Panther Vs Tiger I

Ok for the Normandy theater I have Panzers Normandy then and now which is the older after the battle series book by Eric Lefevre. Armor battles of the W-SS by Willi Fey / JJF pubs.
Normandie Album Memorial by Heimdall Pubs, this is in Deutsch/French. The above two are in English.

Soviet front 1945....Armor battles of the W-SS by Wili Fey.
Tigers in combat II by Wolfgang Schneider, translated from the German by JJF Pubs, and this also used for the Normandy campaign.
Korps Steiner/Deutsch and OOP by Wilhelm Tieke through Otto Dietmer Druck. The German version andidifferent exploits by SS Schwere Pz Abt. 503
Tragedy of the Faitful, translated by JJF pubs, Wilhelm Tieke, covers the 11th SS and 23rd SS plus the 503 SS Schwere Pz. Abt, but not inc complete form.

There you go something to work from. Again this is for the Tiger references although Armor battles of the W-SS which is a classic covers useage of the Pz III, IV and Panther as well as Tiger 1 and 2.

E

 

The Tiger was already a little bit better tested than the Panther at Kursk. Let's remember that it had been used in Tunissia already, six months before Kursk. I still thinking that the Pz. IV idea is good. These tanks were far more reliable than its heavy brothers. We must remember that Pz. Iv had been rolling and fighting since 1939... And with all the improves it had it was a very good fighting machine.Three times cheaper than a Tiger I. And the crews... I don't think it would have been a problem.

 

The Pz. IV was an excellent tank as shown in Normandy....the H and J variants. 10th SS used it to good effect as well as the 12th SS Pz., and the 2nd SS Pz. Das Reich. So good was it that it complemented the II Pz. Abt. usually in the Pz. regiment and only by the losses of production, and in the field was the 7th and 8th Kompanies many times replaced or added too by the Stug III.

E

 

I would agree Erich. The Pzkw IV was an excellent medium tank for use in the west. It performed fine in the East but only after the Heavier tanks punched a hole and it could then use it's speed to follow through. The Pzkw IV was scalable as we can see by the different variants. A true workhorse for the Wehrmacht

 

True on all counts, gents. The only criticism of the PzIV I've read is the armor thickness- armor was too thin and not sloped. But the scalability of the PzIV is incredible- as Friedrich says, they were rolling in 39 and still served as the main tank in 45! And the PzIV lended itsef very well to TDs and other variants.

On the Tiger, Friedrich, I wasn't referring to diufficulties arising from lack of testing- more just inherent problems with a vehicle that big. No matter how you cut it, a Tiger used LOADS of gas, and put massive strain on the transmission.
I think one of the most interesting stats from Tiger usage is the losses- I've read that of the Tigers lost in Normandy, over 85% were abandoned due to breakdown or fuel shortage. Accounting for allied air power, that leaves in incredibly small number of Tigers taken out by allied tanks/anti tank forces.

The Panther had some more serious problems at it's debut- bursting into flames due to exhaust/gas setup being one!
These were repaired by the Ausf G though.

Thanks for the book info Erich! Definetely be looking into a couple of those!

 

Of course it was the Horsebattle, along with the Pz. III, Guderian's babe... But it was not as good even when it was modernised. But the Pz. IV was a real medium tank with all qualities needed to be a fine medium tank: good (if not excellent) armour, reliability, speed, manouvrability and good gun... I am not sure, but I think that 9.000 were made since late 1938 or beginning 1939 until April 1945? Erich, correct me if I am wrong.

 

True. My grandfather loved his StuGIII and has given credit to its low profile for saving his life many a times. He lost only one StuG to a T-34 but lost 2 in the west due to Jabos.

 

Friedrich, I think more had been produced that what you quoted, but I am very weak on Panzer IV references.....

PzJgr :

Did you ever share with us more of your grandfathers career ? How many panzer victories to his credit if known ?

E

 

Oh, now I see, crazy...

Moving to the front such a big and slow thing is terribly difficult. And in combat it had a lot of trouble also caused by its weight...

The Stugs were very good machines, PzJgr. And your grandfather's comments show it.

 

Erich, I never got a total number of tanks destroyed. I know that in the East he did a lot of infantry support and the big battle of Kharkov is where he got his StuG shot out from under him and he was sent to Germany due to injuries. In the West, they did have a lot of targets but it was not idea tank country.

 

Exactly! Believe me, the Tiger is one of my favorite vehicles, and Tiger certainly deserved most of their reputation. But when any vehicle weighs 50 or so tons, it's going to have some problems! But the armor was impressive on Tigers- one of my newer books has multiple shots of impacts on Tiger armor, and they clearly prove the Tiger's reputation for being able to take punishment...

Huh? Now you've confused me, Friedrich...

This is one of the reasons I tend to be more impressed with Tank Destroyers than tanks. The lack of a turret did hamper where the vehicle could fire; but lack of a turret not only lowers the profile of the vehicle, but allows a bigger gun to be mounted. Generally tank destroyers also had sloped armor as well...

That's from Achtung Panzer website for PzIV production.

 

The PzKfw. IV was Wehrmacht's horsebattle. Always present everywhere.

You are right about the tank-destroyers. But remember they must be very fast and manouvrable if you want their lack of turret doesn't be a problem.

I think that is too little and certainly 1936 is too, too early. But I will check it.

 

Freidrich, hope you don't take offence. I take it you mean workhorse.

 

Thanks Bish! Forgive my "lack" of ignorance.

Ich kann Englisch nicht gut sprechen!

 

Friedrich :

You Englisch is just fine and much better than meine Deutsch.

Sad to say there just isn't really any good personal histories on the Panzerjagd units. Though a few of the heavier beasts are being covered in Abteilung strength books...stug's and elephant.
A big problem was the panzerjagd IV just came so late in 44 to do much good for the German armored forces so the trustworthy Stug III again was caught in the middle and had to perform the advance/defence roles......on the western and eastern fronts. What a diverse vehicle it was !

E

 

As Erich says above. Your English is a damn sight better than my German i am amfraid to say.

 

Well, perhaps you understand better my bad try of British English here than if you heard me speak it. My accent is just awful. The only language I can pronunciate properlly is the Italian (althought I cannot have a conversation with an Italian...) and that is because I have to, for the opera matter. But my Spanish and English are awful... Speaking. Written not so bad. And my German, I think I am forgetting it...

 

Friedrich, you're english is better than many people here in the US!
Not to mention that I can't speak a word of German! (or russian, or italian, etc.!)

Good points PzJgr! The ease and simplicity to production was a major factor, especially considering Germany's lack of raw materials...
Erich points ot the main drawback of TDs- because of tank shortages, TDs were often expected to replace tanks in the field, which they were not well suited for.
The PzJgr IV was a great vehicle, but I'd agree with Erich- it came too late and was generally so similar to the StuG III series, so the StuGs remained the main TD.

Sorry Erich, I know I keep asking you for book titles, but here we go again! I'd love to get more info on the Elepahnt in action...

 

Tanks are tanks.
Tank-destroyers are tank-destroyers.
And self-propelled guns are self-propelled guns. It is stupid to replace any of them with the other, because all of them have very specific qualities and tactics.

Nearly all of our tank killers were amazing, except for the heavier ones. A tank-killer MUST NOT be heavy.