Panther Vs Tiger I

Elephant ! now that is a vehicle I have practically nothing on. Only an old English Profile booklet if you can call it that. I do believe there was a book a year ago covering one abteilung equipped with the big boy but do not know the title / anyone out there have it or can help ??

E

 

There's been some 'Elefant' talk going on under the 'Hetzer' thread on 'Weapons'.....

 

True, Martin. That thread has some great tank destroyer stuff going on it...

Back to the Panther vs. Tiger- The armor protection hasn't been discussed too much. I don't have anything offhand on the Panther, but the Tiger's armor was a huge bonus. One of my newer books has an incredible photo of an impact on the driver's vision port on a Tiger. The round hit directly on the corner of the visor (where the welds (weak points) are), and from the look of the impact, it must have been at least 7.62cm gun. Not only did the round not penetrate, but the visor was still in place.
Photographic evidence (not to mention crew accounts) clearly demonstrates the quality of the Tigers armor.
The panther did have sloped armor, which is generally a bonus. But I haven't seen quite as much in praise of the panther's armor...

 

I think the Panther could best be sutied for hit and run tactics since it had the superior speed to the Tiger variants. Still did have excellent frontal armor as there are accounts(don't ask me where), in several books on Normandy, where 75mm rounds bounced/glanced off the sloping turret armor and the front heavy plates/ gun mantle. There is a pic of I beleive of Herr Barkmann's Panther receiving what may be a 75mm round right next to the optics without going through to the inner compartment of the turret. This maybe from the Ost Front ?

E

 

You don't necessarily need thick armour if you use physics like sloping armour. Don't know if the T-34 had any thicker armour than the MkIV but having it slope definitely is what gave it the impression of invulnerability. Also, look at the reactive armour of the 80's. Same concept.

 

Yes, PzJgr, the T-34 did not have a thicker armour than 50-75mm or so...

The Panther was a better tank, suited for tank tactics and methods. Because of its speed and manouvrability it could engage enemy tanks in a close combat. The Tiger could not, it was more a kind of SUPER tank killer...

 

Friedrich :

some more info.s on I. Panther Abteilung Das Reich.
The unit arrived in August of 43 and joined combat with the rest of the Regiment for the first time on 22 August 1943. Despite the mechanical problems the new weapons performed very well and destroyed 53 Soviet tanks in their first combat with the enemy.......
this from Mark Yerger's Das Reich, Knights of Steel, volume 1. A must have by the way, if interested in Das Reich.

E

 

The Tiger, being a "super tank," although not an overall better tank than the Panther, was a MUCH bigger psychological weapon. The word "Tiger" struck fear into the hearts of Allied tankers. Though being forced to ride in a Sherman would strike fear into MY heart...

 

I've heard the same thing- in a video set I got, Tanks or WW2 I believe. Except the Americans in this case were talking about the Tiger!

The Panther was definetely more suited to any operation where mobility was required, and the sloped armor was an advantage. I would say, however, that although the Tigers armor was not sloped, the thickness could stop most impacts. And here's something else- only a theory- Panthers were ainly made later than Tigers... And as the war progressed, the quality of materials the germans were getting to build their vehicles was decreasing. I wonder if the steel used to make Tiger armor was of a higher quality than that used for the Panther?

I'd also have to agree with dasreich- the psychological value of a Tiger cannot be underestimated.

 

Going back to the armour question - I read somewhere quite recently that the Panther's armour could be quite 'brittle' due to the way it was cast. I have seen photos of knocked-out Panthers in the Ardennes where the shell-holes are quite jagged.
Apparently the Tiger utilised a different type of armour which was less liable to 'break'.

I just can't remember where I saw this - will hunt around......

[ 23 July 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]

 

No, I do not think so. The Königstiger was the last to be build and it did not have a bad steel...

And yeah... the Tigers were the ground equivalent for the Stuka or the big version of the MG-42. Just a demon who strikes the mind...

 

No, I do not think so. The Königstiger was the last to be build and it did not have a bad steel...

And yeah... the Tigers were the ground equivalent for the Stuka or the big version of the MG-42. Just a demon who strikes the mind...

 

Found it - on Thomas Jentz' Tiger 1 website.

The armour used on the Tiger 1 was highest-quality rolled nickel-steel with a 'Brinell Hardness Index' rating of 255-260. This was apparently some of the best quality armour used during the war.
The Panther armour was of lesser quality - presumably because the designers hoped that the sloping-effect would offset this weakness. But this did mean that Panther armour could 'shatter' from some hits.

This perhaps explains why Tigers were so eagerly sought after by scrap metal merchants after the war.

 

Its too bad they were so sought after...maybe thats what makes them such a rarity to find.

 

Overall combat status-the Panther wins my vote!

 

Interesting stuff ont he armor, Martin. I've read many times about how Tiger crews loved the armor protection on the Tiger; it struck me that I have not read the same kind of endorsements of the Panther, despite the armor being sloped...

 

Otto! Our comments are copy righted!!! Guys: call your lawyers...

(Althought I suposse that he took everybody else's comments except mine... )

 

Don't worry, Friedrich, I'm sure the cheque's in the post -
isn't that right, Otto...hello?...Otto?!?

 

Chase the b...!!!!

Hahahaha! Martin! I just love your British humour as much as I hate your film tastes!!!!