Panther Vs Tiger I

I would be interested to know which panzer people feel is the better? Take your time over this one, the Tiger is the tank people always see as 'the' german panzer, but which was the more combat effective vehicle.

The Tiger has an 88mm L56 and heavier armour than the Panther. The Panther however has sloped armour and a 75mm L70 gun given higher velocity than the 88mm. Reliability, I would say they were about the same when they sorted out the teething problems, but I would rate the panther slightly higher in terms of cross country performance.

As for the aces, many crewed both vehicles and both seem well liked by the crews. My one major criticism of the Panther is that late war models were produced with poor quality steel and suffered from splinters breaking off when the tanks recieved a hit. Not what you want flying round the inside of the tank.

For what its worth, if I had to go to war in one of them, I would trust the judgement of Otto Carius who said that the Tiger was number 1.

Im going for the Tiger, what about the rest of you?

 

I go with the Tiger I.

The Panther was more manouvrable and fast, but the Tiger's cannon was better and its armour thicker. The comabt records can show that the Tiger was more effective, but I really do not know. I will not go deep into technique, because I am not qualified enough. I just do not like the Panther. I would go with a Pz. IV or III before a Panther...

 

If I had to go with any, it would be the King Tiger...but for this topic, I must choose the Panther. Although the tiger is the classic panzer everyone thinks of, the Panther was a better combatant with sloped armor to make it harder to pentrate, a long high velocity cannon to penetrate armor better at long range (and to give it more range), and it was smaller and faster, allowing for greater mobility and therefore a more versatile tank. Add to that, its chassis was used for the Jagdpanther, one of the best tank hunters of all time.

 

The Tiger is my all time avorite ank. But i have to say Panther. The Tiger, and Tiger II, were over the top. The Panther was able to deal with any opposition it came up against. But it was lighter, faster, quicker to build, more relable, after early setbacks, easier to maintain and recover. The Tiger was basically to good for the job and had production gone into Panthers instead of Tigers, of either type, then instead of the 1,700+ Tigers you would have had well over 2,000, possable more, extra Panthers.

 

We discussed the weapons difference in the thread 'German 75mm L/70' under the 'weapons' topic.

Briefly, the Panther's 75 was higher velocity, but the 88's greater projectile mass gave it more effective penetrative power.

As an overall 'weapon of war', though - I really think it has to be the Panther. Faster, more manoueverable, lighter, efficient.. makes more sense.

Now, why do I 'like' the Tiger better ?

 

Its a size thing! the tiger is an absolute beast of a tank. the panther isnt much smaller but the sloped lines make it more gracful and elegant. Can a tank be elegant!?!

The tiger is built for one purpose, Killing enemy tanks, no grace or finesse, just power and its has an overpowering image. Also our opinion is coloured by the responses of Allied troops who rightly feared the Tiger, but did not seem to have the same worry about the equally deadly panther.

So why is the Panther the Tigers poor cousin?

 

Just had a thought...

What better way to strike fear into your enemy than by naming your vehicles after natures finest predators.

Tiger, powerful, cunning and scary.
Panther, sleek, fast and stealhy.

Maybe thats why the Elephant was a non-starter!

Elephant, big, slow and never forgets!

Do we know who came up with the names in the first place?

 

Good question - I've wondered about those names, too.
In the case of the 'Tiger' , the PzKpfwVI,Ausf H was renamed in late 1943 PzKpfw Tiger, Ausf E by order of Hitler. ( Source : Tiger ! by D Fletcher, HMSO ). But the tank was called 'Tiger' by the troops from its introduction into service - why ?

Over to our 'experten'.....

 

I would have to go with the Tiger. Whomever takes the offensive gets the most casualties so imagine sitting back in your Tiger and picking off tanks when they cannot touch you. The Tiger has broken the back of many attacks. Once the back is broken, you can take the counteroffensive and the enemy would not have the armour to throw it back. The Tiger may be slow but it only takes one shot from its gun. Wasn't there a Tiger that took over 200 hits and travelled 40 miles to get repaired? Can't say that about a Panther.

 

Very good points, PzJgr.

I go with the Tiger because it is much more powerful than the Panther. The Panther could be more efficent, elegant (yes, tanks can be elegant), faster but not as deadlier as the mighty Tiger. We all know that the Tiger was an awesome weapon in a defensive role. It was too slow and heavy for the Blitzkrieg. The Panther and PzKfw IV are faster and more efective for ofensive roles. And about the gun, whatever the gun was a good one, an 88 L/71 or L/56, a 55 L/70 or PAK 40. All could pierce nearly all (perhaps not the heaviest Soviet tanks the PAK 40, but still...)

 

There s no doubt that the Tiger was the better tank in terms of firepower and protection. But there are other things to consider.

Firsly, Germany could never match the production of its enemies. It needed better tanks to make up for lack of production. Both tanks acheived this, but his then divides resources. It means that your already stretched factories are building two tanks, and the spares, instead of one.

Boht tanks out matched just about every thing they came up against. So, as my other post say, more Panthers could have been built if the Tiger had not been.

And lastly, the reliability. Having to remove the turret everytime you want to change the transmission is not a pleasent job. And when this transmission breaks down reugually, thats a nightmare. Add to the having to change the tracks everytime you want to move it long distance, and you have a high maintanence veihcle. And track bashing is not pleasent at the best of times.

 

Yes, I perfectly understand your points. Both were complex machines difficult to produce. One, much more difficult than the other... My question is would have been convinient for us to build more Marks IV of its best versions with more armour and long cannon? I mean, the Mark IV was a very tested and reliable tank, three times cheaper than a Tiger and it was an excellent tank, very, very balanced in power/weight. Therefore we had been able to have much more tanks. Like there were 1.300 Tigers, multiplied per three is 3.900. What would those 3.900 Marks IV would have done?

 

I agree, Bish. The Tigers simply were not as reliable as Panthers. They indeed were excellent in the defense, but what good is a powerful tank if its stuck in the mud and abandoned? (I know that was a problem on the Eastern Front) Plus the sloped armor gave them great protection. The added mobility of being smaller and quicker meant easier deployment in the field. Both were incredible tanks to be sure, but I go with the Panther on this one.

[ 18 July 2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: dasreich ]

 

Building a whole bunch of Pz 4's instead of Tigers...that might have worked. But then the problem of fuel consumption comes in. 3 times the tanks means more fuel consumption and need for many more crews. Might be an interesting thread by itself...

 

For me--the Tiger wins hands down as the better tank..

 

Bah! The field marshall's Evans opinion is not worth it... he sits all day in his headquarters drinking cognac... what does he know about tanks!?

I think I will be arrested one of these days...

 

Thats Coffee with Cognac, Truffels and Bon Bons

 

How did I not notice this topic earlier?

Hmmm this is a tough choice depending on circumstance- defending, the Tiger, attacking, the Panther. The Panther and Tiger were both such good quality tanks, and both had similar problems...
Later models of the Pather were certianly reliable, but the early models were quite the opposite- I'm sure some of you have read about the Panther's debut at Kursk- due to engine problems, many of the Panthers broke down before reaching the battle. These issues were fixed, but never completely. And the tiger was more reliable- but it did have some recurring problems... troops could rely on the transmission burning out and running out of gas.
And the guns more or less even out...

I'd have to take the Tiger- by the time in the war either tanks was produced, the germans were already beginning to defend more than attack, and the Tiger was better suited for defence.

And Friedrich, I like your idea on the PzIV thing... I'll take it one more- forget the tanks, divert most of production towards tank destroyers- even less material to produce, generally better vehicles than their turreted counterparts...

 

I think it depends on what type of fighting.....to advacne or defense. And what about the brietkiel ? how do you form your attacking wedge ? Tigers at the front followed by Pnathers and Pz IV's and then stug's. Tigers best displayed their efforts in the defensive role as in Normandy where they ruled the battlefied. SS Schwere Pz. Abt. 102 destroying more than 225 armored vehicles alone !
Then on the other hand the Königstigers of SS Schwere Pz. Abt. 503 destroying more than 450 Soviet armored vehicles from January 45 till the fall of Berlin. Not bad for less than 45 heavies I would say ? !

E

 

Interesting, isn't it- Hitler was a fanatic on always attacking, never defending. And yet some of the best designed vehicles and weapons on the third reich were defensive in nature...

Erich, sounds like you've got a good source going for those numbers. If it's in english (I should study some german!), what source are you using? Love to get my hands on a copy, if I don't have it already...