guns"

Well, you get the same energy for both rounds. They are so close, each 6 million joules (that is the unit BTW), that I suspect it isn't a coincidence. They may have engineered the Panther gun to get as much energy as the Tiger I's gun.

CM gives the Panther's gun about 11% more penetration. In the case of highly sloped armor (60 degrees), only ~5% more, and narrowing slight at longer range, but in all other cases very close to 11%.

Both are also rated, to within 1mm, to penetrate 45mm of 60 degree sloped armor at 2000 meters. The T-34 had 45mm of 60 degree sloped armor. The effective penetration range was probably a bit higher for armor quality effects and such, but that is an obvious design characteristic to shoot for, or a reason to want 6 million joules as the muzzle energy - to penetrate the T-34 at range.

Why the somewhat higher penetration for the Panther gun, against less sloped armor and especially at closer ranges? Well, the energies are equal. The cross-sectional area of the 75mm round is smaller. If you look at the joules per square centimeter of impact area, then you get 33586 for the Panther gun, and 24709 for the Tiger gun.

How important is total energy, compared to energy per unit area? I am sure that varies with the thickness of the plate hit and all sorts of other things. A high enough energy for a certain plate, won't care about the per-area effect, because the total energy will just smash a large area of the plate. A thicker plate might be bored through more easily in a smaller area.

Total energies equal, energy per unit area 38% higher for the Panther, overall they get 11% higher. You can deduce they have the "per unit area" only about 1/3rd of it, the total energy the other 2/3rds - as multiplying factors that is (1.38 ^ 1/3 = 1.11). But the actual numbers are probably fitted to known empirical results, rather then derived from pure theory.

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

It would be interesting to see the armor penetration differences for these guns.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just hit enter. It'll give you 174 for Panther and and 154 for Tiger at 100m 0 degree slope. At 2000m its 114 for Panther and 103 for the Tiger. 60 degrees 100m is only 62v59. At 2000m its 46v44.

As far as my calculation errors, I had Pzgr 39 named originally, but for some reason switched to Pzgr 40 and forgot the data change.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr:

The Panther is more costly because it ... has a better gun, ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IMO the Tiger is the one with the better gun.

The 88L56 is good enough against just about any armour the Allies can present. The 75L70 has marginally better penetraton.

The 88L56 pack a good HE, whereas the 75L70 has a mediocre HE.

On the typical battlefield where the main threat comes from towed ATGs, Bazookas and PIATs the 88 rules!

Cheers

Olle

[Redwolf]

The Tiger in CMBO is modeled as rather vulnerable against the Allied 75mm gun, see rexford's threads, insofar its price sounds right.

Personally, I don't care about the gun difference that much. I prefer the Tiger when I suspect that 76mm guns will be around, but the Panther when I think the opponent will prefer to roll in with masses of HE and MG stuff (Priest/Sexton, non-76 Shermans, British tanks, M8 HMC).

[Fishu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

The Tiger in CMBO is modeled as rather vulnerable against the Allied 75mm gun, see rexford's threads, insofar its price sounds right.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least 75mm kills easily its cannon and/or tracks.

I tested yesterday with sherman 75 to kill tiger, usually first rounds immobilized it and not much later, cannon was broken too.

Although, not a single time I managed to *blow* it up from ahead.. not even face to face. (but crew decided to abandon tank instead and die outside, rather than wait for "helps".. which werent in the test map )

When I tested the same thing with stuarts, I did actually get better results!

37mm on a stuart scored many times hit to a weak point, actually knocking the tank out at instant!

This happend to me 5 out of 7 times.

(I used range of 100 meters with 75 and 37mm)

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu:

When I tested the same thing with stuarts, I did actually get better results!

37mm on a stuart scored many times hit to a weak point, actually knocking the tank out at instant!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds correct. Both guns cannot penetrate the front normally, the 75mm gun striclty requires a weak spot penetration, just as the 37mm. Since the chance of weak spot hit and the resulting armour reduction is equal for both guns on a per-hit basis, the higher rate of fire of the Stuart is a big advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

This happend to me 5 out of 7 times.

(I used range of 100 meters with 75 and 37mm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100m is way short, that is even AT team range. If the Tiger cannot keep the enemy from getting this near, it must withdraw. In that situation, you can tactically consider the Stuart an AT team

If you used a range of 700m or so, the 37mm cannot penetrate even with a weak spot hit.

[Warmaker]

Of course, you can try the lucky "frontal penetration" kills with a 75/37mm I'm sure the German player will be happy to bring the turret to bear so shots can be exchanged. Most of the time this is not a conducive way to lengthen the lifespan of any of the Allied tank crews (CMBO or even historical. Ask any WWII Allied veteran tanker).

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

I think that the increased vulnerability shows up in the shots against Tiger E's side armor. There the 10% penetration boost makes the difference. Tiger's frontal armor in CM is pretty much invulnerable against Sherman's 75mm as it should be.

Ari

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

I think that the increased vulnerability shows up in the shots against Tiger E's side armor. There the 10% penetration boost makes the difference. Tiger's frontal armor in CM is pretty much invulnerable against Sherman's 75mm as it should be.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't talking about armour quality, but weak spot penetration.

[Olle Petersson]

Don't know exactly how relevant it is, but I played a scenario last night to test just how good the Panther is in perfect terrain and weather conditions.

Theres a report some way down on this page: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=018946&p=3

Cheers

Olle

[Fishu]

My main point was that with 75mm I didn't get the tank killed at all from ahead (once got them to abandon the tank)

When I used stuart, it got 5 out of 7 times weak spot hit which knocked the tank out and couple times crew abandoned the tank.

When weak point was hit, there was 10 to 50 rounds used.

With Sherman, I could of dump all the 75mm, without knocking it out. (crew *might* abandon the tank sometimes)

So most interesting is that rate of fire wasnt issue here, since same amount was dumped by sherman as well, even though at slower rate.

(I could of drove sherman right up to tigers front and still shoot without effect)