Then wasn’t a Tiger I less effective than most versions of the Panther in combat?
No, The Tiger I was by far more effective than the Panther particulary more efective than the ausf D Pz V mostly because his more reliable mechanical components. Also had more survibality in the battlefield due his heavier side armor ( the vulnerable spot of the Panther)
Also this: Although the Kwk 42 can shoot HE ammo that is pretty weak compared with 8,8cm shells, this made the Tiger a better infantry support vehicle.
The Tiger suffered from many teething-pains as it’s transmission and power plant was far too small for the vehicles overall weight (a common problem in WWII actually, one of the reasons why the Sherman took so long to upgrade).
The Panther was also easier to manufacture and I believe simpler to operate.
Also this: Although the Kwk 42 can shoot HE ammo that is pretty weak compared with 8,8cm shells, this made the Tiger a better infantry support vehicle.
But the Panther’s 75mm long-barrel gun was actually a better armor-piercing weapon. And I doubt supporting infantry assaults was high on the priority list of German combat ops by the middle of 1944…
I think the article you posted exactly mirrors what I said. Of course the Tiger’s “teething pains” were work out, as were those of the Panther Ausf A/D…
Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf D(D1), along with Panzerjäger Tiger(P) Ferdinand (Sd.Kfz.184) and other new armored fighting vehicles, made their debut with Panzer Abteilungen 51 and 52 (96 tanks each) along with Panzer Regiment Stab 39 (8 tanks each) as part of Heeresgruppe Sued (Army Group South) in July 1943 during Operation Citadel in the Kursk salient. Because of technical problems (especially with the gearbox, transmission and suspension, and engine fires) that were not fully solved until later, many Panthers broke down before and during the battle.
In August 1943, after repairs and modifications to the gearbox and other systems, a new variant of Panther was produced-the Ausf A, which soon became a formidable weapon. Panther Ausf A was the most numerous variant during the Normandy campaign, and some 400 Panthers of all types were lost there. Panther Ausf A featured a redesigned turret, the new cast commander’s cupola, a mounting bracket for an AA MG34 on the cupola, a ball-mounted MG34 in the frontal plate and standard armor skirts. Over time, five different types of exhaust arrangement were used. In general, from August 1943 to May 1944, some 2,200 were produced by MAN, Daimler-Benz, Demag and Henschel.
As with any weapon in constant use, various modifications and design changes were made to the Panther to improve its combat capabilities. In March 1944, the first Ausf G was produced. Panther Ausf G became the most numerous model, and had many new features. These included a new design for the top hull hatches, removal of the driver’s visor in the glacis (front) plate and upper hull sides closer to the vertical. Later variants had a rotating periscope for the driver, a new exhaust arrangement, a new mantlet design to eliminate the shot trap and a new engine deck layout with a raised fan cover. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Ausf G was the tapered one-piece upper hull side plate on the sponson over the suspension. From March 1944 to April 1945, some 2,950 were produced by MAN, Daimler-Benz and MNH.
Older models returned for repairs were often fitted with newer parts creating hybrids.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther
I think it’s impossible to draw any conclusions as to which was the more combat effective panzer. But I’m pretty sure the Panther was cheaper, more versatile, and easier to mass produce…
And the King Tiger was simply a silly, pointless idea…
… which would mean he was definatly more efficient, as teh businessman would say 
Or as my prof in political economics course i took in college has explained the difference between effectiveness and efficiency:
You can use a small calibre rifle or an artillery to kill the bird that always shits on your roof. Both means are equally effective, the bird is dead. But one way will be a hell of a lot more expensive and your wife might wonder, where the house has gone.
I think it’s impossible to draw any conclusions as to which was the more combat effective panzer. But I’m pretty sure the Panther was cheaper, more versatile, and easier to mass produce…
There is a fine example of how the Tiger one was completely superior than the Panther at list in the year 1943.
The 6 july 1943 there was 140 Tigers battle ready in Kursk, in turn there was more than 210 Panthers in the same conditions, 3 days later there was still 110 Tigers engaging the russian armor and artillery defenses, the rest were destroyed or were on repair…just 30 panthers remain in usable conditions, mostly lost due mechanical failure.
Tiger I, s.H.Pz Abt 503. USSR 1943.
Oh c’mon Panzerk, that was when the Panther was still just a newborn. The Tiger had already seen a far amount of combat in North Africa and previously in the East.
Overall, the finalized versions of the Panther were indeed more reliable than the Tiger…
BTW, how many T-34s broke down?
If the germans had more time to further study and to up date the tiger 2 it would be a hell of a tank. dont get me wrong it was the mother of all tanks but it was using the tiger 1 transmission and engine. if it had a bigger power plant and trany it would be a bitch to battle against. The motor of the tiger 1 was only able to hand so much weight and wasn’t suited towards the tiger 2’s 34 tons, but if the germans develpoed a stronger motor and transmission there would be no stopping it
In Wittmann’s final battle he was part of a 7 Tiger I unit advancing towards British and Canadian positions which drove into an ambush.
5 Tiger I’s were destroyed without loss to the Allied units, 3 of the Tigers being destroyed by a single Sherman Firefly.
Witmann being killed by an ambushed Firefly is by far more credible than the version indicating thart it was hit by a Typhoons rocket.
Tiger, 13 Kompanie LSSAH
Wittmann’s unit the Sehwere Panzer-Abteilung 101 only lost 4 Tigers in the battle of Normandy due to air attack.
These were all lost on the 15th June, when caught in an heavy bomber attack near Villers Bocage.
I think this goes to show that although the Sherman was inferior to the panzers, a good deal of the loss rate and disparity had too do with the Shermans taking the offensive against dug-in or concealed Tigers waiting in ambush. I believe this was one of the findings of a US Army post-War report on the subject of armor…
I think this goes to show that although the Sherman was inferior to the panzers, a good deal of the loss rate and disparity had too do with the Shermans taking the offensive against dug-in or concealed Tigers waiting in ambush. I believe this was one of the findings of a US Army post-War report on the subject of armor…
I agree but the panther was used in hit and run tactics were they would advance, engage then disengage, hoping the enemy tanks would follow were tigers and/or other panzers would be waiting to ambush and it was favored in this role over the panzer IV or tiger.
I want to know if anyone remembers a documentary about d-day that came out years ago, in it there was a british soldier talkinag about how a panther advanced at high speed, swung around toward the column of british shermans and knocked out, it was either 7 or 9 shermans before later in the day the RAF sorted him out in his words, in the same documetary and i think it was the same british soldier saying how a young german soldier (a child) hit a tank at close range with a panzeraust killing the crew inside but wounding himself badly and refusing water.
‘Das Reich’ not LSSAH
Does anyone have the amount of tank kills claimed by Wittmann’s unit the Sehwere Panzer-Abteilung 101 during the Battle Of Normandy?
I know the unit is credited with a total of 500 kills in total, but how many just for Normandy
Interesting.
I was aware that the Wehrmacht had used similar tactics in the Desert against the 8th Army. But I thought they used tanks in general to exploit the British thirst for tank vs. tank engagements by luring them into a screen of PAK or 88mm guns…
If I remember correctly there is a brief reference in Agte that Wittmann made one kill claim other than for Villers Bocage. That seems to be it.
If you take Fey’s claims (SS102) of 80+ kills at face value then he alone accounted for a third of the Units total score!
Then there is his medal claim…
Thanks but its not Wittmann’s tally that I’m really interested in, its the total amount of claims made for the whole unit in Normandy
I see, i will looking some info about it.
Tiger hit.
Tiger and other weapons in a demonstration to Turkish Generals.