Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

King Tiger vs. Panther

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • King Tiger vs. Panther

    I have heard a lot about both tanks but I want to know which one was the best. I have a couple things I want to know Which tank would hold up better in a fight, and the one that was best made.

    Most books I have read seem to center on the King Tiger, and Google doesn't bring up what I want it to do some times
    31
    King Tiger
    32.26%
    10
    Panther
    67.74%
    21
    Last edited by Johnny_Reb; 24 May 10, 13:03.
    In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes
    - Benjamin Franklin, U.S. statesman, author, and scientist

  • #2
    Panther. One on one the KT would win but I think they could make 3 panthers for one KT. Plus there's the suspension issues while while not great on the panther was worse on anything heavier. Fuel consumption is also an issue.
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

    Comment


    • #3
      If the Tiger and Panther were in a straight fight, the Tiger would win.

      However, which was the better tank, I'd go with the Panther. Had good armor, good armament, and was better than its adversaries. Had some teething problems initially with its transmission, but once rectified was formidable.
      "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
      Groucho Marx

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Catman View Post
        If the Tiger and Panther were in a straight fight, the Tiger would win.

        However, which was the better tank, I'd go with the Panther. Had good armor, good armament, and was better than its adversaries. Had some teething problems initially with its transmission, but once rectified was formidable.
        You say the KT would win in a fight so why not chose it? If you say the that the Panther had good armor, armament, and was better than its adversaries, but could get beat by the KT why would it be the better tank?
        In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes
        - Benjamin Franklin, U.S. statesman, author, and scientist

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Johnny_Reb View Post
          You say the KT would win in a fight so why not chose it? If you say the that the Panther had good armor, armament, and was better than its adversaries, but could get beat by the KT why would it be the better tank?
          Simple: all equipment requires resources to build and supplies to function. The KT was not a good buy compared to the oppurtunity costs (more Panthers)
          How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
          275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Johnny_Reb View Post
            You say the KT would win in a fight so why not chose it? If you say the that the Panther had good armor, armament, and was better than its adversaries, but could get beat by the KT why would it be the better tank?
            "Quantity is a quality all of it's own." For ever King tiger you can make I could make at least three panthers. Panthers were faster, though were less well armored and had a weaker (but still very formadible) gun. The T-34 was no match for the tiger in a straight up fight, but you could build a lot more T-34s than you could tigers. Economics is a significant factor in determining how good a tank is.
            Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
            But who's to judge the right from wrong.
            When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
            That violence breeds violence.
            But in the end it has to be this way.

            Comment


            • #7
              The two tanks were built for different roles so I don't think they are completely suitable to compare. The Panther was a medium tank and the Tiger II was a heavy tank. The Panther was the Panzer IV's replacement and the Tiger II was the Tiger I's replacement. The Panther outfitted Panzer Battalions in Panzer regiments and the Tiger I was allocated to Heavy Tank Battalions in Corps reserve.

              The Panther 1944-1945 did its job better than the Tiger II. The Tiger II was probably as problematic as the 1943 Panthers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Make mine a KT, for most battles.

                Personaly, I would only prefer the Panther for pursuit/exploitation. Panthers are great, and I would give them priority in production, but the King Tiger is practically indestructible . Given the time-frame, and how many Bazookas and JS-IIs there were then, I would prefer the tank who's side armor is double that of the other.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That was the Panther's role. But according to statements by German generals and staff officers in the bulge, the Panzer IV proved to be better at that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
                    That was the Panther's role. But according to statements by German generals and staff officers in the bulge, the Panzer IV proved to be better at that.
                    I agree with you somewhat on this. The Panzer IV was better in the 'Bulge' for several reasons. It was smaller and could maneuver through the terrain better, it was in larger supply, the typical engagement range nullified the '88' or the 7.5cmL/70, and they drank less fuel.
                    The better tank question, Tiger II or Panther, has much to do with where they are fighting. The Ardennes for the Tiger II, not so good. The openness of the Eastern Front, ideal for the Tiger II. Although, by the time the Tiger II was available, they weren't numerous enough numbers to impact the action on the Eastern Front, they were ideal for a fighting withdrawal (backed up by Panther's and Panzer IV's).
                    I agree that head up the Panther is dead. Fortunately, the German's never had to deal with that scenario like the Russians did against they're own armor. However, if you take the same amount of time and material to build a Tiger II and take the same amount to build Panther's and pit them against one another, the Tiger II is dead.
                    "You listen to the ol' Pork Chop Express on a dark and stormy night......"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The two tanks were built for different battlefield roles and were in different classes. Panther was designed to be the new medium tank; Tiger II the new heavy breakthrough tank. We should not forget this, when comparing tanks designed for such different purposes. The Tiger II had superior armour and gunpower but being a heavy tank, and weighing about 23 tons more than Panther, it should have, shouldn't it?

                      The Panther (when it was running OK) had considerably better mobility than Tiger II, better armour than enemy medium tanks (but more weight), and firepower enough to deal easily with most armoured adversaries. It was a better balanced weapon than Tiger II but then, it needed to be, to function as a medium tank.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 25 May 10, 04:31.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by triggerjockey View Post
                        " ... The Panzer IV was better in the 'Bulge' for several reasons. It was smaller and could maneuver through the terrain better, it was in larger supply, the typical engagement range nullified the '88' or the 7.5cmL/70, and they drank less fuel.
                        By late 1944 the PzKpfw IV and the Panther were in approximately equal numbers in the German inventory. I think your other comments comparing these two types are generally valid though, for that particular battle.
                        "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                        Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Tiger II was SO big and heavy, it was ponderously slow. If speed is necessary, the Tiger won't move much faster than a pillbox.

                          The Tiger could not cross many of the bridges in Europe of the day, and was seriously restricted by many of the roads in built up or wooded areas.
                          "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
                          Groucho Marx

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'd Agree with Panther regarding the fact that they're two different tansk with two different purposes behind their design... that being said; for the purpose of the poll I'd take the Panther.

                            I can at least get myself out of trouble a lot faster than the Tiger II
                            BoRG
                            "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by triggerjockey View Post
                              I agree with you somewhat on this. The Panzer IV was better in the 'Bulge' for several reasons. It was smaller and could maneuver through the terrain better, it was in larger supply, the typical engagement range nullified the '88' or the 7.5cmL/70, and they drank less fuel.
                              The better tank question, Tiger II or Panther, has much to do with where they are fighting. The Ardennes for the Tiger II, not so good. The openness of the Eastern Front, ideal for the Tiger II. Although, by the time the Tiger II was available, they weren't numerous enough numbers to impact the action on the Eastern Front, they were ideal for a fighting withdrawal (backed up by Panther's and Panzer IV's).
                              I agree that head up the Panther is dead. Fortunately, the German's never had to deal with that scenario like the Russians did against they're own armor. However, if you take the same amount of time and material to build a Tiger II and take the same amount to build Panther's and pit them against one another, the Tiger II is dead.
                              I think the front armor thing with the Panther is overrated. According to the figures I've seen, it seems to have helped a lot in defensive action but was relatively insignificant when the Panther attacked..when it did, all the allies had to do was to shoot it through the side.

                              The Panzer IV used a lot less fuel than the Panther and for West Front conditions was just a better buy for the Germans. It was also far more reliable in 1943 and just significantly more so in 1944-1945. On the East front, it was a different story.. I can see how companies of L/70 guns deployed on the defensive would be critical against T-34/85s and JS IIs.

                              The Tiger II battalion that was attached to the I SS Panzer division during the Ardennes offensive was done so due to the bad situation..there was just a general lack of medium tanks to fully outfit the German units (in general German tank strengths were around 50-70% establishment). As Peiper advanced, the Tiger II broke down one after one until only a third or less were operational. It was just not a good tank to attack in depth with.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X