Panther vs tiger

[Aurelianus Restitutor Orbis]

Hello, can pls someone explain why tigers are inferior to panthers in the game? I don't understand why panthers have a better gun, stronger Armour than tigers? In real life it was not the case. Tiger was the heavy tank with a the strongest Armour (excl king tiger), while panther was a medium tank which came to replace panzer iv. Thanks

[Deraios]

It was the case IRL. The 80 mm sloped front of the Panther gives it better armor than the 100 mm at 10° of the Tiger. The high velocity 75 mm gun on the Panther gives it better armor penetration capabilities, especially up to the ingame limit of 2 km. The downsides of the Panther are the pathetic side armor and lower high explosive performance.

[acur1231]

The Panther's long 75 was a better AT gun than the 88, although the 88 had better penetration at long range while the long 75 had preformance drop off sooner. The Panther had better frontal armour than the Tiger, as it was sloped, dramatically increasing protection. The Panther was pretty much better than the Tiger in every way, and was basically a heavy tank in all but name.

[John]

The Tiger 1 does indeed have thicker armor than the Panther, however it isn't slopped like the Panther's frontal armor which actually makes it less effective.
Once the Germans encountered the T-34 and saw how effective slopped armor was they quickly made plans to include slopped armor on their AFVs, which is why the King Tiger and Panther were put into production.

As far as the gun I'm not that sure, both the 75mm and 88mm have similar muzzle velocities, however the tiger has a bigger projectile.

[TankinatorXD]

Originally posted by acur1231:

and was basically a heavy tank in all but name.

No, start comparing the side armor.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by TankinatorXD:

Originally posted by acur1231:

and was basically a heavy tank in all but name.

No, start comparing the side armor.

Bad side armour, but a heavy tank does not have to be armoured all round. Look at the weight of the Panther and tell me it is a medium

[TankinatorXD]

Originally posted by acur1231:

Originally posted by TankinatorXD:

No, start comparing the side armor.

Bad side armour, but a heavy tank does not have to be armoured all round. Look at the weight of the Panther and tell me it is a medium

It is a medium

[acur1231]

Originally posted by TankinatorXD:

Originally posted by acur1231:

Bad side armour, but a heavy tank does not have to be armoured all round. Look at the weight of the Panther and tell me it is a medium

It is a medium

No. It was meant to be a medium but ended up as a heavy tank. That thing weighs in closer to a Tiger than to a Sherman.

[TankinatorXD]

Originally posted by acur1231:

Originally posted by TankinatorXD:

It is a medium

No. It was meant to be a medium but ended up as a heavy tank. That thing weighs in closer to a Tiger than to a Sherman.

So Centurion and Leopard 1 are heavy tanks too?

[Deraios]

It really doesn't f*cking matters, guys. The Germans designated it as a medium tank and that's the end of it. It does what it does.

[TankinatorXD]

Originally posted by Deraios:

It really doesn't f*cking matters, guys. The Germans designated it as a medium tank and that's the end of it. It does what it does.

Not only the germans, but now, our hero acur1231 has decided to change that!

[Aurelianus Restitutor Orbis]

Certainly 100m @ 10° is not inferior to 80m @ 60°. I am aware of the slope advantages. But in practice tiger was impenetrable from the front. Read any book about the ww2 and you will never see panther being mentioned as the impenetrable tank fortress the way tiger was.

[Gaspote]

The Tiger I was designed in 41(starting years before) while the panther was designed in 42.
So they were not designed to face the same tank (in term of armor and gun).
During campaign barborassa german struggle against KV1 and T34 armor at medium, long range and noticed only their 88 could penetrated them.
Just compare a 1942 T34 in the game against the Tiger I.

The panther was designed based on experience with Panzer III and IV, Tiger I and against T34 tank, so you got something far more advanced. It was designed using the sloping armour of the T34 so you got a better frontal armor and to penetrate T34 at medium, long range.
Then compare 1943 T34 vs Panther.

Also the gun used by the Tiger I isn't the same than Tiger II, saying 88 is one gun is reductive.
Tiger bring a 1936 gun while Tiger II bring a 1943 gun. Also Panther use an AT gun from 1942.

To answer quickly, why Panther is better than Tiger I ? Because Panther was designed one year later using experience from the war (including experience with Tiger I).

[Woah]

Originally posted by Aurelianus Restitutor Orbis:

Certainly 100m @ 10° is not inferior to 80m @ 60°. I am aware of the slope advantages. But in practice tiger was impenetrable from the front. Read any book about the ww2 and you will never see panther being mentioned as the impenetrable tank fortress the way tiger was.

thats because the tiger wasent impenetrable either

it could be penned by the t34 sherman and other tanks at close range

and in 1944 is began going downhill because everything the allies fielded could penetrate it up to a decent distance

the tiger was never an impenetrable fortress its just earned that name because it mostly fought t34s and not the improved 85 variant

the panther fought sherman 76s and t34 85s mostly while the tiger mostly (when it came out) fought t34 76 and sherman 75s


also no history book aside from the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ ones regard things like the panther or tiger as impenetrable because they werent

[Green-Bread]

Originally posted by Aurelianus Restitutor Orbis:

Certainly 100m @ 10° is not inferior to 80m @ 60°. I am aware of the slope advantages. But in practice tiger was impenetrable from the front. Read any book about the ww2 and you will never see panther being mentioned as the impenetrable tank fortress the way tiger was.

Actually it is the case that panther is superior than tiger in either game or real life.The reason that panther was not called as "impenetrable tank fortress" is because during 1942-1943 which panther and t-34-85 had not came out,the current tiger could overran the allies tank easily,it was also the time that allies started to called the tiger as "impenetrable tank fortress".But when the panther started to appearing at war,the soviet's t-34-85 and is-2 quickly came to against the panther and tiger's threat,it also reduced the impact to the allies and made them didn't feel the same fear when they saw a tiger at first.

[WhatIsLove?]

Originally posted by Aurelianus Restitutor Orbis:

Certainly 100m @ 10° is not inferior to 80m @ 60°. I am aware of the slope advantages. But in practice tiger was impenetrable from the front. Read any book about the ww2 and you will never see panther being mentioned as the impenetrable tank fortress the way tiger was.

Play graviteam tactics or tank warfare tunisia and tell me the tiger is impossible to penetrate. And those guys know their history.

TIger is great. But not impenetrable