Tank Ace Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Since the Panther is a Pnz V and the Tiger is a Pnz VI why didn't the Tiger have sloped armor? It bewilders me why it doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 The Tiger was designed earlier, its just that simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 ...and note the armour of PzKpfw VIB. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Also there was an earlier tank (1940 or so) that was called Pz V... This tank, IIRC, was a concept vehicle that never went into production (might have been use din Norway though.. though my memory is spotty about that). Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Here is the vehicle I referred to: NEUBAUFAHRZEUG Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omi Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Why is the Tiger cheaper than Panthers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 i think they are cheaper cause there slower, and more easier to knock out because of no slope armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beta1 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 tank ace is pretty much right. The panther is one tough cookie when its hull down and its long 75mm gun is just as good as the tigers 88 in most situations. The Tiger is vunerable in CMBO mostly due to the ranges involved so you rarely see how lethal it is as it often ends up matched against a couple of fireflies. In CMBB at longer engagment ranges the tiger is a real bastard to shift. Its armor is thick enough to bounce most incoming rounds, its gun has the punch to wipe out T34s well beyond the range they can retaliate and its bloody accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Pros and cons of Tiger: + good all-around armour + a good multi-purpose gun, effective against most tanks and very good against infantry - non-sloped armour, not so effective late in the war, and sometimes you get the feeling that all that steel plating in the rear and sides is wasted weight - slow Pros and cons of Panther: + superb front armour + a very good anti-tank gun (better than 88L56) + very fast and agile - vulnerable flanks and rear - the gun isn't so great against infantry - early models have a shot-trap, causing weak spot penetrations The good aspects of Tiger are best seen when breaking through fortified areas where you can expect side shots from many angles and both soft (guns, infantry) and hard (bunkers) targets. Panther is better in face-to-face tank duels and in rapid advances, although the weak side armour together with slow turret don't make it ideal for flanking moves. Having a SPG like Hummel to support a platoon of Panthers is a nice idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Originally posted by Omi: Why is the Tiger cheaper than Panthers? Mobility is a huge factor in BFC's cost calculation. A gun's cost in the CM scheme is also more based on its AT capabilities than HE, so you get the blast of the Tiger very cheap but the minimally better AT performance of the Panther is noticable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 One thing going for later war situations in CMBB with the Tiger is the turret front since it's reinforced. Hull-down Tigers can still be a pain in the rear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: + a very good anti-tank gun (better than 88L56) + very fast and agileI posted a thread about this in the General Forum, but it didn't receive much attention. The question I posed, was why did the Germans not use the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 turret that was initially designed for it? The explanation in Glantz leaves some unanswered questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.