Matt the Paladin Posted February 3, 2001 Share Posted February 3, 2001 The title says it all, which is a better German tank, the quick, well designed Panther (my favorite so far) or the slower, but massively armed and armored Tiger tank. IMO, it comes down to a person's tactical style, my tactics need tanks that are faster than the lumbering Tiger tanks, so I like the Panther. ------------------ "War is like a cat, it is easy to let out of the bag, but hard as hell to put back in!" -Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 3, 2001 Share Posted February 3, 2001 Tigers are better for work against infantry, because the 88 has much better blast than the panther's long 75. Also, their sides can often shrug off zook rounds. Panthers are faster, have a faster turret, and better armor penetration. However, their side armor is vulnerable to 37mm and up AT rounds. Tigers are not meant to be used at the point of a breakthrough. Instead, keep them hull down in overwatch 300 yards behind the front lines. That way their slow turret doesn't matter as much, because it won't have to rotate very far. In summary, Tigers are a heavy armored box. Panthers have heavy frontal armor, but the rest of the box is given up in favor of speed. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 To answer your question, one first has to understand that the Panther and the Tiger were designs from "different times". The Tiger was originally built to crush the russian T34. It developed from an late 30´s design as a "breakthrough tank". When the Tiger entered the war in late `42, it was the tank with the heaviest armour and strongest gun in the world. Although its broad tracks gave him good cross-country moving ability (compared to the Pzkpfw I-IV), its massive weight often proved problems, especially when damaged. The Tiger especially proves its worth when dealing with infantry, since their 88´s packs a lot more punch than the Pather´s 75mm. The Panther was heavily influenced by the design of the T 34, especially its sloped armour. (As a fact, one prototype of the Pzkfw V was not produced due to its similarity to the russian MBT...). The Panther is the (nearly) perfect combination of the three GREAT factors in tank warfare: Armour, armament, mobility. Although (on the flanks) less well protected than the Tiger, the Panther is a great tank. I would try to use the Panther against enemy tanks, and the Tiger against enemy infantry/AT guns etc. ------------------ Klotzen, nicht kleckern! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 I think the Tiger is the best general purpose tank in the German inventory, followed by the PzKw IV. The only real downside is the high ground pressure. The Panther is more of a TD than a tank. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 To Olle - I like the Tiger as well, but find it has two drawbacks besides ground pressure. Low hp/weight means lower acceleration to get out of hot places. And the turret is slow. But it is a great tank, no question. The thickness of the side armor and the effectiveness of the gun against *anything*, are just huge pluses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net: a) Low hp/weight means lower acceleration to get out of hot places. And the turret is slow. c) The thickness of the side armor and the effectiveness of the gun against *anything*, are just huge pluses.a) I find troop quality (command response time) to be more important in this aspect. As is the Panther turret (and most other turrets in the German armory). c) Amen to that! Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 Comparing these two machines is like apples and oranges. They are of different class. Tiger: extremely heavy, slow, big gun. Used as a breakthrough tank, or a glorified AT bunker (well, that's a somewhat stretched description, but you get the idea). Panther: medium tank; primary role - to exploit breakthroughs. Medium gun and armor, good mobility. IMHO, Tiger is a mediocre example of heavy tank class (too big, too heavy, too expensive, logistics nightmare, crappy mobility, 88mm not big enough HE for a breakthrough tank), while it is a matter of taste to decide whether T-34-85 or Pz-V is better medium tank. Surely enough, as a semi-mobile AT bunker, the Pz-VI was a large threat to soviet tanks. However, it was very poor "value for money", if you see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 Oops--double post. [This message has been edited by CombinedArms (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 Part of what makes CM interesting is that no tank of WWII performed all of a tank's important roles extremely well. Each had a significant failing in at least of these areas--ability to be produced cheaply & in large numbers being one of the most important areas--ability to lead an armored breakout across hundreds of miles being another very important area. The Tiger was extremely good at some roles--many of these are highlighted in combat on the scale of CM--but rather poor at other roles, some of which are minimized by CM's scale of operations. For example, the Tiger could never have led the charge across France as the much maligned Sherman did in 1944, or as the much lighter PzII's and PzIII's did going the other way in 1940. Tigers (and Panther's, too, I think) were so prone to tread damage on long journeys that they had to be shipped by rail to the front--a real problem for the Axis when the Allies destroyed most of the rail system in France before and just after the Normandy invasion. Many armored divs arrived belatedly and piecemeal as rail routes from southern France and Pas de Calais were with difficulty cobbled together. They were then plugged in as they arrived on an ad hoc basis to stop local attacks, making it impossible to ever mount the long planned armored counterattack on which the Axis strategy hinged. When they finally tried it at Hitler's insistence at Mortain, in August '44, it was way too late. That said, I think the Tiger's real failing was that it was just so expensive and difficult to manufacture that it was never made in sufficient numbers to have a decisive impact. Only 485 King Tigers (Tiger II's) were made all told, for the whole war and on both fronts. (Hence to have two of them in one Scenario is a real luxury!) Before that only 1200+ Tiger I's were built. If I had to have one tank to hold a piece of ground, I might want it to be a Tiger II--but as an all-around Axis tank (factoring in both mobility and numbers produced and ) I think I'd go with the Panther (about 5,000-6,000 built.) This is a real life estimate, more than a CM estimate, I concede. Consider against these numbers the nearly 50,000 Shermans and 40,000 T-34s built by the Allies (not to mention Cromwells, Churchills, KV1's, Stalin's, etc.) and factor against them the 8,000 German Mark IVs and you understand the Axis problem. They placed such an emphasis on cutting edge but hard-to-mass-produce technology that they allowed themselves to be disasterously overproduced by both the US and USSR. I would go with Skipper's view that, historically speaking as well as in CM terms, it was "poor value for money". (Much of the background in this post is from John Keegan's excellent book *Six Armies in Normandy*--the six armies being American, Canadian, British, German, Polish and French.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 CombinedArms, another couple substantial flaws with the Tiger were very poor fuel economy that decreased its range and the time and energy needed to switch its standard wide tracks to the narrow ones used for rail transportation and then back again. ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Besides, Pz-VI was too wide to travel by rail without disrupting opposite-bound traffic. As for the best overall tank of the war, in my (heavily biased ) opinion, IS-2 was THE THING. IS-3 even better, but it is not clear if they saw any WWII action. OTOH, the only (afaik) tank of the era that is still in active service in third world is T-34/T-44 family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Originally posted by Skipper: As for the best overall tank of the war, in my ... opinion, IS-2 ... OTOH, the only (afaik) tank of the era that is still in active service in third world is T-34/T-44 family.My option for best overall is the Centurion, perhaps it's still too good to be affordable to the 3:rd world? Sweden stopped using them only a few years ago (they even survived strv 103, that's a later design). And aren't there any upgraded Shermans still in use? Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Heh, why not T-55 then? Centurions did not take part in WWII action, iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curih Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 There was a post a little while ago about some heavily upgraded Stuarts being used in South America. I generally take Panthers over Tigers. I tend toward a faster moving game and the extra mobility is helpful. My personal favorite, considering that I haven't been able to play with any russian tanks yet, is the Pershing. I think it does well at just about every task. curih [This message has been edited by curih (edited 02-06-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Another possible reason for such low quantities of german tanks overall, may be, especially with panzer IV's, is that germany was late in making its country a fully war producing country. Not until 43 or late 43/44 was germany fully involved in producing war machines. Sounds strange doesnt it? But it is true, (from what I have heard), and looking at war machine production, germany tank production actually goes up towards the end of the war. Not that this would have won the war for germany (who really knows though), and I am sure not that many more Tigers and King Tigers would have been made, but lots more panthers, and certainly many many more (if smart) panzer IV's would have been made. Like Combined arms said, 50,000 shermans and 40,000 T-34's are hard to beat out. But if germany had produced massively in the early years it may have been a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 The previous posts are all well written and historically accurate, but, which is the best tank in Combat Mission? I play almost exclusively as American, and therefore find the Panther more suitable to my acquired playing style. There is nothing more frustrating when playing as the German than watching helplessly as my Tiger slowly swings its turret from target to target without actually getting a shot off! However, as the American, nothing strikes more fear in me than seeing a Tiger roll into the fray. It has to be dealt with before any other meaningfull action can take place. So, I have to give the edge to the Tiger. It’s better against infantry, it’s better armored (bazooka-proof), it kills Allied tanks with one shot, and its slow speed is mostly negated due to the small battlefields depicted in CM. The incredibly slow turret speed is something that requires a radical departure from Allied tactics to manage it. The Tiger requires a slow, methodical advance. (IMHO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Hey, I've checked the unit price tables in CM and (surprise, surprise) Pz-V is MORE expensive than Pz-VIE. Huh? Give me a Tiger plse. I'll take two. And wrap them in giftpaper, please. Who was bollocking them? No, that was... err... another Skipper... I think. Seriously, if you are not hard-pressed for time, looks like CM Tiger beats the Panther hands down. [This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-06-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Originally posted by curih: There was a post a little while ago about some heavily upgraded Stuarts being used in South America. 90mm armed Stuarts, ordinary Stuarts, M4A3 Shermans, Chaffees, and my favorite, the M18 Hellcat are all in service in various South American countries. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 What about Panthers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Jackson: There is nothing more frustrating when playing as the German than watching helplessly as my Tiger slowly swings its turret from target to target without actually getting a shot off! True words. TacAI makes the slow turret a BIG drawback in battle. Possibly there should be a different kind of tacAI to handle slow turreted vehicles. It's one of the most frustrating things in this excellent game to see how a Tiger or M-10 spends it's whole turn to traverse turret back and forth and still NEVER gets a shot at enemy. Although the turret speeds themselves are modelled quite historically in CM (Panther's and KT's t-speeds too slow IMO), I think that there is nothing historical in the way how tacAI handles the slow ones. It's behavior doesn't make difference between M-18's hyperspeeded, gyrostabilized turret and Tiger's veeery slow one. I.E. the Tiger "thinks" that it can pull off the same targeting/shooting procedures which M-18 can. But it can't and mere trying results in "idiotic", ahistorical behavior. In general tacAI penalizes the Axis side much more because German tanks have slower turret speeds. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: True words. TacAI makes the slow turret a BIG drawback in battle. Possibly there should be a different kind of tacAI to handle slow turreted vehicles Ari This is a very good idea, but probably a little late for CMBO. For slow-turreted tanks I would like to see the TacAI fix on the current target unless an armor threat appears. The swinging back and forth is usually between infantry targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Jackson, Yep, some threshold adjustment in tacAI-routines for slow turreted vehicles would be a good and less resource-consuming solution for now. That would hopefully lessen the headaches caused by the "I have slow turret, so I can't decide what to shoot at"-tanks Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKfw V Ausf G Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 I really like both but you have to be careful about what tactics you use... To bad (for CM, not otherwise...) that the germans never finished the Panther will the schmalturm (a much more narrow turret front) and the 88. Would have been a mean machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 The Tiger is great for covering fire at long range, while the Panther can really move when need be. In most situations and especially in any sort of cat and mouse encounter I'll take speed and mobility over firepower and armor any day. WWII tanks are little more then rolling coffins against even the weakest AT weapons when the AT has a rear shot or a close range flank shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Paladin Posted February 17, 2001 Author Share Posted February 17, 2001 IMO it really all depends on your aquired tactics. If you favor slow, methodical advances, the Tiger is a better tank. Fans of the faster advance do better with the Panther. Those with an irrational fear of victory use Italian tanks. ------------------ "War is like a cat, it is easy to let out of the bag, but hard as hell to put back in!" -Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts