SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

frinik · 03-25-11, 01:46 AM

I think the Panther was intended to eventually replace the Panzer IV.It never happened because they were never able to produce enough Panthers and as the war took a decidely negative course by mid 1943 they needed the Panzer IV reliable and available in large numbers as the workhorse of the Panzerwaffe.

The Tiger II was intended to repalce the Tiger I but with the improvements in design brought by the Panther, sloped armour and a more rounder design in the turret and shape of the tanks to make it more defective than the square shape of the Tiger I' s armour.Unfortunately they negated the advantages of a sloped armour by adding excessive layers of armour( perhaps partly to compensate for the lack of alloys in 1944 which led to a decrease in the quality(hardness) or German armour?) which made the Tiger II obese and overstressed both transmission and suspension.

The shape of tanks seem to be matched depending on the era when they were designed; the Panzer II, III and IV, for example, had a pretty similar angular shape which indeed the Tiger I reproduced on a larger scale.Then as the Germans adopted the sloping shape it was logical that the Panther and Tiger II would look similar.

The Soviets did the same with their low silhouette, rounded or octogonal turret and sloping front armour; look at the T34/76, T34/85, JS-1 and JS-2 and on to the JS-3, 7 ,10 and T54-55,T62, T72 etc you can clearly see the lineage that has evolved but remained very constant through the decades.

The Panther as said in another post was intended to be a medium tank and the Tiger II a heavy one.

It seems to me that the Panther II with the Schmallturm was intended to be armed with a high-velocity 105 mm gun rather than the KwK43 L71 of the Tiger II?

This begs the question; why didn't they upgun the Tiger II with a h-v 105 mm gun sooner than they were planning to do it - spring to summer 1945 when it was way too late - in early or mid 1944?The moment the JS-2 1944 model appeared in early 1944 and later the SU-100 it was clear that it the Germans wanted to keep the only adavntage they had over Soviet armour; the capacity to engage in long range advantage fighting through to their superior optics and high velocity guns they needed more powerful guns as the JS-2 and SU-100 with their thick armour and dangerous guns could not be defeated over 1200 metres by the Tiger II( which meant that it was vulnerable to the 100 and 122 mm guns to either at such distances) and over 700 metres by the Panther. I think rather than up-armour the Panther or Tiger II or even the Panzer IV they should have gone for the up-gunning solution. Of course that would imply redesigning the turrets but for example a less armoured , slightly smaller version of the Tiger II turret fitted with the KwK43 L71 could have possibly been fitted io the chassis of the Panther ausf. G with minimal modifications?

03-25-11, 01:46 AM	#8
frinik Grey Wolf Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 897 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Tiger II like Panther? I think the Panther was intended to eventually replace the Panzer IV.It never happened because they were never able to produce enough Panthers and as the war took a decidely negative course by mid 1943 they needed the Panzer IV reliable and available in large numbers as the workhorse of the Panzerwaffe. The Tiger II was intended to repalce the Tiger I but with the improvements in design brought by the Panther, sloped armour and a more rounder design in the turret and shape of the tanks to make it more defective than the square shape of the Tiger I' s armour.Unfortunately they negated the advantages of a sloped armour by adding excessive layers of armour( perhaps partly to compensate for the lack of alloys in 1944 which led to a decrease in the quality(hardness) or German armour?) which made the Tiger II obese and overstressed both transmission and suspension. The shape of tanks seem to be matched depending on the era when they were designed; the Panzer II, III and IV, for example, had a pretty similar angular shape which indeed the Tiger I reproduced on a larger scale.Then as the Germans adopted the sloping shape it was logical that the Panther and Tiger II would look similar. The Soviets did the same with their low silhouette, rounded or octogonal turret and sloping front armour; look at the T34/76, T34/85, JS-1 and JS-2 and on to the JS-3, 7 ,10 and T54-55,T62, T72 etc you can clearly see the lineage that has evolved but remained very constant through the decades. The Panther as said in another post was intended to be a medium tank and the Tiger II a heavy one. It seems to me that the Panther II with the Schmallturm was intended to be armed with a high-velocity 105 mm gun rather than the KwK43 L71 of the Tiger II? This begs the question; why didn't they upgun the Tiger II with a h-v 105 mm gun sooner than they were planning to do it - spring to summer 1945 when it was way too late - in early or mid 1944?The moment the JS-2 1944 model appeared in early 1944 and later the SU-100 it was clear that it the Germans wanted to keep the only adavntage they had over Soviet armour; the capacity to engage in long range advantage fighting through to their superior optics and high velocity guns they needed more powerful guns as the JS-2 and SU-100 with their thick armour and dangerous guns could not be defeated over 1200 metres by the Tiger II( which meant that it was vulnerable to the 100 and 122 mm guns to either at such distances) and over 700 metres by the Panther. I think rather than up-armour the Panther or Tiger II or even the Panzer IV they should have gone for the up-gunning solution. Of course that would imply redesigning the turrets but for example a less armoured , slightly smaller version of the Tiger II turret fitted with the KwK43 L71 could have possibly been fitted io the chassis of the Panther ausf. G with minimal modifications?