Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panther vs Tiger

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

  • Panther vs Tiger

    In World War 2, two of the most feared German Tanks were the Pzkpfw V Panther, and the Pzkpfw VI Tiger. Both Tanks were deadly on the battlefield; however, which one do you think was the better tank?

    Pzkpfw V Panther:
    Lighter
    Faster
    Good Torsion-Bar Suspension
    High Velocity 75mm Cannon
    Effective Sloped Frontal Armor
    Weak Side Armor
    Early Models somewhat unreliable
    Based on the Soviet T-34
    About 6,000 of all models built

    Pzkpfw VI Tiger:
    Thick Armor
    Stronger Side Armor than Panther
    Powerful 88mm Gun
    Crewed only with selected, experienced tank crews
    Very wide Tracks
    Unreliable Engine
    3 times more expensive than the Panther
    Very Heavy Shell
    Somewhat slow
    Reputation of Invincibility
    About 1,300 built

    What do you think was the better tank?
    31
    Panther
    48.39%
    15
    Tiger
    51.61%
    16
    It ain't an adventure until it all goes horribly wrong.

  • #2
    Panther - I think this would be the tank, because its longer barreled cannon the L/71 was even more deadly to tanks than the L/56 Tiger barrel, although for HE rounds of the 88mm was far better! After all, there was far more soft targets and pillboxs and the like to target than just tanks...

    The Panther also was easier on bridges, loading docks and transport equipment than the Tiger. Logistically speaking the Panther was eaiser to maintain in the field than the Tiger. But not be much.

    The Panther had more of a ballance with armor, armament, and speed than the Tiger did, and that made for a better all round tank. The Tiger was just to heavy and expensive and slow to be an overall better tank IMO.

    One more tidbit for you, the RED ARMY had a manual for the Panther and ones they found and were able to repair easily were pressed into service and found to be good mounts, but the Tiger was found to have to many faults(engine and final drives) and was not allowed to be used, like the Panther was. There was also the "Cuckoo" Panther that the British army used for a time, they found it very accurate and had good things to say about it.
    ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hetzer 15 View Post
      Panther - I think this would be the tank, because its longer barreled cannon the L/71 was even more deadly to tanks than the L/56 Tiger barrel, although for HE rounds of the 88mm was far better! After all, there was far more soft targets and pillboxs and the like to target than just tanks...

      The Panther also was easier on bridges, loading docks and transport equipment than the Tiger. Logistically speaking the Panther was eaiser to maintain in the field than the Tiger. But not be much.

      The Panther had more of a ballance with armor, armament, and speed than the Tiger did, and that made for a better all round tank. The Tiger was just to heavy and expensive and slow to be an overall better tank IMO.

      One more tidbit for you, the RED ARMY had a manual for the Panther and ones they found and were able to repair easily were pressed into service and found to be good mounts, but the Tiger was found to have to many faults(engine and final drives) and was not allowed to be used, like the Panther was. There was also the "Cuckoo" Panther that the British army used for a time, they found it very accurate and had good things to say about it.
      I agree with that assessment.
      A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

      Comment


      • #4
        Different tanks for different jobs, which is best depends on what you want to do with it. Panther may be a better balanced design, perhaps, but Tiger has a better gun for gp work and was a harder tank to destroy. Neither was particluarly reliable, but my understanding is that Tiger was better in this regard than Panther, especially early Panthers. Panther was, iirc, an easier and less expensive tank to produce, and this is no small matter. Overall, I'd say Tiger was better at the heavy tank roll than Panther was in the role of a medium, but comparing the two against each other is, in my opinion, a mistake since they were built to do different things.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by llkinak View Post
          Different tanks for different jobs, which is best depends on what you want to do with it. Panther may be a better balanced design, perhaps, but Tiger has a better gun for gp work and was a harder tank to destroy. Neither was particluarly reliable, but my understanding is that Tiger was better in this regard than Panther, especially early Panthers. Panther was, iirc, an easier and less expensive tank to produce, and this is no small matter. Overall, I'd say Tiger was better at the heavy tank roll than Panther was in the role of a medium, but comparing the two against each other is, in my opinion, a mistake since they were built to do different things.
          I too would also say that the Tiger was a more reliable tank than the Panther but the Panther was a better design. So i would rather ride into battle in a Tiger

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by llkinak View Post
            Different tanks for different jobs, which is best depends on what you want to do with it. Panther may be a better balanced design, perhaps, but Tiger has a better gun for gp work and was a harder tank to destroy. Neither was particluarly reliable, but my understanding is that Tiger was better in this regard than Panther, especially early Panthers. Panther was, iirc, an easier and less expensive tank to produce, and this is no small matter. Overall, I'd say Tiger was better at the heavy tank roll than Panther was in the role of a medium, but comparing the two against each other is, in my opinion, a mistake since they were built to do different things.
            The Tiger worked great as a lead unit of the "Panzerkiel" or armorered wedge, where lead heavy "breakthrough" tanks advance in a wedge formation with lighter Panzer 3's and 4's on the flanks for added protection and firepower, to punch a hole in the enemies front line. But, when they were comitted to other roles like a "patch the hole" or "running to the next emergency" type of unit, then you start to see a problem with it. A tiger was not meant to be used to "put out fires" and secure a front line...it was meant as a breakthrough tank. It is a shame the the tank had to be employed in such a fashion. The last real time thhey got to enjoy there role as lead unit was at the 3rd battle of Karkov, where the Red Army had advanced too far too fast.

            True, the first Panthers had there share of troubles, cracks in the roadwheels, bad nasty fuel linesthat that liked to leak, final drives that were not up to the task, etc. But once they were weeded out in the "G" version, we see a great tank with lots of potential, with a capable good crew(Barkmann) the tank was deadly!

            You are correct, to compare the two, is not entirely accurate...
            ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

            Comment


            • #7
              Another thing I will add, is this...German engineering in tanks was for absolute perfection and engineering greatness, but that was not needed with a tank, something less complex, and less expensive, but still fit the bill was needed....and many many more of them. These tanks were made to last years!!! But there battlefield life was months or maybe weeks at best.

              The Panther and the Tiger both where examples, more the Panther than the Tiger of engineer masterpieces, that came as a great shock to the allies. Not just for the Western front but for the Eastern front as well.

              Give me a Panther...
              ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

              Comment


              • #8
                The Tiger worked great as a lead unit of the "Panzerkiel" or armorered wedge, where lead heavy "breakthrough" tanks advance in a wedge formation with lighter Panzer 3's and 4's on the flanks for added protection and firepower, to punch a hole in the enemies front line. But, when they were comitted to other roles like a "patch the hole" or "running to the next emergency" type of unit, then you start to see a problem with it. A tiger was not meant to be used to "put out fires" and secure a front line...it was meant as a breakthrough tank. It is a shame the the tank had to be employed in such a fashion. The last real time thhey got to enjoy there role as lead unit was at the 3rd battle of Karkov, where the Red Army had advanced too far too fast.
                Actually I'd suggest that Tiger did the most damage on the defense, followed by it's intended breakthorugh role.

                True, the first Panthers had there share of troubles, cracks in the roadwheels, bad nasty fuel linesthat that liked to leak, final drives that were not up to the task, etc. But once they were weeded out in the "G" version, we see a great tank with lots of potential, with a capable good crew(Barkmann) the tank was deadly!
                I don't believe the reliability issues with Pahter were ever fully corrected. There's a fair bit of controversy surrounding the authenticity of Barkmann.
                Most tanks contemporary with Panther G were deadly. If Panther G were not deadly, what would be the point of it? Once we start to see 76.2s, 17 pounders, 88s, long barrelled 75s, 90s, etc, etc, they could all do each other injury, some were just a bit better at it than others.

                You are correct, to compare the two, is not entirely accurate...
                Yeah, apples and oranges, IMHO.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Another thing I will add, is this...German engineering in tanks was for absolute perfection and engineering greatness, but that was not needed with a tank, something less complex, and less expensive, but still fit the bill was needed....and many many more of them. These tanks were made to last years!!! But there battlefield life was months or maybe weeks at best.
                  Then their designs failled completely, especially with Panther, given that their mechanical failure rate was so high.

                  The Panther and the Tiger both where examples, more the Panther than the Tiger of engineer masterpieces, that came as a great shock to the allies. Not just for the Western front but for the Eastern front as well.
                  I don't believe they are masterpieces, though both were fine tanks. If they were they would have worked better than they did. Great concept...powerful gun, thick armor, some measure of speed...not so great implementation. Their (over)engineering is what failed them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Panther served for years after the war in a couple of Armies, but I don't think anyone even considered using the Tiger post-war.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      These two tanks were designed and built for quite different battlefield roles, and fell into different classifications. Therefore IMO, comparison as such between them has very little value.
                      "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 Exorcist View Post
                        The Panther served for years after the war in a couple of Armies, but I don't think anyone even considered using the Tiger post-war.
                        Was the Tiger 1 or Tiger II used by any Armie`s after the war and i am not talking Tiger`s used as targets

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          One comparison, group hug.

                          "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                          Ernest Hemingway.

                          Sapere aude.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by irishtiger View Post
                            Was the Tiger 1 or Tiger II used by any Armie`s after the war and i am not talking Tiger`s used as targets
                            NONE!
                            ...Its one of our V-8's...Pursuit Special on methane, super hot!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
                              One comparison, group hug.

                              like it

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X