Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger

[dy031101]

Having some hindsights on how the Tiger and King Tiger have actually performed on the battlefield, has anyone here figured that there's something Germany could have done to avoid at least some of those negative aspects that plagued the heavy tanks?  Logan briefly mentioned weight control issues in the Panzer IV thread; upon learning that there was a lighter predecessor design to the Tiger called VK3601(H), I wonder if the Germans could have just put it in service and give it a "Panzer IV Ausf. K" treatment when a better protection scheme was called for?

Or would you think that Germany was doomed to come up with those monstrosities that we've come to know regardless, given both the industrial AND tactical realities of WWII Germany?

[Gondor]

Part of the problems that Germany had with their heavier tanks was that they had not developed a more powerful engine and drive train at the same time.

Gondor

[dy031101]

True, but I'm also wondering if having some of the longest-reach AND hardest-hitting anti-tank guns to begin with would actually have made some concessions in, say, armour thickness (and consequently making the weight of a complete tank to a level which what they had could cope with) acceptable.

[dy031101]

Tanks are a balance of armor, mobility and firepower.  You just need to decide which is more important.

I just kinda got a feeling that the heaviness that caused German heavy tanks so much trouble was also partially a result of Germans trying to get things so perrrrrrfect- the hardest-hitting gun that outranged everyone else AND the thickest armours that could stop all anti-tank guns and then some.  Mobility, on the other hand, didn't seem to be that much of a problem when the tanks were in a mechanically-functioning order.

But if even the 90mm gun without HVAP shells would have trouble consistently penetrating the Panther's frontal armour, wouldn't it have been good enough to just represent an improvement in all-around protection from the Panther's level (instead of demanding in addition an even thicker frontal protection than the Panther)?  Would doing so still have produced a 70-ton tank?

[tahsin]

This is actually something the French would kill to have in 1940 . The wheeled Panther I mean .

[tahsin]

And with powerful guns on thinner armour you will end up with the American task destroyer concept . Did not exactly work out .

[dy031101]

And with powerful guns on thinner armour you will end up with the American task destroyer concept . Did not exactly work out .

I'm rather thinking of having all-around protection as good as the frontal protection of the Panther.  It's after all a heavy tank (and it appeared that lower-end of heavy became the new medium in the West since 1946), so the armours can't be paper-thin like those on the American TDs.

[nev]

Tanks are a balance of armor, mobility and firepower.  You just need to decide which is more important.

I just kinda got a feeling that the heaviness that caused German heavy tanks so much trouble was also partially a result of Germans trying to get things so perrrrrrfect- the hardest-hitting gun that outranged everyone else AND the thickest armours that could stop all anti-tank guns and then some.  Mobility, on the other hand, didn't seem to be that much of a problem when the tanks were in a mechanically-functioning order.

Which was rare.  And Tigers had a nasty habit of falling off or through bridges.  And Tiger IIs were virtually incapable of going off-road.

[dy031101]

Mobility, on the other hand, didn't seem to be that much of a problem when the tanks were in a mechanically-functioning order.

Which was rare.  And Tigers had a nasty habit of falling off or through bridges.  And Tiger IIs were virtually incapable of going off-road.
[/quote]

All because of their heaviness.  Which is why I asked if Wehrmacht could have placed emphasis on protection within a more reasonable boundary rather than letting the weight balloon, especially in light of them already having guns that are lethal to any present and near-future opponents out there.

[Logan Hartke]

I'm rather thinking of having all-around protection as good as the frontal protection of the Panther.  It's after all a heavy tank (and it appeared that lower-end of heavy became the new medium in the West since 1946), so the armours can't be paper-thin like those on the American TDs.

The frontal protection on the Panther was very good.  It was also very thick.  So thick, in fact, that it overloaded the Panther's suspension and caused the front torsion bars to begin snapping in a domino-effect after a few thousand miles of hard driving.  That's what resulted in the Panther II's new suspension.  From the very first Panther tank, the chassis was at or over its limit.  It had no room for growth.  Trying for that protection overall would have resulted in a tank with greater armor protection (and weight) than a King Tiger.

The Soviets just about had that with the IS-3...which was also overloaded and apparently a bit of a "hangar queen" postwar as a result.

If you tried to make a tank with overall protection as thick as a Panther's frontal protection, you'd end up with a real monster.


I think the solution for WWII tanks shouldn't have been in making them invulnerable, but in making them more survivable.  I particularly like the late-war Third Army Shermans.  They had a double-thick glacis plate scavenged from another Sherman welded to the front of the hull.  There were better guns out there, but HVSS suspension, wet stowage, good frontal armor, a good communications suite, and a reliable, powerful engine made for a great tank, overall.

The Panther had good frontal armor (poor armor everywhere else, but who cares honestly?), but apparently were quite deadly to their crews once penetrated.  The engine compartment was--due primarily to goofy cooling setup and hydraulic lines--very prone to fire...even without being hit.  Ammunition stowage arrangement led to frequent fires after being hit.

Listen to what the late Jacques Littlefield learned about brilliant German engineering when restoring his Panther.  It's not too nice.

That podcast series is really very good, and Zaloga and Chadwick have some interesting comments about the Panther vs Sherman, as well.

Cheers,

Logan

[jcf]

The problem was not just weight, they were also overly complex along with being designed and manufactured to
unnecessary levels of tolerance with the result that construction was slow and maintenance nightmarish. Back in
the mid-30s Hitler complained about the 'über-perfection' of German engineering and manufacturing and stated
repeatedly that he wanted them to emulate Ford ... build 'em quick, simple and in mass quantities.
He never got his wish.

[Logan Hartke]

they were also overly complex along with being designed and manufactured to
unnecessary levels of tolerance with the result that construction was slow and maintenance nightmarish.

That's exactly what Littlefield says in the podcast.

Cheers,

Logan

[jcf]

That's exactly what Littlefield says in the podcast.

Cheers,

Logan

Thanks for the link , I listened to it after posting and I like how he says he could go on about the Panther's
'engineering'. 

[Logan Hartke]

No problem, Jon.  There are plenty of myths that just deserve to die.  Over engineering does not equal superior engineering.  That's not the first time I've heard that complaint about the Panther or even German engineering in general.  I read an article by some Fw 190 restorers with a lot of P-51 experience that said a lot of the same things.

You tend to find that when you get into the hard evidence yourself that a lot of what you know about the Panther is wrong.  I really do rate it a poor tank design...period.  Both of Osprey's Duel books that deal with the Panther make it look rather silly.

The Germans lost about 2/3 of the Panthers they contributed to the Battle of the Bulge--about 1/3 to direct action with US forces and another 1/3 due to breakdowns.  That's just plain ridiculous.  I call that an outright engineering FAILURE.  These were new Panthers, too, not ex-Kursk, high-mileage, war-weary ones.  Their final drives would just fail.  Their engines would catch fire under normal operating conditions.  Torsion bars would break going up and down hills.  The cooling fan units would break and kill the engine.  All of these were VERY difficult to repair/replace and would require depot-level rebuilding over numerous days.  The exception was engine fire, which was the worst problem and almost always resulted in the tank being a total loss.

By comparison, you could replace any component of the Sherman's suspension in a matter of hours.  I've seen pictures of a Sherman transmission swap in the field with little equipment.  McNair's policies kept Pershings from getting to the field as soon, but they also ensured that only very reliable equipment made it to the GIs.  Sherman engines would last.  Sherman transmissions would last.  Sherman VVSS suspension was stiff, but wouldn't break.  The HVSS suspension was more forgiving, but no less reliable.  Not only that, but there was far less that could go wrong on a Sherman.

Robert Forczyk's book on the Panther vs T-34 shows that really the MAN design was the wrong choice.  They Germans almost had a world-beater, but party politics got in the way.  The MAN design had a lot of serious design flaws, not just "teething issues" as some would have you believe.  Studying the Panther in the Ardennes and listening to the restorers like Littlefield sure does reinforce that opinion.  I'd much rather have a unit of Tiger Is (far more reliable) or maybe even PzKpfw IVs.

The Panther is a lot like the Soviet KV tanks.  They're impressive on paper, fearsome on the battlefield, but not too intimidating in the ditch where they spent much of their time.

Cheers,

Logan

[Logan Hartke]

By the way, I do also want to say that the Tiger I is my favorite tank of WWII and I think that the PzKpfw IV was the best starting point for "ideal tank of WWII".  Not all German tanks are bad and I don't think the Germans were poor designers.

The Tiger I earned every ounce of praise that gets heaped upon it and probably a share of the Panther's accolades, too.  The designers set out to accomplish a specific goal and they did so.  It was everything it advertised and more.  It was more reliable than it is generally given credit for and was a deadly adversary from 1942 to 1945.  It's the first and only German tank I know if that can claim a kill on a US Pershing tank.  The Tiger I is also the best-looking tank of WWII.

The PzKpfw IV was a great design job.  It could have used a more efficient armor layout and better suspension, but what a fantastically balanced, efficient, and adaptable design.  It really set the standard for the war.

I just have something against the Panther (and the T-34, for that matter).  Often lauded as hands down the best tanks of WWII, I can't see it.  In practice, they were both seriously handicapped by a number of poor design decisions.  Both tanks were nose-heavy and couldn't be upgraded as much as the users would have liked.  The frontal hull armor for the T-34 was inadequate by 1943 and there was nothing that could be done about it.  It would remain inadequate the rest of its career.  That's why you see the turret further back on all subsequent Soviet tank designs.  Same with the Panther.  That's why the first major armor upgrade resulted in a new tank, the Panther II.

Cheers,

Logan