Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilsausage
Actually the Panther was probably one of the cheapest german tanks for its effectivness. It had the preformance of a tiger but it cost less then half the price.
"One source has cited the cost of a Panther tank as 117,100 Reichmarks" This compared with 82,500 RM for the StuG III, 96,163 RM for the Panzer III, 103,462 RM for the Panzer IV, and 250,800 RM for the Tiger I" |
Depends on what you mean by performance. While it certainly had the same tank killing ability, it was a much easier tank to knock out than the Tiger. The allies found in Normandy on average it took 2.55 hits to KO a panther, and 4.3 hits to KO a tiger (Fun fact the Sherman on average took 1.65 hits to KO, compared to the Panthers 2.55 hits/killed the Panther was some 40% safer to ride in, not a notable margin when one considers the weapons each tank faced from their respective enemies)
Probably are right in that it had better bang for its buck than a Tiger, but the Tiger was much more survivable. Personally my hypothesis is that the flank armor on the Tiger which was much thicker than the Panthers side armor, and at a thickness that would cause the 75mm medium velocity gun mounted on so many allied tanks to be useless beyond a few hundred meters. In comparision the Panthers side armor could not reasonable expect to provide any protection at standard battles ranges from even a 75mm round.