Panther Vs Tiger I

Compared to the Panther? I would have thought it the other way around based on gun and armor.

 

Based on the limited range due to fuel consumption, the unreliability of the engine and the weight problem for many bridges, the Tiger was not much in offence. Did the Tiger even contribute to the battle of the Bulge?

 

No - Peiper placed the King Tigers at the rear of his advance beecause they were too cumbersome. I am a great, great fan of the Tiger ( especially the Tiger 1 ) but even today it would have a hard time on European roads - let alone in the 1940s. IMPO, and after reading many accounts of their actions, it was often used as a kind of 'mobile pillbox'. The Panther was much more manouevrable in the advance.

But don't discount the psychological factor of the Tiger - even today it's just amazing how many 'Tigers' seem to have been in action during the Bulge. And that gun was scary - we've discussed on another thread somewhere the amazing power demonstrated by one of Peiper's Tigers near La Gleize.

 

On the other hand the Panther had weak side armor and a fairly poor HE round did it not? Panther's also had some reliability problems from what I've read.

 

Just noticed this:

Anyone have any idea where those numbers come from? From what I've read the PzIV, M4, and T-34 had almost identical armor yet the ratings very from 4 to 8. Likewise the guns on said tanks.

 

Not sure about the side armour : but both the Tiger's 88 ( both of them ) and the long-barrelled 75 were flat trajectory weapons and mainly carried A/P rounds in an offensive role. The Panther notoriously was rushed into combat at the time of Kursk when it was far from fully developed and suffered a lot of mechanical faults. However, many of these had been overcome by the time of Normandy and the Bulge.

 

I know the Western allies lost more tanks to infantry and AT guns than opposing tanks. A good HE round was very useful against such threats. If you are defending that's less of a concern. Looking at one of the charts at:
Tanks in World War 2 Forum • View topic - Tank Gun HE Performance
the 75mm gun has an HE filler that's only ~75% of that in the 88's. Depending on just which is being discussed it may be even less. I'd put the quality of HE round available as being significant if we are talking offensive capability. While some of the Panther's RAM problems had been fixed others weren't from what I've read. Certainly the availability of both was below what would have been considered acceptable to US forces.

 

The British rated the M4 superior to the PzIV in North Africa. The armor and guns were about the same, but the M4 was more mobile and far more reliable. Of course by 1944, the PzIV had added armor and the long 75, and in the mud of Europe the wider tracks made it the more mobile tank.

 

The Allies had problems with HE in their higher-velocity guns like the 76mm or 17pdr, not sure why, there were plenty of ~3" HE shells giving satisfactory service. Did the Germans have similar issues with the 75/70? I've never heard of any. Obviously the shell was lighter than the 88mm, but when tanks fire HE they're usually shooting for direct hits on point targets like anti-tank guns, so if they hit the target is not likely to appreciate the distinction between 75mm and 88mm as much as say, infantry under bombardment by batteries of field artillery.

The AP peformance of the 75/70 was slightly better than the 88, so Wittmann could likely have done much the same at Villiers-Bocage and elsewhere had he been mounted in a Panther. The side armor is slightly more vulnerable if one is driving down the length of an enemy column, but then again Tiger armor didn't protect him much better when he really needed it....

Half the production cost, better in every category related to mobility, close - one way or the other - in all aspects of gunpower and armor - I'd go with the Panther and consider the Tiger basically a stopgap until the Panther was ready.

 

Foolish people. In the matter of which is a "better" tank ofcourse its the panther. It had the best mix of the holy trinity of armored warfare (firepower,protection,mobility), but modern tanks are modeled on the tiger ie m1 abrams, challenger, merkava ect.

 

And a warm "welcome to the forum" to you as well, my friend! (By the way -- its spelt "Guderian")

Mind giving some evidence to back up your claim that modern tanks are modeled on the Tiger?

 

Perhaps he meant Guardian?