Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 8:35:43 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I�m reading a book about Normandie written by two famous swedish writers called Zetterling and Tamelander. They have written alot of books about WW2 and I have read most of them. However they wrote something I found odd in this perticular book.

They were comparing the Tiger I and the Panther and I didn�t find anything odd until they wrote the following (translated by me from swedish!) "It was equipped with a 8,8 cm gun wich was adequate(!) against allied tanks although its perfomance wasn�t as good as the gun on the Panther".

I found this a bit odd since to my (limited) knowledge the 8,8cm gun is considered one of the finest antitank guns of the war?

Post #: 1

RE: Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 9:33:21 AM

cpt flam

Posts: 2352
Joined: 1/16/2011
From: caen - France
Status: offline

this can (possibly) be due to having less shells
length/caliber being a bit less & accuracy falling a little
rotating of the turret being slower I think

_____________________________

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2

RE: Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 9:43:29 AM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

The 88mm shell would do more damage, but the 75mm L/70's quite a bit more accurate and was easier to reload (lighter, smaller shell) and as such had a somewhat higher rate of fire.

The Tiger's turret rotation speed, or turn radius in general, was also slow as cpt flam noted.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to cpt flam)

Post #: 3

RE: Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 10:15:26 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The 88mm shell would do more damage, but the 75mm L/70's quite a bit more accurate and was easier to reload (lighter, smaller shell) and as such had a somewhat higher rate of fire.

The Tiger's turret rotation speed, or turn radius in general, was also slow as cpt flam noted.

Also, IIRC, the 75mm Panther shell was higher velocity than 88mm Tiger I shell...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 4

RE: Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 11:54:15 AM

color

Posts: 324
Joined: 7/24/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

Adding something not mentioned:

The longer barrel of the Panther gun meant the shell reached higher muzzle velocity and obtained higher accuracy. This translates to more penetrating power even though the Panthers gun is of a smaller calibre.

Combine higher penetrating power, faster reload time/rate of fire and better accuracy and you would have a base for argumenting it's a more effective gun.

I would also have reacted to the usage of the word "adequate" for the tiger gun. Kind of an understatement.
Even though the Tigers gun were one of the finest tank guns of WW II, so was also the Panthers, so it would be a close race I suppose.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 5

RE: Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 2:23:48 PM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

Remember that the Tiger I had a gun that was 56 calibers in length. It was shorter than the famous 88 of the AA and AT units (and Tiger II), which was 71 calibers in length.

While still a fearsome weapon (Wittmans Normandy fighting shows this), it was still less accurate and had less penetration than the 75 of panther (long caliber, lots of propellant, very high muzzle velocity).

I know, I know, I am repeating what others have said. I was just remembering the 75LL of Cross of Iron.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to color)

Post #: 6

RE: Slightly OT: Tiger vs Panther - 4/16/2011 6:21:20 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Thank you all for your answers! :)

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 7