Panther vs Tiger I

Which one was more mechanically reliable? If your tank doesn't arrive on battle-scene,or once there will not move around as needed, then what good is it? And I like the Panther.

Glenn

That is a tough question. You just don't hear enough good things said about the Panther as oppossed to the Tiger. The Tiger seems to have a built up reputation. Strong armor, deadly gun, it's myth is legendary. When was the last time you read that a Panther knocked out a KV 1 at over 2000 yards? Or how about countless shots bouncing off its armor? Truth being, its armor was technically stronger due to sloping armor. It's gun did fire a higher muzzle velocity, allowing a marginally higher penetration factor. The Tiger did fire a more potent H/E round. The Panther was no doubt more manuaverable, then the 56 ton Tiger. Yet, something inside says choose the Tiger. This probably boils down to preference in vehichles, almost as much as the so called fear factor. You just kind of cringe to think that an 88 mm is pointed at you! No doubt many a tanker saw Tigers everywhere, even when there wasn't any. I doubt I did any convincing, I guess to me it's a coin toss.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

Personally I would go with the Panther. I believe it was more reliable mechanicaly than the tiger (not by much though) It had a higher muzzle velocity I believe, could move faster (not by much), and weighed less (12 tons less) even if it wasnt as armored as the tiger, it still had plenty, and the gun would make taking the tiger out at close range easier. also the panther has always been my favorite.

PS> If your planning about going up against a king tiger, I just wouldnt show up. A panther wouldnt stand a chance.

I have a pic of a Panther that took about 18 hits on the front armour from a Soviet AT gun and none penetrated. I'll try to get it posted.

P.S. I'll take the Panther.

id have the Panther G late

well the tiger's road wheels got clogged up fairly easy, so I'd take the panther. it was faster and more maneuverable anyway.

I read a wonderful battle field report of a Panther doing a rear guard mission before a bridge was blown. They took out an obscene amount of t-34/85's and i believe a JS-3 also. I can check my sources tommorrow but i think that is right. Tiger armor was thicker, but had a tendency to crack from repeated hits. There was also a great account of a Tiger, actually 6, that took out over 70(?) soviet tanks when they got behind them in an ambush. Again and again, it is the quality of the crew that will always get the most out of their vechical. Over all, i'd take a Panther due to reliability issues, over a tiger.

That's a tough call from a sentimental point of view. But seeing as how sentimentality has nothing to do with survivability on a battlefield, I'd have to say I'd rather be in a Panther. I'm waiting for Tamiya to put out a 1/16 full option Panther! It may be years down the road, but I'm a patient man.

I would have to go with the Panther G late. It would out maneuver the tiger.
mark956

I would take the Panther II with the 88 mm gun...

Regards, Dan

If it's on an open field, I'll take the Tiger.

If otherwise...I'll ride the Panther.

QUOTE: Originally posted by boybuddho I would take the Panther II with the 88 mm gun... Regards, Dan

[:0]it was made out of wood [:0]

There is no doubt I'd choose a Panther. Armor dispostion, so follows crew survivability, was much better on the Panther. A ricochetting (sp??) hit on the front slope would clear the turret, rather than boring into that anitiquated stepped glacius the Tiger I had. The vehicle was faster, more maneuverable, better in mechanical reliability. Crew comfort was good, as was visiblility through vision devices. I like the Tiger's bustle bin better than the rear sponson types on the Panther, but that's the way it goes.
In my opinion, the Panther was the best tank of the war all 'round. The Tiger I's vertical armor sides were a BIG mistake and a true weak spot for most anti-armor guns. The T-34 was a b-- to drive and the crew tired out quickly. The Sherman a dream to operate, but under gunned and under armored The Pershing too late to be of a lot of use. The Churchill was great for infantry support, but still undergunned. I'll stick with a Panther. I dunno why the Germans didn't stop messing with all their other variants and concentrate on what was, but all accounts a supurb vehicle. I guess we're lucky they didn't!

Just my opinion as a former 19D and 19E.

Ron.

If i remember correctly, Gurdien wanted to concentrate on panther production and panther 2 construction in 1946. In other words, dump everything else for just two vechicals. Still much of the success the Germans had was entirely dependent on combined arms approach. That said, a panzer army provided with two powerful, well armed, reliable tanks would have provided a nasty surprise to our troops. There is a good picture of a panther with an added armor covering the roof of the turret. THe armor is spaced so it would defeat a 5inch rocket. Fun topic though. Bill

Hard to say. According to the numbers crunchers guys, the panther was all round better, and I mean that literally -- faster, better protected (yup), and harder hitting (yup again).

Surprised me too, but that's what the guys who point out armor sloping and muzzle velocity and all that good stuff say.

Despite that, the Tiger has this rep of being the stronger tank, the Panther being the speedier. I tend to respect the opinions of the guys who put their time in with the vehicles (or fighting against them), so that would be a reluctant vote for the Tiger, but then again the numbers, as they say, don't lie.

This stuff is so complicated. For instance, the Russians did tests on the Nemetz (German) vehicles, and they found that, though the Tiger II's armor was thicker and better sloped, it actually was of such poor quality steel due to late-war shortages (and problems with the Swedish supply) that the Tiger I's armor was all-round stronger and more stable -- less likely to crack when hit, etc. There were photos to go with the report and they show this horrible shearing away of the softer steel used on the Tiger II when it was hit by a large caliber Russian round, whereas the Tiger I armour just stays together better -- it's really obvious from the photos.

Hey, don't hit me, I'm just quoting the Russians!

Larry makes a good point. Reputation over facts? A reputation means very little when you're looking for a combat vehicle. What counts is crew survivability and that's where the Mk V wins out. There is plenty of historical evidence to show that the Panther could have been upgraded very easily once the M26 started showing up in greater numbers (in the theoretical 'long' version of the ETO).
All 'round, the Panther wins. Let the half tracks and older Marks do the recon, let the Panther do the fighting.
Some of you may remember the photo of the Tiger I with it's turret armor all pierced and cracked by Soviet anti-tank guns (40mm's I believe... may be wrong). So, every tank is defeatable in one way or another.

I'LL still take a Panther!

Ron.

Sorry to drivel on here guys and gals, but I'm going to.

Right after WWII, a movie came out entitled 'The tanks are coming!'. When they wanted to depict a strong enemy tank, they showed 'Panthers' (tank destroyers in disquise). Perhaps the reputation of the Tiger has grown because of its armament and appearance since post WWII. It IS certainly a meaner looking tank than the Panther, which (in my opinion) is rather attractive and sleek. Add to this that when civilians see a big gun, they automatically think 'power', when in acutality, a smaller gun with better balistic characteristics would be superior....

Done now.

Ron.

Hello All,
I've been very interested in all the replies. Also surprised. As stated before I have very little knowledge of armor, but from what I've read, the Panther would be my choice as well. My reasons being the same as what has already been stated ( more mobility, good gun, more reliable and better armor protection). I was shocked that there were not many that would pick the Tiger over the Panther. Has nothing to do with capabilities, but I think the Panther is better looking as well. Thanks to all who took time or may yet take time to participate. I've enjoyed hearing from all.
Regards,
Joe

I have a question:
Was the turret rotation of either tank mechanical (hand-powered), or electrical? Maybe this is not a very bright observation, but it seems to me that another important variable in tank survivability would be the ability to rotate the turret on-target quickly, contributing greatly to a tank's overall success or failure.
Gip Winecoff

Good observation, I believe both were hydraluic but could be operated manually if necessary.

I'm PROBABLY wrong, but both have a manual traverse and power. I have HEARD but not seen that the Tiger had to be 'peddled', in other words, hyrdraulic pressure had to be maintained by the gunner working his feet on pump pedals. I don't know if this would also apply to the Panther or if it is even right! But can you imagine 'pumping' those as you traverse onto a target... as if there's not enough to think of! In reality, I think they both probably had hyrdro pumps, just like US tanks.

Ron.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poniatowski I'm PROBABLY wrong, but both have a manual traverse and power. I have HEARD but not seen that the Tiger had to be 'peddled', in other words, hyrdraulic pressure had to be maintained by the gunner working his feet on pump pedals. I don't know if this would also apply to the Panther or if it is even right! But can you imagine 'pumping' those as you traverse onto a target... as if there's not enough to think of! In reality, I think they both probably had hyrdro pumps, just like US tanks.

I remember hearing (somewhere) that the power turret traverse on German tanks (somehow) came from the engine, so the turret traverse was slower or faster depending on how fast the tank was moving at the time, which of course complicated matters for the crews during an age in which you pretty much had to stop to fire (unless you were in a Sherman, IIRC!). There was a hand crank or peddle backup for those moments that the tank wasn't moving, but that was painfully slow. This was a real disadvantage for German crews to overcome.

Of course, let's put this in context. The T-34 didn't have a hanging turret floor for the turret crewmen, so as the turret turned everybody had to do the Russian Shuffle! The Russians weren't big ones on making things convenient for their crews.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Larry_Dunn I remember hearing (somewhere) that the power turret traverse on German tanks (somehow) came from the engine, so the turret traverse was slower or faster depending on how fast the tank was moving at the time, which of course complicated matters for the crews during an age in which you pretty much had to stop to fire (unless you were in a Sherman, IIRC!). There was a hand crank or peddle backup for those moments that the tank wasn't moving, but that was painfully slow. This was a real disadvantage for German crews to overcome. Of course, let's put this in context. The T-34 didn't have a hanging turret floor for the turret crewmen, so as the turret turned everybody had to do the Russian Shuffle! The Russians weren't big ones on making things convenient for their crews.

YES! That's it, from the engine. Dunno where I got the pedal thing from?? Anyhoo, it didn't work as well as an independent hydro motor as in the Sherman (and even the Stuart M3A1 through M5A1).

The T-34 had a fold down seat for the gunner, susepended from the turret ring on an arm (a curved pipe). The TC also had a fold down seat. The loader's seat could be suspended from straps between the turret ring and the gun guard.. for travel, then stowed for fighting; since it was easier for a loader to be able to move around and work if possible on the old gal. Actually, the internal layout of a T-34 is very similar to an M24... could there be some unmentioned Soviet influence in US tank design?

Ron.

According to Squadron's Tiger In Action "Hydraulic power traverse was used for large movements of the turret, with fine adjustments being accomplished by use of a traversing handwheel".
In Squadron's Panther In Action "360 deg. turret. Operation Power take-off and hand".
Regards,
Joe

Joe,

Sounds a lot like the Sherman in which power was for traverse only and elevation was either manual or by shifting the gyro-stabilizer to elevate the gun when it regained its horizontal. Both actions (manual and stab.) were done with the elevation handwheel.

Ron.

Hmmm,

Good subject!

I would choose the Tiger for open terrain, where I could fire from distances and scat. Keep 'em moving!

For close quarters battles: city streets, towns and so forth, the Panther would be my choice.

Ron,
I never realized there was a possibility that any traverse would be manual. I figured that everything in WW2 would have had some type of power traverse.
Well, that's why I like these posts, I always pick up some knowledge.
Regards,
Joe

I guess it wouldn't matter much if I was going up against a pack of shermans. I don't think a 75 or 76mm sherman could bust either the panther's or the tiger's frontal armor head on even at close range. If I was up against T-34's I'd rather be in the panther, simply because they look a little similar. That could work to someone's advantage. If the Allied Air Forces were around, I'd get out of the tank.