How about that Ferdinand huh? No foreward mg, poor vision (several blind spots)
no turret, SOunds like we have a winner![:D][:P]
I’m sorry, I would have no Idea, but by the sound of it I think Panther is Winning.
Well from what I have reid the Tiger was the best of them all.Not only was it a good hunting tank but also a field artiliry peice as well.The Panther was good at hunting but could not be used as a field peice.The Sherman was design for both but it had an anadiqute gun for hunting.The Panzer IV incorperated both but had like the Sherman inadiqute armor.That is fron what I have reid.Digger
remember that when tiger first came on the seen the german high comand ask hitler to not deploy them till they had sufficent numbers. in any case. if he would have listend to them i feal that russia would have fallen. but thats only my opinion. in saying that panther! [8]
Panther hands down with its blend of mobility,speed and firepower and the panzer iv wasn’t bad either[2c]
It’s kind of a sticky-wicket.Do you rank them on design,true utility or function?The Panther had it all but it also had perfomance problems like the Tiger.I’ve got to go with the Pz.IV just for the overall usefullness.Besides, once the Thunderbolts showed up they were all scrap-metal.[2c]
Well, I’m gonna be different! [:D]
I’ll go with the Pz38… Without it, I doubt the German would have had enough punch during the Blitzkrieg. And the chassis was so good that variants such as the Hetzer were still in service in May 45…
There may never have been Tigers and Pantheres had the Blitzkrieg failed…
But of course, the Pz38 was not really German…
I agree with Panther. The King Tiger was even built on what looks to me to be a Panther chasis.
The E-100 ony existed as a partly completed hull, but it probably would have been tactically useless had it been completed and fielded. I still love the ol’ E, though!
“Best” German tank: Panther G.
It was the “total package.” It had mobility, protection, and punch, and could have been produced in great numbers (but wasn’t, due to the fascination with Tigers and other “super weapons.”)
Thanks guys, looks like it’s going to be between the King Tiger and Panther.
overall i think the panther was best but i favor the tiger1 it had a leathal 88mm cannon
i would go with guderian’s foot powered panzers, made out of wood and paper used before they had cars in the armored services…
Beav is right! Without those, there would not even been German Pz 38(t)s… LOL
I’d vote for the later Marks of the Panther but I would also say the Panzer IV. If you look at the numbers produced as well as the numerous “offsprings” it was an excellent design.
IMHO I believe it was a chronic lack of fuel that proved the Germans undoing both on the ground and more importantly in the air.
Jeff
I disagree with the Panzer IV. It was lighter than the Sherman! One of the only things it had going for it I think was its long 75mm. That may sound stupid to some, but consider how well the Shermans functioned with the abscence of heavy tanks. I think the PanzerIV was essentially the German Sherman or Firefly.
You could argue all day about different aspects of the various German tanks, but when the dust settles and all of the bugs are addressed and ironed out, there is no question in my mind: Panther.
Now if only someone at Tamiya would wise up and offer a 1/16 scale FullOption Panther, my collection would be complete!!! Word is that Bronco will be offering the Panther in an Early, Mid and a Late sometime in 2005, but that will still just be a static kit.
Okieboy
I like the panther G myself…so good that the French and I belive Hungary used a few after the war. Also think what if the germans had gotten the Panther II in production with the 88 and narrow turret. And as a bit of useless info the Syrians had some pzkfw IV dug in on the Golan Hights till the 60’s…when they became some nice targets for Israely centurians and ishermans.
I have to agree, I’ve often thought of the Pz IV as the German Sherman. The difference being they could knock out Allied tanks better with its 75 mm KwK L/48, then the Sherman could knock out the German cats. They produced more of them than any other German tank, and they soldiered on late in the war though they were becoming somewhat obsolecent, especially on the Eastern Front. Still they were realiable, and were very versatile in all the different varations configured. The German Army would have been less effective without their field workhorse. One might call it their “most important” tank built.
Have you noticed that many of the “panzer Aces” that survived were in Tigers? As a retired tanker I can tell you from a tactical and phsylogical point of view, crew survivability is a huge factor. I think the tiger 1 was a tougher tank. The panthers 75 was good at anti tank work but the tigers 88 had better explosive power thus did a better job on infantry, antitank guns and bunkers. From all that I have read the king tiger was not thought as a better tank than the tiger 1, just bigger. You could argue that two panthers could be produced to one tiger. I agree but two vipers are cheaper to produce than a porsche 917, but the 917 is by far faster.
If you study the historical information, as I have, it dumbfounds me that many have the perception that the Tiger 1 was an “unreliable” tank. I encourage the group to pick up a copy of “Panzer Aces” in soft cover. The Tigers on the Eastern front were in combat constantly, making emergency movements through hails of artillery, rocket, anti -tank and direct fire, virtually outnumbered in every engagement. The manueverability of such a heavy tank (when put into perspective)saved the crews from destruction countless times. Mechanically, there were (of course) breakdowns, but for the most part, these vehicles were operating in combat 24 hrs. a day, taking multiple hits from enemy weapons, road marching and operating in the harshest climatic conditions, and managed to acheive a 10 to 1 kill ratio over thier adversaries. A few Tigers on the battlefield saved the day countless times and turned the tide of battle. I’m sure the historians for the British 7th Armored could confirm this fact.
When the above factors are taken into account, the reliability of the Tiger, a cutting edge design for it’s day, stands up well against comparitable tanks.
Michael Wittman, Hans Bolter, Jochen Peiper, Otto Carius (all Tiger commanders with Knights Crosses) somehow managed pretty well with such an "unreliable " machine.
My vote - Tiger 1 -
Ahh yes but two Vipers are worth more than a 917! (this is a lame joke, not trying to say anything about the Panthers vs Tigers)
The Tiger was indeed a better armored tank, but weight is a big factor in cross country travel and even on dirt roads. The Tigers could get stuck in the mud or break bridges (in a book I read about the Bulge, it shows a stug in the water after it broke a bridge-if a stug can do it a Tiger can definately do it)
And also if a squad of infantry gets hit by 5 75s or 5 88s, theyre not going to really know the difference because both times theyll be dead.
And the Germans were in a defensive role in the last two years of the war, more of hide and fire then run away than actually open battle, so the faster Panther more suited their situation I think