Let we use AFTER the german terms TigerAusf E and Tiger Ausf B the Tiger(E) and Tiger(B) names - ok?
Yeah, I agree with you!
The general layout of the chassis of (B) was superior
The gun was supperior
The range was comparpable
The armour was superior
BUT there were also some drawbacks:
the engine was for good and all inadequate for this weight,
the weight was too much (for transport, for bridge-crossings -and even for teh MUD (for example in Hungary tjhey lost more Tiger(B)-s folding in mud than from AT KO-s.)
very small production run
But at bottom: this was (one of) the best tank (s) of WW II.
Oh no.
The Panther remains top notch.
Tiger B was even inferior to E in effectiveness in the war due to all drawbacks you mentioned: even more breakdown, be it technical, overdemanded engine and running out of gas, leaving a perfect 88mm gun to the allies without a fight.
ALLTOGETHER, from all point of view, yes - my main choice too (but not the best tank to fight)!!!
So:
let assume - I am a Chief of Staff of any army in WW II era, and I can choose from the tanks produced during that period to build up my armored forces, I definitely say: gimme the 2953 pieces of Panther ausf G !!!
(AND Bergapanthers, etc…)
One type, excellent parameters, enough in quantity…
…but…if it possible PLEASe, PLEASE add me plus 1-2 Abteiliung Tiger (B) - to be in the safe side…
I agree the Panther was the best German tank, indeed one of the best if not THEE best of WWII. But the “perfect 88mm gun?” Well, what was so “perfect” about it? Both the U.S. and the British had better medium caliber anti-aircraft guns–as in the U.S. 90mm and the British 3.7". Both guns outperformed the 88 in most categories --as far as shooting went…
Yet I was talking about the long 88mm gun of the King Tiger and its performance againts tanks of course.
I tried a little figure of speech: most Tiger B were left unharmed yet with an empty fuel tank when there was no gas station around.
Do you know the song… Smashing a perfectly good guitar …?
Still, my panther would have less probability to break down, a higher running autonomy, a higher rate of fire and much more speed. Because after all: mobile warfare should be mobile.
And of course, Panthers and even Tiger E’s came in higher numbers at the frontline. A platoon of Panthers is bigger than a platoon of Tiger B. And somehow I feel safer with tanks next to me as well.
Even as a sturdy pillbox, the Tiger B only could protect you as much as a small Civil War Fortress against an army of hornets.
The Panther had 40mm thin side armor - causing lot of defeates. The Tiger(B) had tiwce a thick (80mm).
There is no evidenc for ANY frontal armor hit penetrating in combat the “King Tiger” hull, for the Panther even a Sherman Firefly or a T-34/85 with the new shell was cabable for a frontal KO.
In mobility there were not a HUGE difference:
24 km/h vs 17 km/h off-road
46 km/h vs 38 km/h max.
The weapon of Tiger(B) was more lethal.
No arguement, the Panther was a better “all-round” tank (the predecessor of category: MBT) but a Tiger(B) was a more ferocious killer.
Well, the huge introduction of fin-stabilized projectiles and tungsten ammo would have rendered the Tiger B absolete as well in a couple of months if the war would have lasted longer.
I mean: there is a certain limit in which you can speak of “ultimate protection”.
Ferocious killer? mmm. In short range combat any tank is disabled by bypassing its fangs. A small tank can withdraw easy and rotate its mouth quicker.
I think the Tiger B is in theory (static) much better than in combat.
I remember the Panther was known for its sturdy defence against JS-2’s at the end. I guess its mobile defence combined with a more-than-capable gun made the difference.
Concur.
in a foggy Lotharingien fight, US M-4 tankds with 75 mm EASILY destroyed 3 Panthers then removed to other position , destroyed 3 other from the same column then changed position and hit the third 3 tanks without losses.
AND generally US tanks not used against german armour (TD SPG role).
Why I write this?
EVERY fight depends on the circumstances. The trainig level of the parties, the postions, the abilities, the couarage and LUCK too.
The JS-2 was a dedicated breakthrough tank, not a tank-killer.
Su-85 nad the remarkable Su-100 was made for thsi purpose in USSR.
The JS-22 with his artillery-origin gun (he two-piece ammunition and the and rudimentary fire control made it worse tank destroyer)…
regads:TGR
ps: the quality of JS-2 frontal armour had big promblems causing easy hits for Panthers Iif I remenber well. They changed the structure and improved the quality as well…
What I’m trying to say is that feeling “safer” in a Tiger B doesn’t work for me. Whether long range (Panther at its best as well), medium range (Panther moves easier and lower silhouet) or close range (both are sitting ducks)
germans had TD’s as well…
Jagdpanther is, again, better option than Jagdtiger.
ps: the quality of JS-2 frontal armour had big promblems causing easy hits for Panthers Iif I remenber well. They changed the structure and improved the quality as well…
In which I see a reason you don’t need the 88 as well…
Beautifull tank the tiger 1. But what a wrong move to make. Instead of developing the panzer iv more they decided to make an entire new tank. Wast of time and resources.
I concur, why would you wast time trying to make a new tank when you have ones that you can build more of. or take old designs of say a tiger and modify them to something that you can build easily, unlike with the other tanks of the time.
The “why” is very easily answered by the fact that by September 1941 combat between the PzIV and the T34/76 had shown the PzIV to be not only outmoded but too vulnerable.
The design of the PzIV was effectively rendered obsolete, thus requiring a new vehicle be designed.
The logical step was therefore to design a new tank that incorporated the advantages of the T34/76 from the outset. As in fact was done, witness the Henschel prototype PzIV replacement, a virtual copy of the T34. Imho, that would have been the better tank to have produced, as clearly shown by Hitler personally authorising production of 200 Henschel tanks for operational testing in combat. These were the German T34 copy, and indeed even look very similar.
Later, after the MAN Panther prototype had been chosen, the Order for the 200 Henschel tanks was cancelled (rumour has it, by Col. Heinrici of the “Panzer Commission”) , when the vehicles themselves were over 90% complete. Again imho: that was a fatal error, as the Henschel vehicles could easily have gone into service without the plethora of problems the MAN Panther initially suffered.
Granted, the PzV Panther as it finally matured ( and most certainly in the Panther F and Panther II versions) was a formidable tank, likely the best all-round tank of WW2. However, I’ve often wondered whether the Henschel parallel vehicle would not have been even more formidable, being that it was easier to produce, cheaper to produce, easier to maintain, and every bit as efficient and effective as the MAN vehicle that supplanted it. Yes, I like the Panther, but the DB/Henschel tank may indeed have been better still.
It is somewhat ironic that the Henschel Panther was ignored while the MAN Panther was chosen, and the Henschel KoenigsTiger was built to compliment its smaller MAN “Brother”.
