Why does Panther cost more than Tiger?

[Jack]

Okay so the panther is faster and better penetration at shorter ranges (at least in real life if I recall correcltly, not sure about the game). But I thought the Tiger was an overall tougher tank and a deadlier foe.

[ewt.strat29]

The panthers conservation status is threatened, they are generally more rare.. and have more predators such as the lion and hyena.

The tigers only predator is the human... it is slower with a max speed of 90km per hour..
Your right though the patnher is faster at 114km masx speed, but is a smaller and less tougher and deadlier..

I think it lies with the rarerity.

[Simers]

LOL

[Real Goblin]

The Tiger is in essence a mass of steel plates on treads with a big gun. The Panther, however has a lot of then-advanced technology.

[RAZOR 1911]

:D

[Jack]

Lol nice one Strat. I was reading that and thinking "huh?" then I got it. Also FunnyFarm, Panther was cheaper to produce than Tiger. Roughly half the cost.

[Opavius]

Originally posted by strat29:

The panthers conservation status is threatened, they are generally more rare.. and have more predators such as the lion and hyena.

The tigers only predator is the human... it is slower with a max speed of 90km per hour..
Your right though the patnher is faster at 114km masx speed, but is a smaller and less tougher and deadlier..

I think it lies with the rarerity.

Yeah... not to mention, Tiger's statue on wall is too "classic", whilst Panther's statue looks more cool ! (no, i am a lover of nature ;-) )

Now real - in arcade games like Company of Heroes, where you have hitpoints, is Panther weaker. But in a "realistic" game like MoW, where it is important to use angles, to know armour specifications, gun penetrations... is Panther a more dangerous beast. Yep, Tiger has 100mm straight frontal and 90mm side armour, and can take a lot of shots, but due to straight armour can be penetrated more easily than Panther with its 80mm slopped frontal armour. (even if its side armour is just half thick). Also its gun is a bit better. So all in all, in hands of a good player, can be Panther much more dangerous tank, than Tiger.

[vOid ✠]

Panther is more agile and the 75mm L70 (means length is 70x75mm) is better than the 88mm L56, as length is required for a high v0. High v0 usually means high penetration.

Comparing just the armour is difficult, cause the Panther got sloped weaker armour, the Tiger flat stronger armour. The Tiger must / can be angled due to it's strong 80mm side protection, while the Panther must not / don't need to be angled. The Panther got a strong frontal turret, so it's good in hull-down position. They are hard to compare, I usually prefer Tigers in urban territory due to its 88mm HE while Panthers are excellent for fast flanking manoeuvers in mainly anti-tank role.
Overall I would say the pricing is justified cause Panthers were ahead of their time, quite reliable, fast, agile and more precise than the Tiger. They require some skill, though. For Tiger tankers it's easier, they just have remember the angling.

[Jack]

True. I once had two Pershings fire at a de-tracked Panther for quite a while. It took a hell of a beating, for a good 5-10 minutes, non-stop hits on the frontal armour. The Panther eventually survived (but didn't manage to hurt the Pershings).

Which brings up another question. Why are Pershings cheaper than Centurion tanks when the latter is no where near as good in game?

[76561198047534318]

Because no one whined about it.

[Jack]

Well.. Okay.. But I'm just trying to understand the reasoning :P Is there something great about the Centurion I'm missing? I never seem to have a problem faced against one but Pershings I seem to have a bit of difficulty facing against sometimes.

[natnat]

Originally posted by darbyjack:

Well.. Okay.. But I'm just trying to understand the reasoning :P Is there something great about the Centurion I'm missing? I never seem to have a problem faced against one but Pershings I seem to have a bit of difficulty facing against sometimes.

There are not designed to face Pershings. You'll notice lots of mismatches between allied nations because the game isn't designed for us vs uk. (example would be Comet being only 50 more than Sherman 76 yet being much, much superior).
I don't use the Centerion much anyway because it's armour is just not worth the extra cost. An achilles has the same devastating gun but much, much cheaper.

[Jack]

I don't mean that... I don't normally play Allies vs Allies. I'm just saying in general if I'm facing a Pershing I'd be more scared. Which baffles me since Centurion cost more. Is there something about the Centurion that's better?

[Ðëprávèd•Mïšçréånt]

Originally posted by darbyjack:

I don't mean that... I don't normally play Allies vs Allies. I'm just saying in general if I'm facing a Pershing I'd be more scared. Which baffles me since Centurion cost more. Is there something about the Centurion that's better?

The Panthers gun is a 75mm high velocity an travels faster than the Tigers, the Panther can penetrate Armor the tiger cannot however the Panther has less Armor but is faster.

The Stats are in the game.

[vOid ✠]

Is there something about the Centurion that's better?

A lot: However the guns are quite similar, the Pershing's got a few cm more penetration capability at long ranges while the Centurion's got more penetration capabilty at medium to shorter ranges. The Pershing got 90mm to the Centurion's 76mm 17pdr so I guess hits from the Pershing got more destructive power.
But the Centurion got a frontal turret armour of 165, while the turret's sides are at 112mm... more than the Pershing got on its strongest part (full frontal 102mm). Together with its sloped 118mm frontal hull the Centurion is something between a Kingtiger and a Tiger. In the mentioned hull-down position it can swivel its turret to nearly all sides and is very hard to kill. Head on attacks against it aren't so healthy as long as you don't ride a Jagdpanther or above. However it needs flank protection as its sides are 50mm... that's Pz III frontal armour while the Pershing got 76mm, that's nearly Panther's front armour.

So, as the Centurion got better armour, a higher speed, nearly the same gun I think the higher price is justified. However it can be killed easily if the player doesn't take care of his flanks, so it should not be the newbies first choice. Newbie - friendly is the Pershing.

Both tanks remind me of Panther / Tiger, so it's logical that they show up in this thread, too.
Panther = Centurion, Pershing = Tiger in how to handle them while both allied tanks are superior to their german counterparts. Also with angling: Never ever angle the Centurion more than 20° (I wouldn't angle it at all due to a weak spot) while the Pershing should be angled at 37°. Oh, I wander from the subject...

[Kyso4ek]

Panther pros:
-frontal hull armor is considerably tougher
-gun is more powerful antitank?

Panther cons:
-side is rly weakly armored;
-turret is armored the same as tiger 1 front?
-more expensive, no vet panther :D

Panther has a much stronker hull armor from the front, only turret can be hit from the front rly.

Overall vet tiger is a well established best tank for use if you play ze germans however it sucks vs super pershings.