Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger

[The Wooksta!]

I saw some programme about tanks on one of the cable channels a while back and some historian reckoned that the best tank to come out of WWII was the Centurion...

[Logan Hartke]

It all depends on how you phrase it and how you measure it.  I would say that the tank design with the most potential at the end of WWII was likely the Centurion.  The darn thing was just...right.  It wasn't perfect yet, however, and the Centurion took a lot of work to make it the tank the Western world knew and loved on the Golan Heights.  It was a much better design than the Panther, but it should have been.  It came out years later than anything else.  Ironically, the other major contender for that title in my opinion?  The T-54.  Arguably it was both the more successful and more efficient design out of the two.  Granted, I would much rather have had an army equipped with Centurions and much rather crewed a Centurion, but the T-54 was fantastic in its own right.

Based on service in WWII, I would probably argue that the Sherman was the best tank of the war, the PzKpfw IV was the best tank design of the war, and the T-34 was the most influential/important tank of the war.

Cheers,

Logan

[jcf]

I'm with Logan on the Pzkpw IV and have long been puzzled why the Germans threw-over
a highly developed, adaptable and producible design to pursue the Chimera of the Über-panzer.

Of course I'm happy that they took that path. 

[royabulgaf]

Hear Hear.  The Germans would not use a sheet metal stamping when two precisely machined pieces would do just as well.  It looks great on paper when you can (barely) keep tank production up, but it ends up at the cost of second line material, trucks and such.  For a good part of the war, while designing and building stuff like that Wasserschlepper thingy, and the RSO, they couldn't afford to sustain much in the way of practical transport, and either used horse-drawn wagons or trucks scrounged from the used-truck lots of occupied Europe. 

[dy031101]

You know, the more I look at the story of German tanks, the more I figure that the best German heavy tank in my mind would probably have been VK3601(H) (with refinements found on Tiger I, if there was any that this lighter predecessor tank doesn't have) given the Panzer IV Ausf. K treatment.

And I liked the M26 Pershing more than I ever would the T-34- and it isn't because the T-34 is made by the commies!

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.

Oh...... I was under the impression that King Tiger has thicker armour everywhere than the Panther.  Then I checked Wikipedia and realized that it wasn't entirely accurate.  

They Germans almost had a world-beater, but party politics got in the way.

VK3002(DB) or Panzer T-25?

Hear Hear.  The Germans would not use a sheet metal stamping when two precisely machined pieces would do just as well.  It looks great on paper when you can (barely) keep tank production up, but it ends up at the cost of second line material, trucks and such.  For a good part of the war, while designing and building stuff like that Wasserschlepper thingy, and the RSO, they couldn't afford to sustain much in the way of practical transport, and either used horse-drawn wagons or trucks scrounged from the used-truck lots of occupied Europe.  

Wikipedia claims that the Panther came to fruition when measures to increase war production were commencing in earnest, causing it to be only slightly more costly than a Panzer IV and the third most produced German armored fighting vehicle in WWII.  Did that make no difference to the inherient weaknesses of the Panther tank or make them worse?

[rickshaw]

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.

That wasn't what was reported by most Allied tankers who encountered them.  They were very envious of their ability to cross ground which would bog Shermans.   The Tiger II did have mechanical problems, it did have mobility problems but lets not exaggerate them, please!  When everything was working well and the ground suited them, they were quite capable of manoeuvring.

[nev]

That comment is based upon reading a Russian report of captured Tiger IIs.  It could go at walking pace off-road, but once the ground started to get slightly rough or boggy or undulating it could barely move.  They also suffered broken transmissions, gearboxes, suspensions & cracked road wheels - all down to weight.

Anyway, the "best tank" is always an interesting debate - there are 3 other factors to look at beside firepower, armour + mobility. 
What would a politician want?  Low cost + high rate of production
What would a general want?  Lots of them + a high servicability rate
What would a tanker want?  Thick armour + a big gun!

So whilst the Panzer IV & Sherman may be the most numerous, most flexible, most adaptable and most reliable, if I'm driving a tank in 1944 I'm not sure those are the qualities I would be looking for!

[Logan Hartke]

And I liked the M26 Pershing more than I ever would the T-34- and it isn't because the T-34 is made by the commies!

Were I told to choose one tank to outfit an entire army at the end of WWII, no modifications, no Frankenstein tanks, I would choose the M26 Pershing--no question.  It was the best combination of armor/firepower/mobility and reliability of any vehicle at the end of WWII.  Good, reliable engine and suspension (still in use today), low silhouette, good armor, good gun, good radio, and good crew layout.  The Centurion was the more advanced and adaptable design, and the T-54 was more efficient, but neither were close to ready for primetime yet and would require years of tweaking before they would be.

They Germans almost had a world-beater, but party politics got in the way.

VK3002(DB) or Panzer T-25?

Dr. Forczyk likes the VK 3002 (DB).  I don't think he considered the Skoda T-25 a political possibility.  He thinks the diesel engine would be the solution to many of the Germans' needs over the lifetime of the Panther, though I've heard that the Germans had a severe diesel shortage, priority going to the Kreigsmarine (U-Boats), so I don't know how practical it would have been in reality.

Wikipedia claims that the Panther came to fruition when measures to increase war production were commencing in earnest, causing it to be only slightly more costly than a Panzer IV and the third most produced German armored fighting vehicle in WWII.  Did that make no difference to the inherient weaknesses of the Panther tank or make them worse?

The Panther was seemingly the better value, but the end user was not getting anywhere near as many tanks at the front for the same number of Reichsmarks.

http://www.panzerworld.net/prices#germanafvs

They look about the same, but that's far from the whole story.  Fully equipped, the Panther would probably be at least 20% more expensive than the PzKpfw IV.  I'd wager the true number would be closer to about 50% more.  That's just for starting money out of your pocket at the factory door.



Lets say you have about 12 million Reichsmarks.  Normally you'd get about 100 PzKpfw IVs.  Instead, you get about 85 Panthers.  Not bad.  I'd take 85 Panthers on the battlefield over 100 PzKpfw IVs.  Good value.  Load them on the train, no problem.  Still 100 Pz IV : 85 Panthers.

Getting them off the train, you lose a few Panthers.  If you try to turn while backing up, you'll destroy the final drive on a Panther.  You're down to about 80 vehicles.  No problems with the Pz IVs.  100 Pz IV: 80 Panthers

Drive them 100 km to the front.  Twenty Pz IVs break down, 10 are quickly repaired by your mechanics, familiar with the vehicle--easily accessing the failed components, 6 of the rest are recovered by FAMOs or recovery tanks (turretless Pz IIIs), and 2 are total losses--engine fire.  Of the 80 Panthers, 30 break down, 10 are total losses due to engine fire, 10 are repaired, only 10 of the remainder are recovered, 4 are recovered by Bergepanthers and the other 6 are towed by other Panthers.  Ten vehicles are left on the side of the road, they may be recovered later on, but you won't see them for the coming battle.  Of the Panthers being towed by other Panthers, one of the Panthers doing the towing has an engine fire under the stress and is a total loss, you leave them both.  In another case, the stress on the tow vehicle results in a final drive failure, you leave both vehicles again.  96 Pz IV (90 operational) : 62 Panthers (56 operational)

Going into the battle against enemy armor on the Eastern Front, you have 90 Pz IV and 56 Panthers.  Twenty Pz IV are knocked out, 10 burnt, you recover 8 of the remainder.  Ten Panthers are knocked out, 7 burnt, you recover one of the remainder.  At the end of the first engagement, you have 78 Pz IV and 47 Panthers.  84 Pz IV (72 operational) : 53 Panthers (52 operational)

Drive another 50 km to the next engagement.  Sixteen Pz IVs break down, 8 are repaired, 4 more are recovered.  Twenty Panthers break down, 10 are repaired, 3 are recovered.  80 Pz IV (68 operational) : 46 Panthers (42 operational)

Attack supporting infantry attacking a town surrounded by rain-soaked fields.  Eight Pz IVs are mired and 4 Panthers are mired in mud.  The remaining tanks continue the attack.  In the house to house fighting, the additional armor and long gun are little-good against infantry.  Ten Pz IVs and nine Panthers are knocked out, half of those are burnt out and total losses.  After the battle, 6 Pz IVs are pulled from the mud and only 2 Panthers are pulled from the mud.  Four of the knocked out Pz IVs are recovered, only 2 Panthers are.  72 Pz IV (68 operational) : 37 Panthers (35 operational)

The enemy's advancing along the front and you have to pull back 50 km.  Fifteen Pz IVs break down, 7 are repaired, 4 more are recovered.  Eighteen Panthers break down, 9 are repaired, 2 are recovered.  68 Pz IV (61 operational) : 30 Panthers (26 operational)



While the above is all hypothetical, you can see how, only maybe a month after they came out of the factory door, that same 12 million RM translated to well over twice as many Panzer IVs as Panthers on the battlefield.  The combination of lower mechanical reliability and greater overall weight resulted in perfect storm.  When a PzKpfw III or IV broke down or was knocked out, you hooked it to a FAMO or another tank and towed it somewhere that you could fix it.  When a Panther broke down or was knocked out, you left it.  There weren't enough Bergepanthers to go around and nothing else was up to the job.  The German Army's logistical network (recovery vehicles, engine manufacturers, transmissions, bridges, etc) just wasn't designed around a 45-50 ton monster.  It's not a matter of flotation in mud.  It's a matter of towing when broken down.

Even worse was the propensity of the Panther to catch fire when something went wrong with the engine.  Plenty were lost when their engines just burst into flames.  You can't do much with a burnt out tank, even if it was only the engine compartment, it's still effectively a total loss.  Like joncarrfarrelly, I'm happy they went the route they did, but the Panther was the worse choice for the Germans.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

(And I compared the M26 Pershing with the T-34 because I came across so many people being proud of the T-34 for it being a medium tank that can challenge heavy tanks in the 85mm-gun-armed form...... which I found remotely believable only because I was told on seperate occassions that Soviet-influenced cultures tend to regard the Panther as a heavy tank......)

Dr. Forczyk likes the VK 3002 (DB).

VK3002(DB) with Schmalturm and KwK-43?  Um......  

[The Wooksta!]

http://henk.fox3000.com/panther.htm

[rickshaw]

That comment is based upon reading a Russian report of captured Tiger IIs.  It could go at walking pace off-road, but once the ground started to get slightly rough or boggy or undulating it could barely move.  They also suffered broken transmissions, gearboxes, suspensions & cracked road wheels - all down to weight.

Mmmm, I wouldn't necessarily say that the Eastern Front was the norm and what the Russians reported wasn't necessarily reflected in what was experienced on the Western Front.  Distances and the degree of wear in the East was appreciably longer and harder as a consequence whereas in the West the reverse was true.

Anyway, the "best tank" is always an interesting debate - there are 3 other factors to look at beside firepower, armour + mobility. 
What would a politician want?  Low cost + high rate of production
What would a general want?  Lots of them + a high servicability rate
What would a tanker want?  Thick armour + a big gun!

So whilst the Panzer IV & Sherman may be the most numerous, most flexible, most adaptable and most reliable, if I'm driving a tank in 1944 I'm not sure those are the qualities I would be looking for!

I would suggest there is no such thing as an absolute "best tank".  Each vehicle has to be taken in context.  I would suggest that the Tiger II was an excellent heavy tank for defensive purposes, nothing more.  I'd have preferred a JSII for a heavy tank intended for offensive purposes.  And of course, heavies cannot be compared to mediums, nor mediums to lights, nor late to early and so on and so on.   Something that amateurs don't appreciate.  So you see Panzer IIs compared to T34s and so on.

[Logan Hartke]

(And I compared the M26 Pershing with the T-34 because I came across so many people being proud of the T-34 for it being a medium tank that can challenge heavy tanks in the 85mm-gun-armed form...... which I found remotely believable only because I was told on seperate occassions that Soviet-influenced cultures tend to regard the Panther as a heavy tank......)

The Soviet 85mm was not really any better than the American 76mm gun or German KwK 40 penetration-wise.  They were all in the same class.  The British had no equivalent gun.  Their 17pdr was far better, equivalent to the American 90mm and German 75mm KwK 42 and 88mm KwK 36.  Don't take calibers at face value.  Some Red Army buffs like to make you think that the 85mm was right up there with the 88mm and 90mm guns of the Germans and Americans.  It was not.

The Panther, Tiger, Pershing, Centurion Mks 1 & 2, and IS-2 were all comparable.

Interestingly, no nation was heads and shoulders better than another at developing tank guns.  Depending on the size AFV you're going to be putting it in, each nation had some fantastic tank guns.  Considering the practical aspects such as gun weight, gun size, gun recoil, round weight, round length, armor penetration, HE performance, and barrel wear, each nation had a gun or two that was wonderful.

The Panther's KwK 42 75mm gun joins the ranks of weapons such as the Soviet 57mm gun, British 17pdr, and German 88mm KwK 43 that had truly fantastic penetrative performance for their caliber and allowed a tank to carry far more tank-killing rounds of ammunition in a smaller amount of space.  If your primary target is tanks (such as the 1967 or 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars), this is exactly what you want.  The downsides are a ridiculously poor HE, greater weapon weight and recoil than weapons of a similar caliber, and much greater barrel wear.  You just have to decide what you're wanting.

Cheers,

Logan

[Jacques Deguerre]

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

Thanks for this post, Logan! I wish there was more of this thinking out on the 'net as opposed to the endless and largely uniformed ranting of Panther and T34 "fanboys". While both tanks are certainly deserving of a degree of high regard, their alleged "unstoppable awesomeness" has been grossly exaggerated and really beaten to death. I can't help but think that a lot of this is ideologically motivated (and is echoed in modern armor debates) but that's just my opinion and probably outside the realm of this discussion.

[dy031101]

The Panther's KwK 42 75mm gun joins the ranks of weapons such as the Soviet 57mm gun, British 17pdr, and German 88mm KwK 43 that had truly fantastic penetrative performance for their caliber and allowed a tank to carry far more tank-killing rounds of ammunition in a smaller amount of space.  If your primary target is tanks (such as the 1967 or 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars), this is exactly what you want.  The downsides are a ridiculously poor HE, greater weapon weight and recoil than weapons of a similar caliber, and much greater barrel wear.

Wikipedia claimed a good HE shell for the 17 pounder was eventually developed by reducing the propellant charge and (consequently) shell wall thickness to make room in the warhead for more explosive.  Is it safe to assume that KwK-43 would have the potential to do the same?

[Logan Hartke]

Well, a lot of it is the pendulum nature of history.  Right after WWII, there tended to be the idea that everything the Allies did and used was perfect, or close to it.  You should read a British evaluation of the Panther at the end of the war.  They poo-pooed practically everything on the tank.  This at the same time that the most numerous British-built tanks in service were the anachronistic Churchill and much-maligned Cromwell.  Much the same was done by the US, who pointed to the Sherman as the tank that won the war in the West and basically pointed to it as the tank of the free world.  Fast forward to the 1960s.  Korea ends in stalemate.  The new Bundeswehr still needed a shot in the arm of military pride to take itself seriously as a professional fighting force.  Academics and the general public begin to question the authority and official histories that they've been read and heard for years.  A new generation that wasn't around for WWII starts to gain an interest in the subject and begins reexamining the conflict, stripped of wartime propaganda.  The Soviet Union is also showing itself to be a major threat and a big player on the world scene.  To rationalize the spending of massive sums in the name of defense, the military prowess of the USSR has to be maximized.

It starts to come out that the Sherman had some major flaws and that crews had a very rough go of it in WWII.  Sherman crews (American and Commonwealth) couldn't penetrate the Tiger or Panther frontally while the Germans had no such problem.  You start to hear about these German "heroes" of WWII like Wittmann, Carius, and Barkmann in their dashing Tigers and Panthers and there aren't the same men on the Allied side.  This previously hidden or overlooked aspect gets a lot more publicity.    Movies like "Battle of the Bulge" give the impression that Americans had thin-skinned, tiny tanks armed with peashooters trying to face ultra-modern German monsters.

versus

It also didn't help to tell the public at the time that it's quantity, not quality that wins tank battles when NATO was hedging its bets on the exact opposite to beat the Warsaw Pact.

Well, now that we've had another 30-40 years of hearing how awesome the T-34 and Panther were, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.  We're viewing tank performance in WWII without our Cold War glasses on.  The Soviet Union is gone, some excellent Soviet histories are coming out, restorers are bringing Panthers to running condition and examining them bolt by bolt.  Historians that grew up wondering how the US got it so wrong in WWII found out that the basic premise may not be correct as they tried to answer the "why" and "how" surrounding the question they were asking in the first place...and here we are!

Wikipedia claimed a good HE shell for the 17 pounder was eventually developed by reducing the propellant charge and (consequently) shell wall thickness to make room in the warhead for more explosive.  Is it safe to assume that KwK-43 would have the potential to do the same?

I can't see why not.  You're not going to have the same velocity or accuracy as an AP round, but you usually don't need it with HE rounds.  There's no such thing as a free lunch and everything is a trade-off.  In fact, I'd have to take a look at some of my books at home, but I think that was exactly what they did with the KwK 43's HE round.

Even so, HE is a matter of volume.  Something long and skinny will not have the same volume as something short and fat.  Ever order Chinese food?  Amazed at how much they can fit in there?  Compare that with how much you can fit into a beer bottle.  HE rounds are like that.  Compare the HE the 88mm KwK 43 could deliver to that of the 122mm A-19 sometime.  It's ridiculous.

Cheers,

Logan